# London Student protests - Wed 8th Dec+ Thurs 9th



## editor (Dec 7, 2010)

*Wednesday:*  NUS’s national day of action with protests, rallies and teach-ins at university and college campuses across the city; in particular, campuses where student occupations continue. 

Ongoing occupations in London include UCL, KCL, UEL, SOAS, LSE, Goldsmiths, Camberwell College of Arts and London Met Uni. Organisers also hope for protests at FE and sixth-form colleges and schools.

*Thursday:* national protest organised by ULU, the Education Activist Network and the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts will march at midday from ULU, Malet St to Parliament.

From 1pm an NUS-organised lobby of MPs at Parliament is due to go on until 3pm when an NUS candle-lit vigil will take place at Victoria Embankment.

http://londonist.com/2010/12/student-protests-the-days-ahead.php


----------



## sim667 (Dec 7, 2010)

editor said:


> Organisers also hope for protests at FE and sixth-form colleges and schools.


 
I work at 2 FE and sixth form colleges, students dont know this is going on, staff would like to make students aware of the demos, but are cautious of doing so due to how management would react.

Most 6th formers seem to be accepting that either they'll have massive debt, or they wont go to uni, the level of awareness in FE and 6th form needs to be addressed.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 7, 2010)

sim667 said:


> I work at 2 FE and sixth form colleges, students dont know this is going on, staff would like to make students aware of the demos, but are cautious of doing so due to how management would react.


 
Yeah, after a chat with the NUT rep (who is also SWP) at my school, I was advised that it would have to come from the students themselves, but we have a very conservative (with a small c) senior management team at my school.  He did speak to some of the 6th formers he knew who are involved in UAF stuff though, and there has been some posters for wed/thurs up at our school.  Hopefully there will be a decent turnout in birmingham on thursday from schools/FE, and some HE, though alot of HE students are heading to london.
No workers are likely to pull sickies though, I'm sure the thought hasn't even crossed their minds.  RMT has called for it's members to support the students which is good, so hopefully off-duty RMT members will head to the demo.. students supported their pickets last week, great to see solidarity between the students and the unions.


----------



## sim667 (Dec 7, 2010)

BigTom said:


> Yeah, after a chat with the NUT rep (who is also SWP) at my school, I was advised that it would have to come from the students themselves, but we have a very conservative (with a small c) senior management team at my school.  He did speak to some of the 6th formers he knew who are involved in UAF stuff though, and there has been some posters for wed/thurs up at our school.  Hopefully there will be a decent turnout in birmingham on thursday from schools/FE, and some HE, though alot of HE students are heading to london.
> No workers are likely to pull sickies though, I'm sure the thought hasn't even crossed their minds.  RMT has called for it's members to support the students which is good, so hopefully off-duty RMT members will head to the demo.. students supported their pickets last week, great to see solidarity between the students and the unions.


 
I think we'd be deep in the shit if we told our students about it....... I wont be able to go, im teaching and got an observation


----------



## BigTom (Dec 7, 2010)

no chance for a sickie then.  I have far too much of a sense of responsibility to pull a sickie obviously (plus still on a temporary contract, I don't want to get sacked in my probation period).


----------



## Riklet (Dec 7, 2010)

I'll be going on a coach from uni, £8 return which aint bad.  Hope we really do manage to shut down central London haha, needs more than just students there though..

Might make a "Cameron is a Jeremy Hunt" sign...


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Dec 7, 2010)

Riklet said:


> Might make a "Cameron is a Jeremy Hunt" sign...


 
Might have to steal that. 

I'm hoping the turnout is good, we're struggling in Manchester as the SU can't subsidise the tickets this time round, so many are faced with paying £24 for the coach, which is steep for this time of year.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 8, 2010)

Every bit if social media your are on, get these protests out. Me,  I have a great job and career because of a mid life tertiary education provided by the state I wont other to have this opertunity with so much passion. Get the message out, tell people the value of having a tertiatry educaiton that does not become a millstone round you neck and convince people after work to get down and show support for the next generation.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 8, 2010)

It's police vans algore in Whitehall/T Square.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 8, 2010)

lopsidedbunny said:


> It's police vans algore in Whitehall/T Square.


 
y'all know it's going to kick perhaps today but certainly tomorrow.


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 8, 2010)

editor said:


> From 1pm an NUS-organised lobby of MPs at Parliament is due to go on until 3pm when an NUS candle-lit vigil will take place at Victoria Embankment.
> 
> http://londonist.com/2010/12/student-protests-the-days-ahead.php


 
A 2 hour vigil, with candles, in daylight?

I hope somebody gives Porter a slap tomorrow.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 8, 2010)

Meanwhile the NUS 'official' candlelit vigil goes from bad to worse.  Now replaced by a glowstick vigil cos of health and safety rules.


----------



## killer b (Dec 8, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> I hope somebody gives Porter a slap tomorrow.


 
today too. and friday. and over the weekend, and every day for the rest of his life.


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 8, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Meanwhile the NUS 'official' candlelit vigil goes from bad to worse.  Now replaced by a glowstick vigil cos of health and safety rules.


 
I wish this to be true.


----------



## TitanSound (Dec 8, 2010)

No idea why, but there are about 15 police bikes parked together along Upper Street, Islington. Must be something going on round here.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2010)

Anyone out today - please please resist the urge to resort to non-violence.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 8, 2010)

TitanSound said:


> No idea why, but there are about 15 police bikes parked together along Upper Street, Islington. Must be something going on round here.


 
push one over and watch the cop dominos


----------



## TopCat (Dec 8, 2010)




----------



## teuchter (Dec 8, 2010)

I took a walk down to Westminster at lunchtime; quite a few police being bussed in although no sign of any protesters.

Looks like the protest has been infiltrated by a loon though -


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 8, 2010)

i'm beginning to wish I was able to get tomorrow off work (typuically the only day of teh week I can't!)


----------



## moon23 (Dec 8, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone out today - please please resist the urge to resort to non-violence.


 
Says the Keyboard warrior sat drinking tea


----------



## where to (Dec 8, 2010)

a school in Camden has been occupied, and another that was going to be shut early as a preventive measure.


----------



## eoin_k (Dec 8, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Says the Keyboard warrior sat drinking tea


 
I don't know Butchersapron personally, but a mutual aquaintance has said good things about him.  The said aquaintance works his proverbials off, organising community events, campaigning against the cuts, organising with the rank and file of a public service union, and publishing a community newsletter.  If he has time for him, chances are Butchers has done his bit in the real world over the years.

On the other hand all you seem to do is make appologies for the government and boast about how radical you were as a student.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 8, 2010)

where to said:


> a school in Camden has been occupied, and another that was going to be shut early as a preventive measure.


 
Copied:
Urgent, need everyone esp NUT down to camden school for girls at 1 today. They've occupied! Report from inside: Yes we have a blog https://camdenschoolsitin.wordpress.com/ we are in occupation about a 100. the school has barricaded the doors and only allowing people in if they can prove we are student. The heating is also getting turned off this evening, teachers are saying that they are unable to support!


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 8, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Says the Keyboard warrior sat drinking tea


There really are no depths to which you will not stoop, are there? You're also 100% wrong


----------



## TopCat (Dec 8, 2010)

dennisr said:


> Copied:
> Urgent, need everyone esp NUT down to camden school for girls at 1 today. They've occupied! Report from inside: Yes we have a blog https://camdenschoolsitin.wordpress.com/ we are in occupation about a 100. the school has barricaded the doors and only allowing people in if they can prove we are student. The heating is also getting turned off this evening, teachers are saying that they are unable to support!


 Go Kids!


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 8, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Meanwhile the NUS 'official' candlelit vigil goes from bad to worse.  Now replaced by a glowstick vigil cos of health and safety rules.


oh gawd someone bloody SHOOT aaron porter!


----------



## dennisr (Dec 8, 2010)

"glowstick vigil"

arf arf


----------



## wtfftw (Dec 8, 2010)

Just heard that both Stoke Newington School and acland burghley school are both in occupation  #demo2010  #solidarity

Off @camdensitin


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 8, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> oh gawd someone bloody SHOOT aaron porter!


 
Don't you think throwing him into a pit of tigers would be more fun?


----------



## Onket (Dec 8, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> There really are no depths to which you will not stoop, are there? You're also 100% wrong


 
Incredible isn't it. Everyone knows it's whiskey.

I'm hoping to be at the demo later tomorrow.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2010)

Key thing for occupations as we've found for student stuff is getting the security/ cleaners on side...they'll bring in what's needed (check out what agency they're employed by as well). Schools kids stuff, fantastic - much more chance of getting stuff in directly.


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 8, 2010)

Good for them. Flimsier will be proud.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 8, 2010)

Bakunin said:


> Don't you think throwing him into a pit of tigers would be more fun?


oh, definitely!


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 8, 2010)

Just heard news that Birkbeck now has an occupation running. It's been difficult to do because all undergrads there are part time and usually work as well. But the phd students have stepped up to fill the gap


----------



## love detective (Dec 8, 2010)

dennisr said:


> Copied:
> Urgent, need everyone esp NUT down to camden school for girls at 1 today. They've occupied! Report from inside: Yes we have a blog https://camdenschoolsitin.wordpress.com/ we are in occupation about a 100. the school has barricaded the doors and only allowing people in if they can prove we are student. The heating is also getting turned off this evening, teachers are saying that they are unable to support!



should warn them to expect a flood of Daily Telegraph photographers & journalists looking for another angle on the A level money shots


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 8, 2010)

Just got the Evening Standard and it's map shows a "feeder march" coming in from the south from London South Bank University, Just a word of warning it's likely if it get a bit heated, the bridge will be blocked by the Police at some stage you best bet if you joining in the protest is to be on the north side of the thames before the march/protest starts. So if you ever wonder why anti-war demo get diverted across the London bridges now you know. To block you lot off. See you lot tomrrow good to see what's happening in Euston too. Can someone tweet this info to the people down south?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 8, 2010)

Good luck tomorra, & have a smashing time!


----------



## belboid (Dec 8, 2010)

Bakunin said:


> Don't you think throwing him into a pit of tigers would be more fun?


 
most appropriate for a paper tiger like him


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 9, 2010)

I wish the media would stop talking about the protests as though they were _all_ about tuition fees. The protests are about the cuts and the abolition of the EMA. Dishonest fucks.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Dec 9, 2010)

Didn't gear much about yesterday's protest. Much happen?


----------



## creak (Dec 9, 2010)

Guardian Live Blog

Just look at his face. I almost felt sorry for him when I clicked the link and saw this flash up.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Dec 9, 2010)

nino_savatte said:


> I wish the media would stop talking about the protests as though they were _all_ about tuition fees. The protests are about the cuts and the abolition of the EMA. Dishonest fucks.


 
This ^^^


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 9, 2010)

Prince Rhyus said:


> Didn't gear much about yesterday's protest. Much happen?



I think reports were confined to local news bulletins. I was on a demo at UEL yesterday. We tried to get in to see the Vice Chancellor to get him to explain why he spent £5,000 on a new desk. Security blocked our way but some of us managed to find another way in. The security guards called the cops and the TSG showed up...then went away. When I left the corridor leading to his office was still being occupied.


----------



## past caring (Dec 9, 2010)

I will be going up this afternoon - who else for the meet? Top Cat? love-detective? Anyone else?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

Sorry but due to a looming tender deadline I won't be there today. All power to the lot of you.


----------



## Sean (Dec 9, 2010)

May well be, PC. PM us if you're meeting up somewhere.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 9, 2010)

Wish I could be there.  Good luck to those that are.


----------



## past caring (Dec 9, 2010)

Sean said:


> May well be, PC. PM us if you're meeting up somewhere.



Sean - check your box.


----------



## Sean (Dec 9, 2010)

Nothing there, PC. Can you try again?


----------



## past caring (Dec 9, 2010)

Done


----------



## Santino (Dec 9, 2010)

Listening to the speeches outside my office window.


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2010)

On my way!


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 9, 2010)

They're taking lessons from the greeks http://twitpic.com/3ebce1


----------



## ddraig (Dec 9, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> They're taking lessons from the greeks http://twitpic.com/3ebce1


 can you pls pls post it? can't access that stuff ere 
ta v much


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

one of those placards mentions the dialectic!  they must be from here...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

(totally wrong books btw grrr)


----------



## ddraig (Dec 9, 2010)

cheers!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

belboid said:


> one of those placards mentions the dialectic!  they must be from here...


 
Adorno - Negative dialectics. He'd hate this shit.


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> They're taking lessons from the greeks http://twitpic.com/3ebce1


 
Wasn't it the Italian students?


----------



## past caring (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Adorno - Negative dialectics. He'd hate this shit.



I may have a little less leisurely Benjamin turn-out this pm.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

You planning on doing a topcat styler fund-raiser?


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2010)

why bother saying 'f**k fees' on your placard?

oh, and http://www.google.com/hostednews/uk...X5vD7EM94x4FBA_Rg?docId=N0035811291819368036A


----------



## Sweet FA (Dec 9, 2010)

Busy bizzies


----------



## past caring (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You planning on doing a topcat styler fund-raiser?



I am planning on not getting caught, mate.....

As it goes, my phone has barred U75 and the net is shit on it generally, so I could do with someone to text me vital updates from here. I will try a bit of roving reporting myself......

Have you still got that same mob you were using at the bookfair?


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 9, 2010)

Placard: "Why did Clegg cross the road? Coz he promised he wouldn't."


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

past caring said:


> I am planning on not getting caught, mate.....
> 
> As it goes, my phone has barred U75 and the net is shit on it generally, so I could do with someone to text me vital updates from here. I will try a bit of roving reporting myself......
> 
> Have you still got that same mob you were using at the bookfair?



I have, but i'm out the door this afternoon for our thing...


----------



## past caring (Dec 9, 2010)

killer b said:


> oh, and http://www.google.com/hostednews/uk...X5vD7EM94x4FBA_Rg?docId=N0035811291819368036A



I ended up being "friends" with that silly fucker on facebook when I said "yes" to everyone like a silly new cunt. He is a friend of a friend and your typical beardie trot lecturer. Like a fucking fat ZZ top, the cunt.


----------



## where to (Dec 9, 2010)

gawkrodger said:


> Wasn't it the Italian students?


 
yes.


----------



## past caring (Dec 9, 2010)

I fucking aimed him off after a couple of months even though I barely go on there - was doing my head in, the cunt.


----------



## past caring (Dec 9, 2010)

Anyone else for text updates, then?


----------



## where to (Dec 9, 2010)

Guardian saying vote will take place at 5.25pm

These protests will run late into the evening.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 9, 2010)

where to said:


> yes.


 
oops


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

past caring said:


> Anyone else for text updates, then?


 
sentr pm


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2010)

past caring said:


> I ended up being "friends" with that silly fucker on facebook when I said "yes" to everyone like a silly new cunt. He is a friend of a friend and your typical beardie trot lecturer. Like a fucking fat ZZ top, the cunt.


 
ah, fair enough. i didn't expect it to actually result in owt, but anything that adds to the clegg headache gets a thumbs up...


----------



## where to (Dec 9, 2010)




----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

Last Hours twitter feed seems pretty good

http://twitter.com/lasthours


----------



## Sweet FA (Dec 9, 2010)




----------



## love detective (Dec 9, 2010)

past caring said:


> Anyone else for text updates, then?


 
if i can't get away i will - if i do get away will probably meet you anyway


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

according to twitter feeds people are breaking through police cordons and there's a splinter going down drury lane. some scuffles


----------



## Sgt Howie (Dec 9, 2010)

Heading down once I've finished my brew.


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

gawkrodger said:


> according to twitter feeds people are breaking through police cordons and there's a splinter going down drury lane. some scuffles


 
running rings round them, literally. just going up n down the side streets to bypass the lines


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

twiiter feeds saying waterloo bridge has been shut and the rozzers are currently focusing on kettling the main body of the march from ULU


----------



## magneze (Dec 9, 2010)

Sweet FA said:


> Busy bizzies


LOL, I've just been down there and have very similar pics. Never seen so many police.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 9, 2010)

Sweet FA said:


>


 
You on the demo then? Give 'em hell. And don't get arrested.


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

so a whole load of people have broken the containment attempts. Good. What are they doing now? Marching into Traf Sq


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

Give 'em hell people.


----------



## where to (Dec 9, 2010)

large numbers now reaching trafalgar square.  sky guy said earlier numbers may become higher than the 10th of november (millbank 50k day)


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

claims on twitter that coaches with students coming in to london are being stopped and blocked by the old bill

apparently a breakaway from traf sq towars Buckingham Palace!


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

gawkrodger said:


> claims on twitter that coaches with students coming in to london are being stopped and blocked by the old bill


Fairford tactics? If true, that should provide a nice contribution to campaign funds.


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

my immediate thought as well! ha

Sky news website has just crashed


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 9, 2010)

Whitechapel Anarchist's just mentioned on the BBC.


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

gawkrodger said:


> Sky news website has just crashed


 
only the front page i think, i'm watching it live at http://news.sky.com/skynews/LivePlus


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2010)

I'm at the end of birdcage walk and there are a *lot* of people converging on parliament square now. making quite a bit of noise too. 

a bunch broke through the cordon into st james park but then they joined back into the march.


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

yeh seems tobe working again now. can't watch their live video on work computers


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 9, 2010)

gawkrodger said:


> claims on twitter that coaches with students coming in to london are being stopped and blocked by the old bill



This is going to cost the filth dear.

Ho ho ho.

Stopping a couple of hundred students on a bus is not going to stop this.


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

"Got thrown on the floor by a cop who then demanded my details because he'd used force on me!"

astounding chutzpah


'Official' NUS lot going in to lobby now


----------



## Sweet FA (Dec 9, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> You on the demo then? Give 'em hell. And don't get arrested.


Erm no. I'm off sick


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

Section 60 in place, Police getting batons and gas out on protestors in parl sq after small group tried to push them back


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

s60 enacted


----------



## where to (Dec 9, 2010)

fences breached, hundreds streaming into parliament square gardens.

can't help but wonder thats a 7th samurai style planned weak point in the defences there.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

where to said:


> fences breached, hundreds streaming into parliament square gardens.
> 
> can't help but wonder thats a 7th samurai style planned weak point in the defences there.


 He's good this one, he does helpful stuff and film commentary at the same time


----------



## Flanflinger (Dec 9, 2010)

where to said:


> fences breached, hundreds streaming into parliament square gardens.
> 
> can't help but wonder thats a 7th samurai style planned weak point in the defences there.



A recipe for many students getting injured.

We can hope.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 9, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> A recipe for many students getting injured.
> 
> We can hope.


 
Do fuck off.


----------



## creak (Dec 9, 2010)

And die.


----------



## chilango (Dec 9, 2010)

Is this







Learnt from this?


----------



## Flanflinger (Dec 9, 2010)

stephj said:


> Do fuck off.



I'm watching the live pictures now and it's obvious many are looking for trouble.

You reap what you sow.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Dec 9, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> I'm watching the live pictures now and it's obvious many are looking for trouble.
> 
> You reap what you sow.


 
How is it obvious?  Have they got little signs on saying "troublemaker" or something!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

chilango said:


> Is this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 NO


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> I'm watching the live pictures now and it's obvious many are looking for trouble.
> 
> You reap what you sow.


 
Quite right.  How Clegg thought he could get away with it is astounding.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 9, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> You reap what you sow.


 
Then a slow death drowning in your own hate filled misery surely awaits


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 9, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> I'm watching the live pictures now and *it's obvious many are looking for trouble*.
> 
> You reap what you sow.


 
You wouldn't do such a thing of course; even if it's only a bit of e-argy bargy.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Flanflinger (Dec 9, 2010)

QueenOfGoths said:


> How is it obvious?


 
Are you watching. Barriers are being thrown.

The fuckers will not win any sympathy from Joe Public.


----------



## chilango (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> NO



"No" in what way?


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Are you watching. Barriers are being thrown.
> 
> The fuckers will not win any sympathy from Joe Public.


 

they did last time


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Are you watching. Barriers are being thrown.
> 
> The fuckers will not win any sympathy from Joe Public.


 
Already have.

Not sure they need PR tips from someone universally loathed.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

chilango said:


> "No" in what way?


 
Sorry, meant yes as in quite clearly and obviously


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Dec 9, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Are you watching. Barriers are being thrown.
> 
> The fuckers will not win any sympathy from Joe Public.


 
Really? I think they will, well, I think they already have.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 9, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Are you watching. Barriers are being thrown.
> 
> The fuckers will not win any sympathy from Joe Public.


 

Looks like they're trying to build a bridge to me. Not sure I'd want to be first across, but you've got to admire them.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

bit of argy bargy at the front. Nowt huge and not tactically the best


----------



## chilango (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Sorry, meant yes as in quite clearly and obviously



Ahhh. Ok.

Wondered whether it was a comment on aesthetic similarity not being matched in tactical militancy...


----------



## chilango (Dec 9, 2010)

Any live coverage of this for tose of us outside the UK? Sky's is UK only, the BBC seem to be focussing on inside the house.


----------



## plurker (Dec 9, 2010)

chilango said:


> Any live coverage of this for tose of us outside the UK? Sky's is UK only, the BBC seem to be focussing on inside the house.


 
bbc here:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10318089

have 2 cams, one focussing on HoC, other on Pal Sq...


----------



## chilango (Dec 9, 2010)

UK only...

I can watch the bloody commons but not the protests.

They're gonna have to storm the bugger for me to get to watch!


----------



## Dan U (Dec 9, 2010)

The Wombles appearing according to BBC News???!!!

are they still going even.

this is the first one i am stuck in the office and not working at home with Sky/BBC news on.

might head down after my 5pm meeting if it isn't all kettled off by then


----------



## plurker (Dec 9, 2010)

chilango said:


> UK only...


 
ah, okay, sorry.  (Being in UK myself I couldn't check  )


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 9, 2010)

chilango said:


> UK only...
> 
> I can watch the bloody commons but not the protests.
> 
> They're gonna have to storm the bugger for me to get to watch!



check your PM's


----------



## Dan U (Dec 9, 2010)

i can see BBC online in my office, they don't seem to have as good a riotcopter as Sky.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

Brendan Barber doing a fine job talking to the BBC.


----------



## chilango (Dec 9, 2010)

Got  (brief) Sky coverage. Now watching BBC...(ta sunnyside)

Holy crap that's a beautiful sight. Parliament beseiged...


----------



## rekil (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Adorno - Negative dialectics. He'd hate this shit.


 
How so Mr B?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

He attacked the studes didn't he? Or was that Marcuse? I may begetting my central european elitists mixed up.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 9, 2010)

I was there a few seconds ago P Square filled up and loads of Students trying to get in and walking around outside. There were at least three different marches taking place including one from south london. As usual police cock it up and don't leave enough room for protestors so as a result the protestors push thier way through and break the cage in P Square. The olice are now resorting to police horses to fill the gaps as police are blocking every route thinkable into Whitehall and P square. Off to watch it on T.V.


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> He attacked the studes didn't he? Or was that Marcuse? I may begetting my central european elitists mixed up.


 
he didnt like it when they occupied his offices.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> He attacked the studes didn't he? Or was that Marcuse? I may begetting my central european elitists mixed up.


 
was Adorno, the cunt.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 9, 2010)

Oh yeah there's loads of Police horses! No charges yet.


----------



## Dan U (Dec 9, 2010)

from sky news text feed


----------



## rekil (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> He attacked the studes didn't he? Or was that Marcuse? I may begetting my central european elitists mixed up.


  

I thought you were castigating the students for using shields, ("this shit"). Weird choice of book titles in fairness.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

Movement. that's good. Bottles starting to go.


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

the books are now at the forefront


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2010)

.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 9, 2010)

copper down just seen on news24


----------



## past caring (Dec 9, 2010)

I am off now - wondering if there's any chance me getting anywhere near. Keep the texts coming please - bus or tube, I don't know....?


----------



## revol68 (Dec 9, 2010)

some drip just mentioned some candle lit vigil for the time of the vote, what sort of scum come up with a candle lit vigil as a protest tactic.


----------



## Dan U (Dec 9, 2010)

revol68 said:


> some drip just mentioned some candle lit vigil for the time of the vote, what sort of scum come up with a candle lit vigil as a protest tactic.


 
the NUS ffs.

useless


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

Yeah. That's the NUS protest. They refused to back the NCAFC protest down in Parliament Square. They'll have about three people attending. No big deal - they won't draw away anyone who would otherwise have tried to do something more meaningful.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 9, 2010)




----------



## where to (Dec 9, 2010)

Past caring, got this off twitter if you're heading down:

Cops allwing ppl in 1s & 2s leave kettle on NEside (Gt George St)/Up Whitehall to TrafSq

According to SKY cops asking people to head back down to victoria embankment as way the agreed route apparently


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

Next hour decides how/where this going.


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2010)

The police lost it for a bit, but there's a-kettling coming up.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

Barriers ramped things up IMO.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

Arf, reporter on Sky news just called them 'insurgents' by mistake.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2010)

^


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Next hour decides how/where this going.


 
this


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

The protestors haven't got those books together in a decent line, getting pwned by the police


----------



## revol68 (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The protestors haven't got those books together in a decent line, getting pwned by the police


 
cheer leading your guard dogs now scumfuck?


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

and there off, must admit this is better than watching a sports match


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

Straight fucking through!

Line #1


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

revol68 said:


> cheer leading your guard dogs now scumfuck?


 
Of course, this is how I view it, The Praetorian guard are protecting the Lib Dem high command, from the student rif raff


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

where are they through? Hopefully not abingdon street, what of use is down there?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

Craply thrown flare


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

OB maneuvering - why?


----------



## rekil (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> OB maneuvering - why?


 
To let the horses line up.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 9, 2010)

Hats off to Pip Pip in that bit of BBC footage


----------



## rekil (Dec 9, 2010)

Horseys don't like the flares much.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

Two lib-dems resigned.

Can anyone who knows this area say what's going on - with street names, need to keep people updated.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

"Concern is they may have petrol bombs thrown at them"


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

police now 'fear' being petrol bombed according to sky


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Two lib-dems resigned.
> 
> Can anyone who knows this area say what's going on - with street names, need to keep people updated.


 
Good on them, unconfirmed reports still.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

Fuck off


----------



## plurker (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Two lib-dems resigned.
> 
> Can anyone who knows this area say what's going on - with street names, need to keep people updated.



UCL Occupation were keepin a googlemap but it appears to not have been updated for an hour or so. http://bit.ly/i0znxf


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

its Victoria Street where a few protestors are breaking through


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

horses bought forward now at, what I can only assume is the start of victoria st


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 9, 2010)

hand to hand


----------



## rekil (Dec 9, 2010)

Horsey loses its rider and getting a bit jumpy.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 9, 2010)

tweet from NUS

Remember the UCU/NUS rally and vigil is on Victoria Embankment. Start heading there now. Speakers start soon.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

This is going and very soon - if they bring the horses in and someone gets knocked over they're fucked.


----------



## chilango (Dec 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> tweet from NUS
> 
> Remember the UCU/NUS rally and vigil is on Victoria Embankment. Start heading there now. Speakers start soon.



That must what all pushing and scuffling is for. 

Wouldn't want to be stuck outside Parliament missing that...


----------



## plurker (Dec 9, 2010)

from twitter "apparently people can get in and out of parliament square in the northwest corner - that's victoria street corner"


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

Protester being stretchered away with a head injury.

BBC reporting that they allowed people out of Parliament Square into Victoria Street, then decided to block them because of the large number of tasty targets down there.

Police officer thrown off when his horse bolted from a firecracker.

Female presenter making a conspicuous effort to emphasise that it's mostly peaceful.

Horses charging crowd now.


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

Guardian journo kicked the crap out of by the cops, apparently


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 9, 2010)

BBC saying a cop was _knocked_ off his horse


----------



## smokedout (Dec 9, 2010)

copper thrown of his horse


----------



## smokedout (Dec 9, 2010)

belboid said:


> Guardian journo kicked the crap out of by the cops, apparently


 
every cloud


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

horse charge


----------



## Dan U (Dec 9, 2010)

that was definitely a horse charge

scum


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

kicking off


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> copper thrown of his horse


 
Says "fallen off" on BBC live link. Horse charge just now.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

Police rucking in crowd.

BBC emphasising that police told protesters to leave via Victoria Street and are now regretting it.


----------



## chilango (Dec 9, 2010)

BBC journo in helmet!!!!


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 9, 2010)

the hosses are getting stuck in!


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

where this is kicking off is the start of victoria st isn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

Horses retreating. This is going.

By west abbey, no OB. get in there,


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

Barriers on the move again.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

Why you not in the scrum then BA?


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 9, 2010)

When will they organise a demo at the bloody weekend?!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

OB lost already, they didn't need to do anything, they fired people up.


----------



## rekil (Dec 9, 2010)

Fuck off.


Just pre-empting db's arrival and 30 pages of bullshit about how horses have a calming influence in these situations.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

This is really going to kick off when people start heading down there after work ... at about the time the vote passes.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

TruXta said:


> Why you not in the scrum then BA?


 
I'm 200 miles away. We're doing our bit.


----------



## chilango (Dec 9, 2010)

Why isn't anyone updating us on the latest from the candle-lit vigil?


----------



## ddraig (Dec 9, 2010)

people being de-arrested on beeb?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

Yeah, just curious.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 9, 2010)

Another charge on its way.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

Police barriers are a good weapon against horses - use 'em. They're ours.


----------



## rekil (Dec 9, 2010)

chilango said:


> Why isn't anyone updating us on the latest from the candle-lit vigil?


 
Halfway through arranging the candles to say 'might not vote 4 u again mr.clegg' from the air.


----------



## chilango (Dec 9, 2010)

copliker said:


> Halfway through arranging the candles to say 'might not vote 4 u again mr.clegg' from the air.


 
Yeah! Good Work people!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

We're off.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

What's the best livestream? Watching Beeb.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

What times the last megabus?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Dec 9, 2010)

Looks nasty in some places out there. Girl from Cambridge had her collar bone broken by a horse charge; apparently a lad pulled out of his wheelchair and beaten, etc. No doubt there's some aggro in the other direction too, but I know who I feel more sorry for, and it's not the ones with their state-sanctioned weaponry.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 9, 2010)

i'd like to know what sky's definition of seriously injured is and whether it depends on if they are a student or a cop.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

To London? from where?


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Police barriers are a good weapon against horses - use 'em. They're ours.


 
Inciting violence, all fun 200 miles away not so great for those who will be in hospital later.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 9, 2010)

TruXta said:


> What's the best livestream? Watching Beeb.


 
battered cop on sky right now


----------



## Flanflinger (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Police barriers are a good weapon against horses - use 'em. They're ours.


 
Twat.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Inciting violence, all fun 200 miles away not so great for those who will be in hospital later.


 
Will you shut up.


----------



## Flanflinger (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Inciting violence, all fun 200 miles away not so great for those who will be in hospital later.



His Mum wouldn't let him out


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Two lib-dems resigned.


 
Which LibDems? And resigned from what?


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

cops officially kettling people now


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Which LibDems? And resigned from what?


 
PPS's.  The government


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

TruXta said:


> To London? from where?


 From Bristol, no, we'll have our fun later today.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Dec 9, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> i'd like to know what sky's definition of seriously injured is and whether it depends on if they are a student or a cop.


 
I would imagine the girl with the broken collar bone will be described as a victim of student hostilities and in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the cops who get injured are victims of unscrupulous criminal forces, dangerous anarchists, seeking to disrupt and create violent skirmishes and injury.

Either way, the poor little cops are only trying to contain the violence, I'm sure.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Inciting violence, all fun 200 miles away not so great for those who will be in hospital later.


 
Fuck off moon.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

TruXta said:


> Will you shut up.


 
I shall say  what I like you, it's not your board it's public. BA is being a prat inciting this type of violence, people are getting seriously injured and for him it's a game.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Fuck off moon.


 
Fuck off yourself


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 9, 2010)

Fuck off Moon.


----------



## peterkro (Dec 9, 2010)

Girl injured by another surge by demostrators,fuck off Sky,nobodies as dumb as you think we are.

(fuck off Moon by the way)


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Inciting violence, all fun 200 miles away not so great for those who will be in hospital later.


 
From a prick whose party is in government with people who are not only inciting violence but carrying it out in someone elses country thousands of miles away that's fucking rich.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

Of course you will moon, and I will continue to tell you to shut up until you start talking sense or shut up.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

Use them fences point wise or as shields!


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Use them fences point wise or as shields!


 
I kinda doubt they're skimming these boards right now.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 9, 2010)

so it's the wombles and the wag's fault according to beeb?


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I shall say  what I like you, it's not your board it's public. BA is being a prat inciting this type of violence, people are getting seriously injured and for him it's a game.


it seemed like practical advice to me. if you get caught up in it and the horses are coming towards you, it's good to know you can defend yourself with ready made shields ie police barriers


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> From a prick whose party is in government with people who are not only inciting violence but carrying it out in someone elses country thousands of miles away that's fucking rich.


 
 Oh yea try and blame moon for the war


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 9, 2010)

TruXta said:


> Of course you will moon, *and I will continue to tell you to shut up until you start talking sense or shut up.*


 
Can't see that happening any time soon.....


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> so it's the wombles and the wag's fault according to beeb?


 
what's Coleen Rooney got to do with it??!!


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Oh yea try and blame moon for the war


 
Where did I blame you for anything even close your martyr complex fucking idiot?!


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

I have hope and I am clement.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

TruXta said:


> I kinda doubt they're skimming these boards right now.


 
This is the modern world!


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Where did I blame you for anything even close your martyr complex fucking idiot?!


 
People carrying out violence overseas WTF has that got to do with anything.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> This is the modern world!


 
No it's not. /dialectical


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> People carrying out violence overseas WTF has that got to do with anything.


 
Aaaaaand that said it all. BINGO!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

2nd wind.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 9, 2010)

belboid said:


> PPS's.  The government


 
Thanks.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I shall say  what I like you, it's not your board it's public. BA is being a prat *inciting this type of violence*, people are getting seriously injured and for him it's a game.



Of course they're following his every word on their i-phones.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## where to (Dec 9, 2010)

RT @UKuncut: If you're outside of the kettle, the consensus seems to be: head to Trafalgar Square


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

Poor policemen being hit by paintballs!


----------



## rekil (Dec 9, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> i'd like to know what sky's definition of seriously injured is and whether it depends on if they are a student or a cop.


 
Leg injury to a copper they said. Caused by one of their own horseys I hope.


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

bbc news are saying there's only been 3 arrests. Looked like substantially more than that


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

TruXta said:


> No it's not. /dialectical


 
You're getting the hang of it!


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

Which makes me think - why don't they bring loads of water to throw on the cops? Totally harmless but very annoying, especially in this cold weather.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Of course they're following his every word on their i-phones.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Incitement is based on intention someone need not act on it.


----------



## rekil (Dec 9, 2010)

If any sky hacks are reading this site again, that's commander butchers doing the pointing.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

gawkrodger said:


> bbc news are saying there's only been 3 arrests. Looked like substantially more than that


 
Trampled by his own horse 

This is going an will go quick after 5.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

TruXta said:


> Which makes me think - why don't they bring loads of water to throw on the cops? Totally harmless but very annoying, especially in this cold weather.


 
Tough to carry enough water to make a difference. Receptacles to piss in whilst trapped in a kettle would provide a ready supply of ammunition, however.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

copliker said:


> If any sky hacks are reading this site again, that's commander butchers doing the pointing.


 
The invisible dictatorship strikes again - i'm off very soon, off to open up another front, if anyone wants to jump in.

Good luck all.


----------



## rekil (Dec 9, 2010)

_Where is protesticle woman?_


G'luck today butchers.


----------



## chilango (Dec 9, 2010)

Stay safe Butchers...


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 9, 2010)

Bloody students; should do a Tiannemen Square on them. That'll learn em.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> This is going an will go quick after 5.


 
You mean you reckon it'll kick-off bigger?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Incitement is based on intention someone need not act on it.


 
Incitement requires an audience able to act on it you idiot; hence the i-phones jibe at your previous bit of stupidity.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 9, 2010)

the sky footage is purported to be live yet it has now gone dark


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> Tough to carry enough water to make a difference. Receptacles to piss in whilst trapped in a kettle would provide a ready supply of ammunition, however.


 
Piss, water, all the same. Well, almost.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 9, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> the sky footage is purported to be live yet it has now gone dark


that's cos it's dark outside.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 9, 2010)

this fucking bbc reporter with the piss pot on his head, what a knacker.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 9, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> that's cos it's dark outside.


 
and the footage is still light


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 9, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> and the footage is still light


oh i see what you were getting at now.

sky are shit anyway, watch bbc innit?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> You mean you reckon it'll kick-off bigger?


 
Yep


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2010)

It's been as violent as fuck, with a mounted police charge earlier kicking off the aggro.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 9, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> oh i see what you were getting at now.
> 
> sky are shit anyway, watch bbc innit?


 
their cameras are in different places so i'm alternating between both


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 9, 2010)

where to said:


> RT @UKuncut: If you're outside of the kettle, the consensus seems to be: head to Trafalgar Square


 
No, not Trafalgar Square.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> You mean you reckon it'll kick-off bigger?


 
It's kind of obvious that it will.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 9, 2010)

So what's this all about then?


----------



## _angel_ (Dec 9, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> Looks nasty in some places out there. Girl from Cambridge had her collar bone broken by a horse charge; apparently a lad pulled out of his wheelchair and beaten, etc. No doubt there's some aggro in the other direction too, but I know who I feel more sorry for, and it's not the ones with their state-sanctioned weaponry.


 
Did you actually see that?


----------



## rekil (Dec 9, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> So what's this all about then?


 
Candlelit vigil gone wrong.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

BBc shows new attack on Westminster bridge line of police.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 9, 2010)

You should never leave a naked flame unattended


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

One cop has "serious neck injury"...


----------



## twentythreedom (Dec 9, 2010)

good, the cunt


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

Pincer maneuver from the students? More student bods coming Vic St. and down Gr. Smith St. according to BBC.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

Waves of "new" protesters converging by all directions on the Square.


----------



## chilango (Dec 9, 2010)

interesting developments at the moment...two groups heading towards Parliament Square?


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

reports from on the ground say there's no way in a month of sundays that anyone is getting into parliament sq


----------



## where to (Dec 9, 2010)

rear flank have of students have approached Victoria Street line of police according to BBC


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

The MP's are going to find it hard to get out of the House.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 9, 2010)

TopCat said:


> The MP's are going to find it hard to get out of the House.


 
There's a direct underground connection to Westminster tube they could use.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

The vote happens in 45 mins.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

Crispy said:


> There's a direct underground connection to Westminster tube they could use.


 
That will have issues. Scraps on the tube are ultra dodgy. This is why the transport cops are nutters.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 9, 2010)

fair play to the students not backing down 
news obsessed with 'who is organising these movements'


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 9, 2010)

Lol @ aggro


----------



## twentythreedom (Dec 9, 2010)

@markthomasinfo

There are a small minority causing trouble in Parliament Square but they are dressed with blue helmets and visors so easy to spot.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 9, 2010)

Also...

"Kay Burley describes students as 'insurgents' but still not quite as outrageous as describing herself as a 'journalist'."


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 9, 2010)

There a secret tunnel that connect Westminster Tube station and the House of P I think there's another tunnel that goes straight to the buildings opposite.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2010)

TopCat said:


> That will have issues. Scraps on the tube are ultra dodgy. This is why the transport cops are nutters.


 
Westminster tube is closed anyway.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 9, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Waves of "new" protesters converging by all directions on the Square.


----------



## chilango (Dec 9, 2010)

Riot Cops in Parliament?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

TopCat said:


> One cop has "serious neck injury"...


 
Is that the same one who fell off his horse or a different one?


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 9, 2010)




----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

lopsidedbunny said:


> There a secret tunnel that connect Westminster Tube station and the House of P I think there's another tunnel that goes straight to the buildings opposite.


 
There is, but there's nothing secret about it


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 9, 2010)

Then why's it called a secret tunnel


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 9, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> No, not Trafalgar Square.





There very few places that you can go!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> Then why's it called a secret tunnel


 
Well maybe it *used* to be secret before it became common knowledge

It's only the lopsided rabbit that called it secret


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> Then why's it called a secret tunnel


 
It's not.

It's called a "tunnel".


----------



## Crispy (Dec 9, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Westminster tube is closed anyway.


 
Then it's perfect for hiding out in till LU can send an escape train in to rescue them


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

chilango said:


> Riot Cops in Parliament?


 
Loads seen going up Black road garden enterance...


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2010)

Is there a way to get subtitles on the BBC live feed on the web?


----------



## creak (Dec 9, 2010)

Has Cameron sent them in to strongarm wavering back benchers?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Is that the same one who fell off his horse or a different one?


 
Hopefully a different one!


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Then it's perfect for hiding out in till LU can send an escape train in to rescue them


 
I'm sure the RMT drivers would be fully cooperative with such an operation.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

"police are disappointed by the demonstrators behaviour".


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 9, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Is there a way to get subtitles on the BBC live feed on the web?



how many WPM do you expect?


----------



## twentythreedom (Dec 9, 2010)

supt julia pendry is a lying CUNT


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

apparently a group of breakaway students and others around admirality arch with no OB present


----------



## ddraig (Dec 9, 2010)

nice try copper "as a parent" ffs


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

No OB at admiralty arch


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

Police are still recommending protesters leave and go on candle lit vigil.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

TopCat said:


> "police are disappointed by the demonstrators behaviour".


 
Are they disappointed by the horse's behaviour who trod on the police?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

"Police came here this morning to facilitate peaceful protest."


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 9, 2010)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Well maybe it *used* to be secret before it became common knowledge
> 
> It's only the lopsided rabbit that called it secret


I know, I was being hi-LAR-ious 



TopCat said:


> "police are disappointed by the demonstrators behaviour".


That's worse than them being angry


----------



## plurker (Dec 9, 2010)

from the UCL googlmap:  "Paint and olive oil bombs used to reduce horse traction. Parliament Square"


----------



## twentythreedom (Dec 9, 2010)

TruXta said:


> "Police came here this morning to facilitate peaceful protest."



innit. well at least they were dressed for it!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

plurker said:


> from the UCL googlmap:  "Paint and olive oil bombs used to reduce horse traction. Parliament Square"




That's not really fair on the horses  

So what's happened to Winston Churchill, does he have another mohican yet?


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

big flames in parliament square!


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

Big big fire.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

Large fire now in the Square...


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

what the fuck has someone just pout on that fire?


----------



## Ground Elder (Dec 9, 2010)

Big fire

e2a has anyone else noticed?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

Burn it down!


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

FIRE! Dadada! I'll take you to burn!


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Burn it down!


 
its a bin, apparently


----------



## smokedout (Dec 9, 2010)

say it with fire


----------



## DJ Squelch (Dec 9, 2010)

Now THATS a candle lit vigil.


----------



## chilango (Dec 9, 2010)

big, big candle?


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 9, 2010)

DJ Squelch said:


> Now THATS a candle lit vigil.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

DJ Squelch said:


> Now THATS a candle lit vigil.


 
Better than fucking glowsticks!


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 9, 2010)

Fire, fire, blood an fiyah


----------



## BlackArab (Dec 9, 2010)

what's burning? we've got no sound at work


----------



## chilango (Dec 9, 2010)

a big wooden bin?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

Reports state only 200 on the glowstick vigil.


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

filled with lots of plasticky crap from the colour of the smoke


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 9, 2010)

Hope it burns all night.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

Throw yourself in ernesto and it just might.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 9, 2010)

"What's the point of setting fire to things, what will that do?"
"Um... it's a bit cold"


----------



## chilango (Dec 9, 2010)

student talking about being on BBC picket line...BBC journo changes subject...


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

TruXta said:


> Throw yourself in ernesto and it just might.


 
We must stand together with all including Stalinists.


----------



## Sweet FA (Dec 9, 2010)

BBC "What's the point of lighting this big fire?"
Student "Er...it's a bit cold"

eta  @ Lord C


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

Random students have been doing a great job on the interviews with Ben Brown. Total solidarity against all cuts, handling questions about violence brilliantly, rightly scoffing at the candle-lit vigil. Excellent work.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Large fire now in the Square...


 

and I bet the Square was only just recovering after evicting that peace camp

Now they'll have to start all over 

Will nobody think of the tourists


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 9, 2010)

chilango said:


> student talking about being on BBC picket line...BBC journo changes subject...


I'm almost certain he was a scab in the last round of strikes.


----------



## BlackArab (Dec 9, 2010)

chilango said:


> a big wooden bin?



full of flammable material? I suppose they couldn't afford to leave out another riot van to play with this time then.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

Sky news is shit! Never watched it before. What a croc.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

Maybe they'll use the Fire Brigade as a weapon on the pretext of putting out their fires


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

TopCat said:


> We must stand together with all including Stalinists.



Nope, they can fuck right off the wannabe murderous twats.


----------



## girasol (Dec 9, 2010)

my favourite poster of the day, so far:

a collage/drawing of cameron with scissors around his neck and the caption 'the only cut I'd vote for'

Only 15 minutes to go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Dec 9, 2010)

Lord Camomile said:


> I'm almost certain he was a scab in the last round of strikes.


Wait, no, wrong bloke. Apologies to Ben


----------



## Sweet FA (Dec 9, 2010)

BristleKRS: 'Police: "Protesters have failed to stick to agreed route." To be fair, so have LibDems'


----------



## ddraig (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> Random students have been doing a great job on the interviews with Ben Brown. Total solidarity against all cuts, handling questions about violence brilliantly, rightly scoffing at the candle-lit vigil. Excellent work.


 
yes brilliant, all of them


----------



## girasol (Dec 9, 2010)

Sweet FA said:


> BristleKRS: 'Police: "Protesters have failed to stick to agreed route." To be fair, so have LibDems'


 
That's because the agreed rout basically sent them to a vigil, which basically just took the outcome for granted.  But the people decided there was still time to change the final result by making themselves heard loud and clear.  There is hope still!


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

There probably isn't to be fair.... @ girasol


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

Young people saying that if this vote goes through then they will start on the House of Lords.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

Oh RLY? That could be interesting.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

Just seen a young man who was serving balloons from a huge cannister on NOX last Saturday at a party...


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

MP's filing up to vote...


----------



## ddraig (Dec 9, 2010)

yes go Jenny Willot!
tidy

not that she had much choice tbh


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

Vince Cable is _proud_ to back the policy.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

Looks like it was a portaloo that was set on fire?


----------



## Macabre (Dec 9, 2010)

The stuff on fire during the day we're park benches, could have done with them now as it's freezing. The black smoke was from a portacabin.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

Crockart is one of those who resigned. EUSA forced his hand?


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

Macabre said:


> The black smoke was from a portacabin.



Will no one think of the environment?


----------



## chilango (Dec 9, 2010)

God, these MPs are smug and arrogant aren't they?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2010)

copliker said:


> Fuck off.
> 
> 
> Just pre-empting db's arrival and 30 pages of bullshit about how horses have a calming influence in these situations.


 


Just made me almost PMSL, you bastard!!


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

WTF was that police horse charge all about?

Talk about a home goal, a real facepalm moment.


----------



## joustmaster (Dec 9, 2010)

chilango said:


> God, these MPs are smug and arrogant aren't they?


 
yes. That was just what I was thinking. 
Terrible set of cunt.


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 9, 2010)

Stop dancin an carry on ruckin.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Will no one think of the environment?


 
Will nobody think of all those civil servants unable to get a bus home from Westminster





















and let's not forget the horses




















and the tourists


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

Put the horses on the fire and have a cook up.


----------



## joustmaster (Dec 9, 2010)

Ha. Kids collecting rocks and concrete.


----------



## girasol (Dec 9, 2010)

TruXta said:


> There probably isn't to be fair.... @ girasol


 
Lib Dem MPs Mike Crockart and Jenny Willott have quit...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11952449


----------



## TopCat (Dec 9, 2010)

Kids on the BBC smashing big lumps of concrete...


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 9, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Kids on the BBC smashing big lumps of concrete...


 
Good eggs.


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

and the vote begins


----------



## chilango (Dec 9, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Kids on the BBC smashing big lumps of concrete...


 
in full camera view. wtf.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Kids on the BBC smashing big lumps of concrete...


 

Well that's a bit stupid.  Concrete's no good for keeping you warm


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> His Mum wouldn't let him out


 
Unlike your mum, who lets in all comers.


----------



## joustmaster (Dec 9, 2010)

It's a bit of a shame there arent more reporters willing to get right amongst it all.


----------



## Ground Elder (Dec 9, 2010)

Tweet from tory MP Louise Bagshawe "Injured self walking through crowd of student demonstrators, then climbing over barriers to reach Parliament. Bit of scary moment."


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 9, 2010)

Simon Hughes reported to be going to abstain rather than vote against.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

girasol said:


> Lib Dem MPs Mike Crockart and Jenny Willott have quit...
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11952449


 
Too little too late, I fear.


----------



## BlackArab (Dec 9, 2010)

chilango said:


> in full camera view. wtf.



unmasked as well


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I shall say  what I like you, it's not your board it's public.


No it isn't. It's a private board.


> BA is being a prat inciting this type of violence, people are getting seriously injured and for him it's a game.


No, for most of us it's not a game at all.
BTW, never heard of a defensive weapon? Encouraging the use of a defensive weapon (a barrier, no less) isn't inciting violence, it's encouraging self-defence, you arrant fuckwit.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 9, 2010)

belboid said:


> and the vote begins


 
rubbery spines ahoy


----------



## girasol (Dec 9, 2010)

And Tory MP Lee Scott!  Also resigned.


----------



## girasol (Dec 9, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Simon Hughes reported to be going to abstain rather than vote against.


 
what a twat, have the guts to vote you coward!


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Simon Hughes reported to be going to abstain rather than vote against.


 
Well they showed him driving off in his famous yellow black cab


----------



## where to (Dec 9, 2010)

get ready to text everyone you know who's on the ground as soon as vote passes


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2010)

copliker said:


> Leg injury to a copper they said. Caused by one of their own horseys I hope.


 
Given how often they happened to any of us who dared turn up to protest at Wapping, I hope so too. They're fucking painful!!


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

BlackArab said:


> unmasked as well



Yep, not very bright students.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 9, 2010)

BlackArab said:


> unmasked as well


 
One of them just fucked-off rather sheepishly when he clocked the camera filming him.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Dec 9, 2010)

Where is MonArco?


----------



## girasol (Dec 9, 2010)

where to said:


> get ready to text everyone you know who's on the ground as soon as vote passes


 
I'm ready!

I bet the abstainers will fuck it up for everyone else, as usual...


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 9, 2010)

Tory minister lee scott resigns to abstain. That's 3 tories down now.

eta: oh, that was 2 hours ago.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2010)

TruXta said:


> Which makes me think - why don't they bring loads of water to throw on the cops? Totally harmless but very annoying, especially in this cold weather.


 
Because it'd probably get transmitted back up the police chain of command (and to the media) as petrol/other accelerants being thrown on the bill, and "appropriate" action taken.
BTW, can you imagine the petulant whining by the press if one or two donut-munchers got a bout of pneumonia?


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 9, 2010)

why are people abstaining? can't they just vote for or against? chickenshits.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Dec 9, 2010)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Where is MonArco?


 


Glad they've shown lots of angry people, even though they've been rah they've been a reasonably eloquent bunch and have made sure everyone knows about the cops.


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

majority seems to be down in the low teens


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 9, 2010)

BBC coverage sickening


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 9, 2010)

BBC paliament looks like it's announce.


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

those idiots trying to smash those breezeblocks into throwable chunks need to be spoken to


----------



## scifisam (Dec 9, 2010)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Where is MonArco?


 
That was a funny pronunciation, but I agree with everything else he said.


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

323 - 302 gov maj 21


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

323 v 302


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 9, 2010)

Bastards


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 9, 2010)

it passed 323-302. I PREDICT A RIOT.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

This means war.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Incitement is based on intention someone need not act on it.


 
No, "intent" is based on intention, incitement is based on your words *having the effect of causing someone to act in the way you have put forward*, i.e. someone kicking a copper after you've yelled, in their hearing, "kick that copper".


----------



## free spirit (Dec 9, 2010)

fuckers


----------



## joustmaster (Dec 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> those idiots trying to smash those breezeblocks into throwable chunks need to be spoken to


 
too right.. they need to be shown a more effective way..


----------



## girasol (Dec 9, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> it passed 323-302. I PREDICT A RIOT.


 
yep, that's what I said earlier!


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> it passed 323-302. I PREDICT A RIOT.


 
Pretty sad that there might well be one over this, when there wasnt one when they were brought in, nor for that matter over Iraq.  In fact what on earth is wrong with people when the two angriest demos in Parliament Square for ages were about foxhunting and raising tuition fees?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

Sadly a very predictable result. Now what happens on the streets?


----------



## treelover (Dec 9, 2010)

maj of only 20, no real mandate, the students will launch a repeal movement


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 9, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> why are people abstaining? can't they just vote for or against? chickenshits.



LibDem's who want to vote 'no' but don't want to resign their posts.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> Pretty sad that there might well be one over this, when there wasnt one when they were brought in, nor for that matter over Iraq.  In fact what on earth is wrong with people when the two angriest demos in Parliament Square for ages were about foxhunting and raising tuition fees?


 
A very good point, IMO.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 9, 2010)

bastards keep showing victoria st not outside westminster


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 9, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> LibDem's who want to vote 'no' but don't want to resign their posts.


 why should they resign? couldn't they just vote no?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2010)

That's a fair point, agricola. Better late than never, though.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> Pretty sad that there might well be one over this, when there wasnt one when they were brought in, nor for that matter over Iraq.  In fact what on earth is wrong with people when the two angriest demos in Parliament Square for ages were about foxhunting and raising tuition fees?


This isn't just about tuition fees - it's about the cuts in general. You ain't seen nothing yet.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 9, 2010)

jog on Julia


----------



## scifisam (Dec 9, 2010)

I'm actually crying now. That's my daughter's future fucked.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 9, 2010)

"Last resort containment"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> This isn't just about tuition fees - it's about the cuts in general. You ain't seen nothing yet.


 
This particular legislation was made possible by the introduction of top-up fees, though, which broke a manifesto pledge not to do so.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 9, 2010)

let's see some being let out then!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2010)

scifisam said:


> I'm actually crying now. That's my daughter's future fucked.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 9, 2010)

Wonder why that promised big screen with coverage from Parliament was never set up outside?


----------



## Clair De Lune (Dec 9, 2010)

My 8 year old quite cleverly pointed out that what the news says and what the images show are opposite. We saw police hitting and kicking protesters whilst the police woman was talking about violent protesters.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 9, 2010)

scifisam said:


> I'm actually crying now. That's my daughter's future fucked.


 prostitution is not a good career choice


----------



## stupid kid (Dec 9, 2010)

Am on my way now. Where is better to head parliament or trafalgur sq?


----------



## mwgdrwg (Dec 9, 2010)

That's the lib dems finished for good. Fucking cunts.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 9, 2010)

did anyone spot tiger face?


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

mwgdrwg said:


> That's the lib dems finished for good. Fucking cunts.


 
Great, that leaves most people in the UK with a choice between a party who brought tuition fees in, and a party that raised them.  How lucky those people in Wales and Scotland are.


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

student sit in in the impressionist room of the National Gallery


----------



## ddraig (Dec 9, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> did anyone spot tiger face?


 
great disguise


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

Ed Miliband is awful.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2010)

chilango said:


> God, these MPs are smug and arrogant aren't they?


 
I'm sure that there are plenty of constituents (students or otherwise) in each and every constituency of the "yes" voters, who are affected by the cuts.
That being so, perhaps a small permanent picket of the MP's constituency residence could be organised, perhaps (on an exchange basis with other constituencies, perhaps?) even on the weekday residences of those MPs whose constituencies are so far away that they're only there a day a week?
Because, obviously, if you're a constituent, you do have a *right* to lobby your MP, don't you?


----------



## scifisam (Dec 9, 2010)

Well spotted, mini-Clair.



Tankus said:


> prostitution is not a good career choice


 
I'm not in the mood for jokes about my daughter being a prostitute, thanks.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> This isn't just about tuition fees - it's about the cuts in general. You ain't seen nothing yet.


 
I think the reality is that it's only happening because of the specific issue of tuition fees. It's something that is relatively easy for people to have clear views on. And specific election pledges have been broken. And of course, it has particular significance for students, and it's students that are making up the mass of the protests.

I think you're being optimistic to think that this level of protest will continue against spending cuts in general. But, actually I hope I'm wrong on that.


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

riot police kicking off again on sky


----------



## Vintage Paw (Dec 9, 2010)

ddraig said:


> great disguise


 
Let's hope it washes off 

/phoenix nights


----------



## Tankus (Dec 9, 2010)

red ed pledges not to give any pledges ....wot a twat


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Yep, not very bright students.


 
They'll learn.


----------



## twentythreedom (Dec 9, 2010)

excellent, they're debating the late arrivals of the 639 bus from walsall to wednesbury now


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

Fuck the Coalition!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> those idiots trying to smash those breezeblocks into throwable chunks need to be spoken to


 
True.

Everyone knows that breezeblocks just fucking crumble if you try to break them into throwable chucks.
Use the paving slabs instead, kiddies!!


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

teuchter said:


> I think the reality is that it's only happening because of the specific issue of tuition fees. It's something that is relatively easy for people to have clear views on. And specific election pledges have been broken. And of course, it has particular significance for students, and it's students that are making up the mass of the protests.
> 
> I think you're being optimistic to think that this level of protest will continue against spending cuts in general. But, actually I hope I'm wrong on that.


I think you are wrong. Virtually every random student interviewee made it clear that this was about the cuts in general, not just tuition fees. The banner at the front of the original march said "students and workers unite against cuts". There was a lot of TU representation there, and Brendan Barber gave good interview.

This is the beginning, not the end. The vote was close enough to show that we can bring this government down if enough pressure is brought to bear, and it will be. There is a lot more of this to come.


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

Aaron Porter is 'very let down'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> it passed 323-302. I PREDICT A RIOT.


 
Crimble No 1 for Kaiser Chiefs?


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

It really ought to be, oughtn't it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2010)

Tankus said:


> prostitution is not a good career choice


 
Cunt off, fucknuts.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> I think you are wrong. Virtually every random student interviewee made it clear that this was about the cuts in general, not just tuition fees. The banner at the front of the original march said "students and workers unite against cuts". There was a lot of TU representation there, and Brendan Barber gave good interview.
> 
> This is the beginning, not the end. The vote was close enough to show that we can bring this government down if enough pressure is brought to bear, and it will be. There is a lot more of this to come.


 
Well, we'll see. I'd be happy to be proven wrong.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

Battle of the Barriers - police seem to be winning more barriers


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> I think you are wrong. Virtually every random student interviewee made it clear that this was about the cuts in general, not just tuition fees. The banner at the front of the original march said "students and workers unite against cuts". There was a lot of TU representation there, and Brendan Barber gave good interview.
> 
> This is the beginning, not the end. The vote was close enough to show that we can bring this government down if enough pressure is brought to bear, and it will be. There is a lot more of this to come.


 
Thats the problem though - this presumption that if the Coalition falls "the cuts" can be prevented, as if we havent just had, disguised under a red rosette, one of the most right-wing, pro free-market and arguably most corrupt governments seen in Britain over the past fifty years.  A government which, lets not forget, actually brought in tuition fees *and* commissioned the review which recommended a lot of the things that Cable has implemented.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Dec 9, 2010)

belboid said:


> Aaron Porter is 'very let down'


 
Porter was on the news this morning saying leaders shouldn't abuse people's trust.

I lol'd.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> They'll learn.


 
And pay for it later.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Fuck the Coalition!


 
I wouldn't even fuck them with moon23s',  mate.


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> Porter was on the news this morning saying leaders shouldn't abuse people's trust.
> 
> I lol'd.


 
Watching Aaron Porter's career go up in smoke has been the sole bright spot in this otherwise bleak argument.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2010)

belboid said:


> Aaron Porter is 'very let down'


 
He let the NUS down, he let the Labour party down, but most of all, he let himself down.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> Thats the problem though - this presumption that if the Coalition falls "the cuts" can be prevented, as if we havent just had, disguised under a red rosette, one of the most right-wing, pro free-market and arguably most corrupt governments seen in Britain over the past fifty years.  A government which, lets not forget, actually brought in tuition fees *and* commissioned the review which recommended a lot of the things that Cable has implemented.


 
Yeah... I'm not quite sure what's expected to happen if and when the current government is "brought down". A new one with very slightly less severe cuts? Not exactly a revolution.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> It really ought to be, oughtn't it.


 
Perhaps some nice Urbanite who's also on facebook could start a petition/mass appeal _a la_ Rage Against The Machine's "Killing in the name of..."?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I wouldn't even fuck them with moon23s',  mate.


 
This is just the beginning. 

Oh, & fuck the filth too. A pity that animal didn't break its fuckin' neck when it fell of that horse.


----------



## where to (Dec 9, 2010)

PORTER: some have been thinking more about their future careers as MPs than about the issues at hand.

the boy has got a brass fucking neck.

he also wants those of his members who involved in violence, who he's supposed to represent, "exposed"


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

where to said:


> PORTER: some have been thinking more about their future careers as MPs than about the issues at hand.
> 
> the boy has got a brass fucking neck.
> 
> he also wants those of his members who involved in violence, who he's supposed to represent, "exposed"



He deserves a kicking


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Yeah... I'm not quite sure what's expected to happen if and when the current government is "brought down". A new one with very slightly less severe cuts? Not exactly a revolution.


 
Good point.

I think if anything this shows how strong the coalition is and therefore will not collapse, this was ‘the big issue’ for the LibDems because of their specific election pledge – whilst there maybe objection to some other cuts, I doubt they will achieve this level of support amongst MPs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> Thats the problem though - this presumption that if the Coalition falls "the cuts" can be prevented, as if we havent just had, disguised under a red rosette, one of the most right-wing, pro free-market and arguably most corrupt governments seen in Britain over the past fifty years.  A government which, lets not forget, actually brought in tuition fees *and* commissioned the review which recommended a lot of the things that Cable has implemented.


 
I'm not convinced (only going by my own experience and conversations, mind) that the presumption *is* that the cuts can be prevented/reversed. There seems, from where I'm standing, to be an awful lot of acknowledgement that the current politics offers no alternative, that being why, for example, the NUS hasn't been trusted by the students, and why the Labour party hasn't benefitted from a rise in membership (something that could be virtually guaranteed during the last Tory government).
What this means, in terms of either the evolution of new power structures, or a modification of the existing ones, I don't know, but I reckon it's going to be interesting finding out, if not particularly comfortable for folk like me who are on the sharp end of more than one of the cuts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> Porter was on the news this morning saying leaders shouldn't abuse people's trust.
> 
> I lol'd.


 
He's not the most self-aware puppy in the litter, is he?


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> Thats the problem though - this presumption that if the Coalition falls "the cuts" can be prevented, as if we havent just had, disguised under a red rosette, one of the most right-wing, pro free-market and arguably most corrupt governments seen in Britain over the past fifty years.  A government which, lets not forget, actually brought in tuition fees *and* commissioned the review which recommended a lot of the things that Cable has implemented.


Few of these protesters have any time for Labour. This is about drawing lines that no party of government dare cross. Real democracy - not the pantomime that passes for it in parliament.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 9, 2010)

porter slime on now


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 9, 2010)

Aaron porter still fucking whining on BBC


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> And pay for it later.


 
Not wishing to sound uncaring, but it's the best way to learn a lesson. Makes it far less likely you'll make the same error again.


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

Clegg now 7-1 to be the next minister to leave the government 

28 Liberal Scum voted for, had they even stuck to the coalition agreement and abstained, the government would have lost.  Spineless scum.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 9, 2010)

flip flopping wtf! honesty and decency, major front!


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

Sky reporting the candlelit vigigl is 'not happening'


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> Watching Aaron Porter's career go up in smoke has been the sole bright spot in this otherwise bleak argument.


 
What makes it even more edifying is that Porter is the one who has poured petrol on that career, lit a match and ignited himself.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

belboid said:


> 28 Liberal Scum voted for, had they even stuck to the coalition agreement and abstained, the government would have lost.  Spineless scum.


 
They too deserve a kicking.


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

Porter on TV *again*, albeit this time following the Labour line.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> What makes it even more edifying is that Porter is the one who has poured petrol on that career, lit a match and ignited himself.


 
He's a fearful idiot, isn't he! This issue would have been the making of him if he had half a brain.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> This is just the beginning.


Yep.


> Oh, & fuck the filth too. A pity that animal didn't break its fuckin' neck when it fell of that horse.


Unfortunately, like Paras, they're trained to tuck their shoulder in and roll as the ground comes up to meet them. 
Doh!!!


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not wishing to sound uncaring, but it's the best way to learn a lesson. Makes it far less likely you'll make the same error again.



I see where your coming from, but it wasn't what I was getting at.  

You: They'll learn.
Me: And pay for it later.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 9, 2010)

Porter still not sticking up for students and not pointing out reporting bias from the bbc or police brutality.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

belboid said:


> Sky reporting the candlelit vigigl is 'not happening'





ymu said:


> Yeah. That's the NUS protest. They refused to back the NCAFC protest down in Parliament Square. They'll have about three people attending. No big deal - they won't draw away anyone who would otherwise have tried to do something more meaningful.



_*polishes fist*_


----------



## scifisam (Dec 9, 2010)

A friend says the best protest sign he saw all day was 'Crimes Against Humanities.'


----------



## stupid kid (Dec 9, 2010)

Am at whitehall. Good bonfire here. Some people want to push through but most content with chanting


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2010)

where to said:


> PORTER: some have been thinking more about their future careers as MPs than about the issues at hand.
> 
> the boy has got a brass fucking neck.
> 
> he also wants those of his members who involved in violence, who he's supposed to represent, "exposed"


 
In other words he wants to bring about a Kinnock/Militant-type situation where the NUS can be purged of troublesome activism.
What a worthless careerist shit-cunt he is.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 9, 2010)

does anyone know if there are going to be any wider protests?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2010)

belboid said:


> Sky reporting the candlelit vigigl is 'not happening'


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> does anyone know if there are going to be any wider protests?


 
The anti-tax dodger protests have been going for some time now, and will continue. December 15th is a protest against benefit cuts. Plenty more to come, for sure.


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not convinced (only going by my own experience and conversations, mind) that the presumption *is* that the cuts can be prevented/reversed. There seems, from where I'm standing, to be an awful lot of acknowledgement that the current politics offers no alternative, that being why, for example, the NUS hasn't been trusted by the students, and why the Labour party hasn't benefitted from a rise in membership (something that could be virtually guaranteed during the last Tory government).
> What this means, in terms of either the evolution of new power structures, or a modification of the existing ones, I don't know, but I reckon it's going to be interesting finding out, if not particularly comfortable for folk like me who are on the sharp end of more than one of the cuts.



I dunno, maybe it is just coming from a Welsh perspective but there are (albeit in small numbers) clear alternatives in the devolved regions where money is not being wasted (or at least, not to the same massive extent), fees are not being implemented in full and cuts are not being made.  What the anti-cuts movement should do (as they have started to do with the tax avoidance demos) is to draw attention to what the Plaid-Labour government, and the SNP government, have managed to do with regards to this issue (and many others).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 9, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He's a fearful idiot, isn't he! This issue would have been the making of him if he had half a brain.


 
To be fair, he'd need not only what the Tin Man wanted, but also what the Scarecrow wished for, and he has neither.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 9, 2010)

He's playing "Let it be" far too fast.

Oh, that's better. The rap classic "Tory Scum".


----------



## Dan U (Dec 9, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> does anyone know if there are going to be any wider protests?


 
Big TU march in March. Plus lots of small local stuff before I am sure/hope

Don't know of any other big things

Eta - and what ymu said. That's another on a work day too. Pah


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> Few of these protesters have any time for Labour. This is about drawing lines that no party of government dare cross. Real democracy - not the pantomime that passes for it in parliament.


 
What do you think is actually going to happen, even assuming major protests continue? Is some new political party that represents a genuine alternative going to somehow appear?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 9, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> does anyone know if there are going to be any wider protests?


 
National Day of Protest Against Welfare & Housing Benefit Cuts 

won't be huge this time, but stuff coming in from around the country, London - Trafalgar Sq 3pm, probably not mental though, is a disability protest, but then who knows


----------



## _angel_ (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> I think you are wrong. Virtually every random student interviewee made it clear that this was about the cuts in general, not just tuition fees. The banner at the front of the original march said "students and workers unite against cuts". There was a lot of TU representation there, and Brendan Barber gave good interview.
> 
> This is the beginning, not the end. The vote was close enough to show that we can bring this government down if enough pressure is brought to bear, and it will be. There is a lot more of this to come.


 Yes, it's just not being reported very well, I think I heard the bbc mention EMA for the first time on the news, for all of about 3 seconds! But every picture contains people with banners about EMA, yet it's being largely ignored by the journalists.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

What are those students doing on the Treasury building?  Trying to break their breeze blocks up?  Still trying to smash the bombproof glass?


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

bombproof but not student proof it seems


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

belboid said:


> bombproof but not student proof it seems



What do they hope to gain by doing that?  Look at all that grafitti on the building  

I used to work in there


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Yes, it's just not being reported very well, I think I heard the bbc mention EMA for the first time on the news, for all of about 3 seconds! But every picture contains people with banners about EMA, yet it's being largely ignored by the journalists.


 
EMA was a bad idea at the time and should have been cut, albeit of course they should have spent the money instead on the old-style grants to fund undergraduate study (both when Labour brought it in and the Coalition now).


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

No backing off, I love these kids.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 9, 2010)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> What do they hope to gain by doing that?  Look at all that grafitti on the building
> 
> I used to work in there


i don't think there's a specific strategy to it. it's just smashing shit up innit.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

teuchter said:


> What do you think is actually going to happen, even assuming major protests continue? Is some new political party that represents a genuine alternative going to somehow appear?


 
Getting the right bums on seats is a forlorn hope. Parliamentary politics is a dead end, IMO. If we want democracy, we have to set limits on what the government can get away with. If this government falls, Labour will inevitably win the next election. They need to be on notice that we will bring them down too if they step over the line.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> Getting the right bums on seats is a forlorn hope. Parliamentary politics is a dead end, IMO. If we want democracy, we have to set limits on what the government can get away with. If this government falls, Labour will inevitably win the next election. They need to be on notice that we will bring them down too if they step over the line.


 it doesn't bode well when the only thing the opposition leader will promise us is 'no more pledges'.


----------



## joustmaster (Dec 9, 2010)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> What do they hope to gain by doing that?  Look at all that grafitti on the building
> 
> I used to work in there


 
Showing strong disapproval.
And smashing stuff is fun.


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 9, 2010)

BBC News 24 is funny.


----------



## xes (Dec 9, 2010)

where's the live feed at?

Can't be arsed to trawl through 500 posts looking for it. *flutters eyelashes*


----------



## Crispy (Dec 9, 2010)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11566509


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> BBC News 24 is funny.


 
when ben brown gets nicked because his dna is on one of those bricks it will be.



edit: or whoever this bloke is (named fixed)


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 9, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> BBC News 24 is funny.


 
the reporter trying to get a shot of santa


----------



## xes (Dec 9, 2010)

Crispy said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11566509


 
 thanking you


----------



## spitfire (Dec 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> when ben brogan gets nicked because his dna is on one of those bricks it will be.
> 
> 
> 
> edit: or whoever this bloke is



I was hoping one of the cops were going to run up behind him and knock it out of his hand with a baton. lulz.


----------



## xes (Dec 9, 2010)

gone off as it starts to kick off, don't suppose they want to televise police brutality.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> it doesn't bode well when the only thing the opposition leader will promise us is 'no more pledges'.


 
Not sure how that's relevant to what I said? I don't care which party is in power - I care about setting limits on their neo-liberal barbarism.


----------



## fiannanahalba (Dec 9, 2010)

Fair play to the studes.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

Have they really set fire to the Christmas Tree in Trafalgar Square? 

Looks alright to me

http://www.camvista.com/england/london/trafalgarsquare_streaming.php


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

The BBC are clearly desperate for that rumoured attack on the Christmas tree in Trafalgar Square to be true.


----------



## Mr Smin (Dec 9, 2010)

Just being out there in this cold is proof that this is not just a stunt, I reckon. If my generation of students had managed something more than an a-to-b march about grant cuts, we might never have got to this situation.

Nick Clegg had had his policies pushed up his hole, as explained by Kunt and the Gang.


----------



## spitfire (Dec 9, 2010)

xes said:


> gone off as it starts to kick off, don't suppose they want to televise police brutality.


 
I would really like to see what's happening at the door to the treasury. There are a _lot_ of cameras going off. Have been for about 10 minutes now.

edit: finally! took them a while to spot that. they're trying to break the door down.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> i don't think there's a specific strategy to it. it's just smashing shit up innit.


 
Maybe they're hoping to get a few free computers


----------



## trabant (Dec 9, 2010)

guardian has stopped live blogging. some that are left

http://lsjsn.wordpress.com/
https://london.indymedia.org.uk/action_timelines/dayx3-shutdown-london

and the odd tweets.


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Maybe they're hoping to get a few free computers


 
and ten pence pieces, that phonebox outside the treasury got mashed up


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 9, 2010)

One of my boys asked if the policemen are going to shoot Santa. (I teach them that police are bad lol)


----------



## twentythreedom (Dec 9, 2010)

next time i'm going to be there. used to go on all the criminal justice etc marches / demos / riots in the early 90s, seeing all this makes really pine for the satisfaction of punching a copper in the mush


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

Ramming the doors of the treasury with barricades. Not a copper in sight.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 9, 2010)

Well done Students! hope some coppers got hurt.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> and ten pence pieces, that phonebox outside the treasury got mashed up


 

Will nobody think of the tourists.  They're right popular phone boxes for tourists they are 

Do they still take 10p then?  I thought minimum was 20p?


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> Ramming the doors of the treasury with barricades. Not a copper in sight.


 
as the BBC showed earlier, there are loads of them inside


----------



## girasol (Dec 9, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> One of my boys asked if the policemen are going to shoot Santa. (I teach them that police are bad lol)


 
They did arrest him...


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 9, 2010)

trabant said:


> guardian has stopped live blogging. some that are left
> 
> http://lsjsn.wordpress.com/
> https://london.indymedia.org.uk/action_timelines/dayx3-shutdown-london
> ...


i've managed to lock myself out of twitter so have missed how it went down there


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

Need to develop some decent grips for those barricades so thoughtfully provided by the police. Tough on the fingers/knuckles unless you can get a good cushioned handle. Simple bit of rope-work should do the trick.


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Will nobody think of the tourists.  They're right popular phone boxes for tourists they are
> 
> Do they still take 10p then?  I thought minimum was 20p?


 
really?  been ages since I used one


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

oh, they've got in the windows.

Hope they don't get lost.  That building's right confusing


----------



## xes (Dec 9, 2010)

girasol said:


> They did arrest him...


 
Nope, just pushed him back into the crowd. He was just pictured by the side door bit being photographed (he'll probably be in the papers in the morning)


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

Gonna be a tough choice between live riots and live Corrie tonight ...


----------



## xes (Dec 9, 2010)

Apparently the building is full of riot cops


----------



## spitfire (Dec 9, 2010)

Different angle on Sky News the door is open. Some others trying to get in the window.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

Don't go in, lob fire. Let it burn.


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> oh, they've got in the windows.
> 
> Hope they don't get lost.  That building's right confusing


 
It wont be safe either, now night has fallen Gideon's true form stalks the building, consuming stray cleaners and the occasional spad, so finding some fresh-faced student youth will probably make his evening.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> really?  been ages since I used one


 

Neither have I, but this can't be right surely Shirley  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/7885557/Phonebox-minimum-call-charge-jumps-by-50pc-to-60p.html


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> Gonna be a tough choice between live riots and live Corrie tonight ...



I know, I'm really pissed off b/f's made me switch over


----------



## spitfire (Dec 9, 2010)

FIT Team at the window, hope they don't slip.


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 9, 2010)

Hog Roast please.


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

that Santa is rubbish, they have caught him again


----------



## janeb (Dec 9, 2010)

I see Santa was at the door


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

Maybe it's a different Santa?


----------



## janeb (Dec 9, 2010)

No that's not a fucking snatch squad, some demonstrators got blood on his face


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 9, 2010)

Just thought I would comment on this thread and thereby confirm Ernesto's and Butchers' opinion that I'm just a Tory.
(I may actually be accused of being a turkey voting for Xmas)

There is a great deal that is hideously wrong, but it is far worse in much of the world. Nothing justifies this level of thuggery and it is entirely counter-productive.

The worst of it is the way that these "anarchists" have jumped on a legitimate protest by thousands of youngsters they have no right to consider their peers.

What is the ultimate idea ? Let them set fire to Parliament ?


----------



## dylans (Dec 9, 2010)

janeb said:


> I see Santa was at the door


 
should have used the chimney


----------



## janeb (Dec 9, 2010)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> Maybe it's a different Santa?


 
Looks like the same santa, giving the peace sign - can't see him at the moment


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> What is the ultimate idea ? Let them set fire to Parliament ?



Fuckin' bring it on!



gentlegreen said:


> There is a great deal that is hideously wrong, but it is far worse in much of the world. Nothing justifies this level of thuggery and it is entirely counter-productive.
> 
> The worst of it is the way that these "anarchists" have jumped on a legitimate protest by thousands of youngsters they have no right to consider their peers.



I for one hope that this Collision government can be outed. This is just the beginning imo. It's time to fight back - all aboard.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

Police stopping them filming protesters in the Treasury.

GG - you do not live in a democracy. Thank those who are willing to stand up for your rights, even if you're too spineless/comfortable to do so yourself.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 9, 2010)

The BBC reporting of this is rather one-eyed. Lord knows how Sky (UKFOX) are telling the story.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

Get down there, bring gas. Help them.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> Police stopping them filming protesters in the Treasury.
> 
> GG - you do not live in a democracy. Thank those who are willing to stand up for your rights, even if you're too spineless/comfortable to do so yourself.


Stand up for my rights by wanton vandalism ?

Get real.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 9, 2010)

My daughterand I were talking about how the violence against people is wrong, and some of the vandalism isn't the best either - though understandable - and then, before I could say it myself, she 'it's good publicity, isn't it? It wouldn't be so much on TV without the smashing up.'


----------



## spitfire (Dec 9, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> The BBC reporting of this is rather one-eyed. Lord knows how Sky (UKFOX) are telling the story.


 
TBF they were right in the thick of it and had better shots of the door episode.

I never normally watch Sky news but flicked over to see what they had going on.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

scifisam said:


> My daughterand I were talking about how the violence against people is wrong, and some of the vandalism isn't the best either - though understandable - and then, before I could say it myself, she 'it's good publicity, isn't it? It wouldn't be so much on TV without the smashing up.'


 
Smart kid!


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 9, 2010)

Beating the Ozzies and decent rioting.

I'm blown away.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Stand up for my rights by wanton vandalism ?
> 
> Get real.


 
Two million marched against war in Iraq, on a state-sanctioned demo, and it achieved fuck all. We won't get our country back without a fight.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Stand up for my rights by wanton vandalism ?
> 
> Get real.


 
If the Suffragette hadn't smashed windows? 

Get real!


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> Two million marched against war in Iraq, on a state-sanctioned demo, and it achieved fuck all. We won't get our country back without a fight.


 
and yet people kick off about tuition fees going up


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 9, 2010)

spitfire said:


> TBF they were right in the thick of it and had better shots of the door episode.
> 
> I never normally watch Sky news but flicked over to see what they had going on.



Good pics, yes, but the dramatic language, that Chief copper woman on twice, and then the earlier coverage of the mounted police charge described as "7 or 8" when it was easily 20.


----------



## Starflesh (Dec 9, 2010)

the police should have played the music to COUNTDOWN to calm the students down.  i thank you.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> Beating the Ozzies and decent rioting.
> 
> I'm blown away.


 
Beating the Ozzies, fuck yeah  

Decent rioting? Nah, not yet. 

It's coming...


----------



## spitfire (Dec 9, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Good pics, yes, but the dramatic language, that Chief copper woman on twice, and then the earlier coverage of the mounted police charge described as "7 or 8" when it was easily 20.


 
I think I have a SKY/UKFOX filter in my head that stops me from hearing what they say.

Either that or I can't hear them over me shouting at the telly in finest keyboard/armchair warrior fashion.


----------



## twentythreedom (Dec 9, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> Beating the Ozzies and decent rioting.
> 
> I'm blown away.


 
fucking excellent innit!!


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> and yet people kick off about tuition fees going up


You can repeat this as often as you like, it won't make it true. It's not just about tuition fees - even these specific student demos are not just about fees. This is just the start. Better make sure your riot gear is in good working order.


----------



## spitfire (Dec 9, 2010)

Prince Charles and Camillas car attacked. Apparently (AP/Sky news)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> and yet people kick off about tuition fees going up


 
40 per cent cut in funding for higher education. The complete privatisation of arts and social science degrees. That's the story. The birthright of the next generation is being stolen from them.

These things were hard-won. Once lost, they will be very hard to win back. I am very heartened by every car window that is smashed today, every building that is daubed. It's a shame for those who'll have to pick up the bill, but tough shit, frankly. This is more important.


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> You can repeat this as often as you like, it won't make it true. It's not just about tuition fees - even these specific student demos are not just about fees. This is just the start. Better make sure your riot gear is in good working order.


 
Maybe, maybe not.  If the coalition falls then things will probably calm down again.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 9, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> If the Suffragette hadn't smashed windows?
> 
> Get real!


 
Emily Wilding Davison must be spinning in her grave.


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 40 per cent cut in funding for higher education. The complete privatisation of arts and social science degrees. That's the story. The birthright of the next generation is being stolen from them.


 
It was stolen from them a long time ago, starting with Major's government and finished under Blair.  All this lot have done is moved it along a bit.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

Charlie and Camilla in a car under attack by protesters? Unconfirmed BBC report.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 9, 2010)

Charles and Camilla?


----------



## xes (Dec 9, 2010)

Camilla under attack in a car somewhere?

You what  (they just said it on sky too)


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2010)

spitfire said:


> Prince Charles and Camillas car attacked. Apparently (AP/Sky news)


 
bbc reporting this too, although as unconfirmed.



lol


----------



## creak (Dec 9, 2010)

spitfire said:


> Prince Charles and Camillas car attacked. Apparently (AP/Sky news)


 
On BBC now too, stressing that it is only on AP for now though so can't yet corroborate with other sources.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 9, 2010)

spitfire said:


> Prince Charles and Camillas car attacked. Apparently (AP/Sky news)


 
I do hope this is true


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Emily Wilding Davison must be spinning in her grave.


 
Bollocks. Collective bargaining by riot. Loss of law and order, a challenge to their sole right to violence, is the one thing that any government is guaranteed to take notice of. Ymu's right – millions of us protested against the Iraq War. We were ignored.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> It was stolen from them a long time ago, starting with Major's government and finished under Blair.  All this lot have done is moved it along a bit.


 
It is in the process of being stolen from them, yes. As I said earlier, better late than never to stop it.


----------



## past caring (Dec 9, 2010)

Am back - had no chance of getting into square. Lot of mooching around. Big opportunity missed with mob 3 thousand plus (difficult to tell from the front with others joining from the back) coming down from behind Admiralty Arch and into Whitehall - good chance to join up/force way through to Parliament Square, but not enough wanted to go for it. Not meeting up with anyone, I thought I'd get out after narrowly missing a couple of minor kettles.....

Thanks for the text updates from bods on here which helped.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 9, 2010)

spitfire said:


> Prince Charles and Camillas car attacked. Apparently (AP/Sky news)


 
i'm desperate for that to be true


----------



## wtfftw (Dec 9, 2010)

According to twitter they've moved on to regents and oxford st and topshop.


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is in the process of being stolen from them, yes. As I said earlier, better late than never to stop it.


 
and do what?  go back to nearly £4000 a year in tuition fees?


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 9, 2010)

Charles's car set alight! (Unconfirmed)


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 9, 2010)

sky news showing event in oxford street


----------



## xes (Dec 9, 2010)

They said on sky that it was just a kick to the car as it drove by. (Ernie, behave  wishful thinking wont make it happen)


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2010)

smokedout said:


> i'm desperate for that to be true


 
sounds like someone booted the car before it drove off. not the full-on attack i was hoping for tbh...


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Charles's car set alight! (Unconfirmed)


 
BBC said that it has been kicked a bit, then drove off.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 9, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Charles's car set alight! (Unconfirmed)



That's cos only you've said it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> and do what?  go back to nearly £4000 a year in tuition fees?


 
Keep fighting for the complete abolition of fees. Just because you oppose the coalition, that doesn't mean you support Labour.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

wtfftw said:


> According to twitter they've moved on to regents and oxford st and topshop.


 
B..b...b...but this is solely about tuition fees. Why _on earth_ would any of them go and target a tax-avoiding outlet?


----------



## yardbird (Dec 9, 2010)

wtfftw said:


> According to twitter they've moved on to regents and oxford st and topshop.


 
The car got a kicking apparently whilst on their way to The Paladium


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Keep fighting for the complete abolition of fees. Just because you oppose the coalition, that doesn't mean you support Labour.


 
Who was "fighting" for that before this kicked off?  Who is "fighting" for it now?


----------



## scifisam (Dec 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> Who was "fighting" for that before this kicked off?  Who is "fighting" for it now?


 
What, do you think these protests came out of nowhere? 

The reaction to these protests has shown up one of my now-ex-friends as a reactionary idiot. That's helpful in a way, I guess.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Dec 9, 2010)

Live Occupations


> if you’re arrested you have a right to FREE legal advice
> we recommend you use BINDMANS 020 7833 4433
> http://anticuts.com/2010/12/05/legal-advice-for-upcoming-demos/



If you know people who are on the protests, please send them a text asking them to contact GBCLegal if they were arrested/assaulted, witnessed an arrest/assault etc...


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 9, 2010)

I know what, let's abolish the police. Let the mob do what it likes.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> Who was "fighting" for that before this kicked off?  Who is "fighting" for it now?


Wut? It was in the Lib Dem manifesto. Remember the pledge? Jebus.

You forget that tuition fees were introduced by a Labour government, in isolation from other similar measures, whilst we were all still reeling from 18 years of Tory rule. It is precisely the betrayal by Labour followed by the betrayal by the Coalition, not to mention the betrayal by the Left in the form of the StWC, that has lit the touch paper and ended decades of political apathy. We ain't putting up with it any more. The last straw has been added to the camel's back. Hang on tight, 'cos it's gonna be a helluva ride.


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2010)

piss off gg.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 9, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I know what, let's abolish the police. Let the mob do what it likes.


 
Didn't have Police for most of history.


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

scifisam said:


> What, do you think these protests came out of nowhere?
> 
> The reaction to these protests has shown up one of my now-ex-friends as a reactionary idiot. That's helpful in a way, I guess.


 
No, I think the reaction to this is markedly different to what it would have been if Labour had introduced it, and for the life of me I cannot remember a demo demanding the old grant system be introduced for at least the last five years (which is a shame, because that was the best system for helping upward social mobility).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I know what, let's abolish the police. Let the mob do what it likes.


 
If the police want to support democracy, they should be giving the protesters the keys to the Palace of Westminster and an axe each with which to smash the building up. There ain't no democracy left in that place.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

Supreme court building under attack (in Parliament Square).


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I know what, let's abolish the police. Let the mob do what it likes.


 
No need to abolish an authoritarian organisation when you out number the cunts.

It's coming, you best get under the table


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 9, 2010)

killer b said:


> piss off gg.


 
Are you *really *33 years old ?



I thought this board came about as a reaction to thuggery ?


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

Bet the Corrie producers are cursing their luck. All that work to lose the ratings to the news channels.


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> Wut? It was in the Lib Dem manifesto. Remember the pledge? Jebus.
> 
> You forget that tuition fees were introduced by a Labour government, in isolation from other similar measures, whilst we were all still reeling from 18 years of Tory rule. It is precisely the betrayal by Labour followed by the betrayal by the Coalition, not to mention the betrayal by the Left in the form of the StWC, that has lit the touch paper and ended decades of political apathy. We ain't putting up with it any more. The last straw has been added to the camel's back. Hang on tight, 'cos it's gonna be a helluva ride.



Nonsense.  Its a Tory government (alright, ConDem  ) so people feel empowered to kick off against the traditional enemy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> No, I think the reaction to this is markedly different to what it would have been if Labour had introduced it, and for the life of me I cannot remember a demo demanding the old grant system be introduced for at least the last five years (which is a shame, because that was the best system for helping upward social mobility).


 
Can't we all agree that you're right, but that's gone. This hasn't.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> Supreme court building under attack (in Parliament Square).


 
That only opened last year  

(((buildings)))


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> Bet the Corrie producers are cursing their luck. All that work to lose the ratings to the news channels.


 
No they won't. Most of the population have better things to do than watch a bunch of idiots demonstrate their complete lack of intelligence.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> Nonsense.  Its a Tory government (alright, ConDem  ) so people feel empowered to kick off against the traditional enemy.


 
There is some truth to that, which makes what Labour did so much the worse. The tories are just being tories. When Labour started being tories too, that was a betrayal.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> No, I think the reaction to this is markedly different to what it would have been if Labour had introduced it, and for the life of me I cannot remember a demo demanding the old grant system be introduced for at least the last five years (which is a shame, because that was the best system for helping upward social mobility).


 
I'd say people are angrier because they're not just being fucked over, they're being fucked over by politicians that they voted for on the _specific_ pledge not to raise tuition fees. So yeah, the party involved does make a difference and for a bloody good reason.


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 9, 2010)

The BBC is giving some pathetic coverage.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2010)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> (((buildings)))


----------



## scifisam (Dec 9, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> No they won't. Most of the population have better things to do than watch a bunch of idiots demonstrate their complete lack of intelligence.


 
The characters on corrie don't seem _that_ dumb to me.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 9, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Most of the population have better things to do than watch a bunch of idiots demonstrate their complete lack of intelligence.



You've just summed up Corrie's audience, I'm afraid.

Edit: Damn you, Sam!


----------



## agricola (Dec 9, 2010)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> That only opened last year
> 
> (((buildings)))


 
Smashed up all the expensive bits as well, apparently.  Still, its made the glazing community's christmas.


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2010)

Just got back. It was fucking lively alright. Photos soon.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> No they won't. Most of the population have better things to do than watch a bunch of idiots demonstrate their complete lack of intelligence.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2010)

editor said:


> Just got back. It was fucking lively alright. Photos soon.


 
Well done ed. Wish I'd been in london today.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> The BBC is giving some pathetic coverage.


 
Who's that reporter, who now's taken his helmet off? What a cock.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 9, 2010)

"9 police injured" on the Beeb headlines. No mention of 22 protesters being injured.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Wish I'd been in london today.



March 26


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> No they won't. Most of the population have better things to do than watch a bunch of idiots demonstrate their complete lack of intelligence.


 
You don't understand history, gg. You don't understand what it is that governments fear.


----------



## spitfire (Dec 9, 2010)

that reporter on Sky is a total cunt.

edit: like i should be surprised.


----------



## xes (Dec 9, 2010)

I bet the agent provocatures have been having a fucking blast today


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> March 26


 
*marks diary*


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

BBC reporting TopShit windows smashed in....& fires...

Freedom to smash it up 

Keep up plod lol


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Dec 9, 2010)

Live corrie... live BBC news streaming... glass of wine...... 
 if Carlsberg made Thursday evenings


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2010)

Oxford Street sounds a hoot at the moment!


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 9, 2010)

Topshop windows


----------



## xes (Dec 9, 2010)

That fucking copper's laying it on a bit thick ain't she?


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> Bet the Corrie producers are cursing their luck. All that work to lose the ratings to the news channels.


 
Now I know you have lost the plot.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

agricola said:


> Nonsense.  Its a Tory government (alright, ConDem  ) so people feel empowered to kick off against the traditional enemy.


Bollocks. For most of these kids, Labour _were_ the enemy in May.



Mr.Bishie said:


> March 26


We're not fucking waiting that long!


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 9, 2010)

this is ace! proper unrest. charles and camilla got given a good scare it seems.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 9, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> Topshop windows



excellent


----------



## Belushi (Dec 9, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> this is ace! proper unrest. charles and camilla got given a good scare it seems.


 
Window on the car put through


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

Go, go, go!


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Dec 9, 2010)

Student protesters stop Belfast traffic
Hundreds of students have blocked a road in Belfast city center to protest against the UK government plans to increase university tuition fees. 

Police diverted traffic away from Donegal Square North where protesters including secondary school pupils and university students were gathering to raise their voice against government policies, the daily Belfast Telegraph reported. 

The student protesters gathered outside City Hall to urge Northern Ireland's politicians to honor their commitment to ensure that higher education is accessible for all. 

In Northern Ireland, universities currently charge up to a maximum of £3,290. 

Protest organizer, De La Salle College pupil Conal McLaughlin, said students were angry with the government plans. 

“An increase in fees would place higher education out of reach for many students and many are angry at the prospect they could be saddled with huge debts by the time they graduate”, the organizer said. 

“This is going to affect everyone who is currently in sixth year now - everyone my age,” he added. 

Besides a rise in tuition fees, students are also protesting over plans to cut universities' budgets. The coalition is planning to slash up to 80 percent from teaching budgets.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> We're not fucking waiting that long!



Patience!


----------



## twentythreedom (Dec 9, 2010)

police urge protesters to "calm down and go home"


----------



## twentythreedom (Dec 9, 2010)

that bitch copper is upset cos tourists can't go shopping!


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Dec 9, 2010)

Police lady whining about the "poor shoppers and tourists".


L.O.L.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 9, 2010)

10 Coppers seriously injured


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 9, 2010)

I hate this bitch.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 9, 2010)

she is such a lying panicking twat!


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Dec 9, 2010)

xes said:


> That fucking copper's laying it on a bit thick ain't she?


 
"...Acts of terror..."

Now the students are terrorists! 

The vast majority were peaceful. Kettling + police horse charges really didn't help.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 9, 2010)

Seen the tot' court top shop demo, the Sussex Police are now the mobile reserve  The police doing more of a blockage than the protestors are.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 9, 2010)

if anyone is in control 
they can't handle it when no one is


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 9, 2010)

cop wants to go home now


----------



## scifisam (Dec 9, 2010)

xes said:


> That fucking copper's laying it on a bit thick ain't she?


 
I think she's being quite reasonable. At least she's there as a copper, so it's to be expected that she's sticking up for her colleagues over and above anyone else - better than Aaron fucking Porter.

I probably just have low expectations when it comes to the police.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 9, 2010)

"Should be commended for bravery". Yeah, that twat in riot gear on an 8 foot horse who fell off it and put himself in the hospital was a right hero.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Sussex Police are now the mobile reserve


 
pmsl - that's it game over!


----------



## twentythreedom (Dec 9, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> "Should be commended for bravery". Yeah, that twat in riot gear on an 8 foot horse who fell off it and put himself in the hospital was a right hero.



i watched that several times over on sky+   -   the fucking fool couldn't handle his horse and then fell off. mention the cunt in dispatches at the very least!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> cop wants to go home now


 
His mam is worried. He only popped out for a pint of milk.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 9, 2010)

BBC Web "2000: Protesters are now attacking the Supreme Court builiding in Parliament Square. They are not thought to have got in." where the Hell's that? Anyway loads of Cops around the threatre... whose idea was it that that's the day the Prince should go?


----------



## DJ Squelch (Dec 9, 2010)




----------



## xes (Dec 9, 2010)

lol @ the picture of the car


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

lopsidedbunny said:


> BBC Web "2000: Protesters are now attacking the Supreme Court builiding in Parliament Square.



That's all over - plod dispercence imminent, but numbers still too strong to be effective. Maybe CS within the next hour to wrap it up?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

DJ Squelch said:


>


 
lmao


----------



## Sean (Dec 9, 2010)

Fucking genius! His family's not always had good experiences with cars has it?


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2010)




----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 9, 2010)

The BBC website are saying that the protestor marched through Whitehall at 12 o'clock well I was there and I ddidn't see anything like that happening. Or did it?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

That's the BBC reporting knobber - "Ooooo, the graffiti!"


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 9, 2010)




----------



## WWWeed (Dec 9, 2010)

killer b said:


>


 
I saw that! I'm so glad someone got a pic! it was too quick for me 

The look on this face as he peeled it off live on TV was priceless!


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 9, 2010)

Which Regent Street Shop got hit then? See BBC webbie. I was there and must had walked passed.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

xes said:


> lol @ the picture of the car


 
As funny as that is  , it's hardly going to help to get public support, the Royal Family remain very popular amongst the wider public.

Attacking government buildings is one thing; this is not so good.   

Overall I can see all this leading to a massive clamp-down on future demos, and a much more heavy handed response from the old bill.


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Overall I can see all this leading to a massive clamp-down on future demos, and a much more heavy handed response from the old bill.


 
there's more of us than them.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 9, 2010)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Student protesters stop Belfast traffic
> Hundreds of students have blocked a road in Belfast city center to protest against the UK government plans to increase university tuition fees.
> 
> Police diverted traffic away from Donegal Square North where protesters including secondary school pupils and university students were gathering to raise their voice against government policies, the daily Belfast Telegraph reported.
> ...


 





a placard from the protest, it was led by secondary school kids and it was still them there into the evening, they were totally self organised and clued in, fair fucks to them.

There was also a placard that said "Malcolm Tucker couldn't spin this!".

Also agricola, fuck off you sad old cunt, have you ever considered that people have learnt the lessons of the Iraq protest, coupled with the fact that the issue isn't just tuition fees but a whole host of cuts including to the EMA. You seem to want to sit and smugly gripe "where were these protests back in so and so", yeah it would have been better then, but then again back then some old cunt like yourself would have been saying "why is it only now".

Maybe you should take something from the fact there is now something of a fightback that should and needs to be supported, rather than smugly patting yourself on the back because you "cared about these issues" before they became popular, it just makes you sound like a fuckwit music snob who hates a band cos their fanbase expanded beyond you and your self important mates.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

killer b said:


>


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 9, 2010)

Well somone's head will roll for example leaving the DIY store in the middle of P' Square, the person who decided that the Prince of all day should go to the threatre today. Hmmm


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 9, 2010)

The BBC coverage is fucking laugable - who was the nob in the helmet? picking up bits of concrete and saying 'this could be a potentially lethal weapon!' 

rock on students! Lets hope this is just the start.


----------



## IC3D (Dec 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> As funny as that is  , it's hardly going to help to get public support, the Royal Family remain very popular amongst the wider public.


 What use are these people either way frankly.


----------



## newharper (Dec 9, 2010)

BBC news coverage is a joke


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 9, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> The BBC coverage is fucking laugable - who was the nob in the helmet? picking up bits of concrete and saying 'this could be a potentially lethal weapon!'
> .



Yeah agreed, massively annoying coverage, I saw said helmetted knob on BBC News just now and my reaction was  ...

I'm getting better bits of information on here ...


----------



## WWWeed (Dec 9, 2010)

newharper said:


> BBC news coverage is a joke


 
I know! it's been funnier than some of the BBC's comedy!


----------



## revol68 (Dec 9, 2010)

IC3D said:


> What use are these people either way frankly.


 
they aren't, fixating on some vague 'public opinion' is retarded a sure fire way of making yourself lose, it's about ability to impose yourself and your demands, not about what some twat thinks or says whilst reading his paper on a tea break.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 9, 2010)

Lol.


----------



## stupid kid (Dec 9, 2010)

Im on my way back. Spent most of the last three hours marching and chanting random stuff. Best chant was your jobs next, to the police. Looked like some lads were gonna try to pull down the tree in trafalgur sq at one point but it didnt happen.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 9, 2010)

teuchter said:


> I'm sure the RMT drivers would be fully cooperative with such an operation.


 
One of the scab former army managers would do the task.


----------



## Flanflinger (Dec 9, 2010)

William of Walworth said:


> Yeah agreed, massively annoying coverage, I saw said helmetted knob on BBC News just now and my reaction was  ...
> 
> I'm getting better bits of information on here ...


 
Yeah but your info is coming from dickheads who didn't have the guts to go down there themselves.


----------



## Flanflinger (Dec 9, 2010)

stupid kid said:


> Im on my way back. Spent most of the last three hours marching and chanting random stuff. Best chant was your jobs next, to the police. Looked like some lads were gonna try to pull down the tree in trafalgur sq at one point but it didnt happen.



Ironic user name.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 9, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Lol.


picture of the year!


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> The BBC coverage is fucking laugable - who was the nob in the helmet? picking up bits of concrete and saying 'this could be a potentially lethal weapon!'



Are you being serious? 

FFS a piece of concrete of that size hitting you on the head could potentially kill, hence the reason for the helmet, if I were him in that position I would be wearing one - nothing laughable about that. 



IC3D said:


> What use are these people either way frankly.



What people, the royals or the public?


----------



## cantsin (Dec 9, 2010)

masked up asian kid on BeeB now with  his  mates saying "Im from the slums of London, how am I gonna pay 9k per year " ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 9, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Yeah but your info is coming from dickheads who didn't have the guts to go down there themselves.



BBC and Flanflinger in failed objectivity contest ...


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

newharper said:


> BBC news coverage is a joke



I keep seeing this, is Sky doing a better job?


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 9, 2010)

Wooo watching the BBC the police are moving in.



> 2050: The few hundred remaining protesters in Parliament Square are expected to be marshalled over Westminster Bridge to the South Bank and then dispersed, the BBC's Ben Brown says.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Yeah but your info is coming from dickheads who didn't have the guts to go down there themselves.


 
What's your beef?


----------



## nick h. (Dec 9, 2010)

Does anyone think this ruckus could actually force a change in govt policy? I like to think it could, if the demos keep happening. I'd like to see demos leading the news every week until the govt has a rethink. But am I being naive? Could we really get a Poll Tax-style climbdown and the humiliation of a PM? I don't think it's going to happen unless this dastardly kettling can be overcome. Basically we need much, much bigger demos and more disruption to London life. Doesn't have to be property damage necessarily - anything which paralyses London would do the job. The students need to persuade the rest of the population to join them on the barricades. But I can't see this happening while the media and the NUS are banging on about a small minority of criminal thugs who don't represent anyone. I'm afraid we need sweet, innocent teenagers to be hurt by the police if the grown-ups are going to take to the streets.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 9, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> What's your beef?


 
he's a cock


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Are you being serious?
> 
> FFS a piece of concrete of that size hitting you on the head could potentially kill, hence the reason for the helmet, if I were him in that position I would be wearing one - nothing laughable about that.



lol


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 9, 2010)

You have upset Boris.


----------



## WWWeed (Dec 9, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Yeah but your info is coming from dickheads who didn't have the guts to go down there themselves.


 
I was there! and this was my placard of the day:


----------



## WWWeed (Dec 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> I keep seeing this, is Sky doing a better job?


 
dont be so silly...


----------



## stupid kid (Dec 9, 2010)

How about a mass campaign of non-payment? That way it'll just end up costing the govt the same


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

WWWeed said:


> I was there! and this was my placard of the day:


----------



## Sean (Dec 9, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Yeah but your info is coming from dickheads who didn't have the guts to go down there themselves.


 
You're an utter bellend, Flanflinger. I've read your posts today and you're an oxygen thief.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> lol


 
What's lol about that?

When I saw the reporter in a helmet he was on the police line outside one of the government buildings and you could see the ‘missiles’ raining down in the background, the cops had their helmets & shields - why should a reporter not be protected?


----------



## DRINK? (Dec 9, 2010)

so the bill was passed...police pick up overtime, london messed up a bit but the vast majority don't give a fuck...and the earth still spins


----------



## smokedout (Dec 9, 2010)

nice to see homophobia alive and well


----------



## stupid kid (Dec 9, 2010)

Flanfinger, how is my name ironic please?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 9, 2010)

The libdem rollcall of shame:

Danny Alexander
Norman Baker
Sir Alan Beith
Gordon Birtwistle
Tom Brake 
Jeremy Browne 
Malcolm Bruce
Paul Burstow
Vincent Cable
Alistair Carmichael 
Nick Clegg 
Edward Davey 
Lynne Featherstone
Don Foster
Stephen Gilbert
Duncan Hames
Nick Harvey
David Heath
John Hemming
Norman Lamb
David Laws
Michael Moore
Andrew Stunell 
Jo Swinson
Sarah Teather 
David Ward
Steve Webb


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 9, 2010)

Oh dear watching the BBC footage of the "prince" attack now talk to someone that we could axe now and save a pot from his pension


----------



## girasol (Dec 9, 2010)

I think it's outrageous royalty is watching the royal performance show on such an important day - they got a way lightly IMO.


----------



## spitfire (Dec 9, 2010)

If this is what it's like in the middle of winter, fuck knows what it will be like in the heat of summer.

I suppose it depends if the momentum keeps up. 

Lots of Ifs/buts/maybes?

When is the next big one? Maybe some of us retirees could come out of sofa retirement?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 9, 2010)

Tories who voted against:

David Davis (against)
Julian Lewis (against)
Andrew Percy (against)
Jason McCartney(against)
Philip Davies(against)
Mark Reckless(against)


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 9, 2010)

The self righteous prick was introduced several times as being 'with the protesters' when he has spent the whole day with the cops - and (true to bbc tradition) is completely on their side. 
If he'd been with the students he'd have been arrested for wearing a helmet - and far more likely to be injured.

lol at chas and camilla's car getting attacked!


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 9, 2010)

Now you know how Diane felt Charlie, you twat.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

WWWeed said:


> dont be so silly...



Well why is everyone having a go at the BBC coverage? Is anyone doing it better? 

It seems reasonable enough to me under the circumstances of 'rolling news' covering a different story that is kicking off in different parts of the city.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> What's lol about that?
> 
> When I saw the reporter in a helmet he was on the police line outside one of the government buildings and you could see the ‘missiles’ raining down in the background, the cops had their helmets & shields - why should a reporter not be protected?


 
"A piece of concrete that size."

Breaking it up into smaller bits to throw, yeah 

Plus he's a knob.


----------



## twentythreedom (Dec 9, 2010)

met: "a significant number of people behaved very badly"

LOLZ - were they wearing blue helmets?


----------



## xes (Dec 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Well why is everyone having a go at the BBC coverage? Is anyone doing it better?
> 
> It seems reasonable enough to me under the circumstances of 'rolling news' covering a different story that is kicking off in different parts of the city.


 You're not going to get fair and balanced news reporting on a protest, from the BBC, SKY or any of the mainstream media outlets. They are all completly biased, and put their spin on everything.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The libdem rollcall of shame:
> 
> Danny Alexander
> Norman Baker
> ...


 
All deserve a kicking.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

DRINK? said:


> so the bill was passed...police pick up overtime, london messed up a bit but the vast majority don't give a fuck...and the earth still spins



That about sums it up, and most the country is watching fucking Coronation Street.


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2010)

fuck me.  chas's car got driven through the crowd of protestors. what the fuck? that's practically entrapment...


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

nick h. said:


> Does anyone think this ruckus could actually force a change in govt policy? I like to think it could, if the demos keep happening. I'd like to see demos leading the news every week until the govt has a rethink. But am I being naive? Could we really get a Poll Tax-style climbdown and the humiliation of a PM? I don't think it's going to happen unless this dastardly kettling can be overcome. Basically we need much, much bigger demos and more disruption to London life. Doesn't have to be property damage necessarily - anything which paralyses London would do the job. The students need to persuade the rest of the population to join them on the barricades. But I can't see this happening while the media and the NUS are banging on about a small minority of criminal thugs who don't represent anyone. I'm afraid we need sweet, innocent teenagers to be hurt by the police if the grown-ups are going to take to the streets.


 
You forget that there is a weak link in this government. They need the Lib Dems to allow them to hang onto power. Govt majority of 84 21 with 28 Lib Dems abstaining ... we're more than half way there.


----------



## xes (Dec 9, 2010)

killer b said:


> fuck me.  chas's car got driven through the crowd of protestors. what the fuck? that's practically entrapment...


 
Blatent set up is blatent. Cracking media oppertunity, mind.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

girasol said:


> I think it's outrageous royalty is watching the royal performance show on such an important day - they got a way lightly IMO.



And you don't think the show was planned well before this protest.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 9, 2010)

DRINK? said:


> so the bill was passed...police pick up overtime, london messed up a bit but the vast majority don't give a fuck...and the earth still spins


 
christ, what a pathetic attitude, seeing 16 year olds with more wit and integrity than you, standing up against the further marketisation of education and the wider cuts against the working class gives me some hope, you on the other hand should feel like a sad old dick.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> And you don't think the show was planned well before this protest.


 
your sarcasm detector is on the blink


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Tories who voted against:
> 
> David Davis (against)
> Julian Lewis (against)
> ...


 
Deserve a kicking anyway for being Tories.


----------



## twentythreedom (Dec 9, 2010)

mark reckless?? isn't he just!


----------



## nick h. (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> You forget that there is a weak link in this government. They need the Lib Dems to allow them to hang onto power. Govt majority of 84 21 with 28 Lib Dems abstaining ... we're more than half way there.


 
So there's a chance the govt will fall and be replaced by Red Ed - what will it take? How could it happen? The govt has won its vote, so aren't they safe for now? And what's Labour policy on tuition fees anyway?


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2010)

mark reckless gets a pass for having the coolest name in parliament though.


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 9, 2010)

xes said:


> Blatent set up is blatent. Cracking media oppertunity, mind.


 
Never underestimate the stupidty of the police.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2010)

killer b said:


> mark reckless gets a pass for having the coolest name in parliament though.


 
Indeed. A punk Tory!


----------



## ethel (Dec 9, 2010)

killer b said:


> mark reckless gets a pass for having the coolest name in parliament though.



and he emailed me about southeastern trains yesterday.


----------



## rekil (Dec 9, 2010)

killer b said:


> mark reckless gets a pass for having the coolest name in parliament though.


 Then gets it taken away again for being a genuine couldn't give a fuck tory yahoo. Mark Reckless MP sorry for being 'too drunk to vote'.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

nick h. said:


> So there's a chance the govt will fall and be replaced by Red Ed - what will it take? How could it happen? The govt has won its vote, so aren't they safe for now? And what's Labour policy on tuition fees anyway?


 
If they lose a vote of no confidence, the government falls. If the Lib Dems withdraw, or enough of them resign the whip, the government falls. They haven't passed the fixed term parliament bill yet, but current provision in that this would allow two weeks for a government which could command the confidence of the house to be formed, or an election has to be called.

A government which cannot pass legislation cannot continue. This one is very. very vulnerable.

Labour are touting a graduate tax at the moment. Doesn't matter - we should aim to bring them down too, if they don't toe the line. On cuts in general, that is. This is not just about tuition fees.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 9, 2010)

newharper said:


> BBC news coverage is a joke



Yeah, it's almost on a par with MurdochNews. Fucking shameful


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 9, 2010)

DJ Squelch said:


>


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> "A piece of concrete that size."
> 
> Breaking it up into smaller bits to throw, yeah
> 
> Plus he's a knob.



Have you actually been watching?

They broke up large blocks into smaller pieces, from about the size of a brick down to large stone size.

I wouldn't fancy a large stone hitting my head, and a brick-size piece could easily kill.     

But, I would agree he's a bit of a knob anyway.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 9, 2010)

We need more of these! My pic of the day.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Have you actually been watching?
> 
> *They broke up large blocks into smaller pieces, from about the size of a brick down to large stone size.*
> 
> ...



good!


----------



## nick h. (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> If they lose a vote of no confidence, the government falls. If the Lib Dems withdraw, or enough of them resign the whip, the government falls. They haven't passed the fixed term parliament bill yet, but current provision in that this would allow two weeks for a government which could command the confidence of the house to be formed, or an election has to be called.
> 
> A government which cannot pass legislation cannot continue. This one is very. very vulnerable.
> 
> Labour are touting a graduate tax at the moment. Doesn't matter - we should aim to bring them down too, if they don't toe the line. On cuts in general, that is. This is not just about tuition fees.


 
But I can't see the Libdems allowing the govt to fall - they'd be giving up their best chance of ending the two party system. They'd be back in the wildnerness for the rest of the century.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> If they lose a vote of no confidence, the government falls. If the Lib Dems withdraw, or enough of them resign the whip, the government falls.



Do you seriously think the LibDems are going to bring the house of cards down with their current poll ratings?

It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

nick h. said:


> But I can't see the Libdems allowing the govt to fall - they'd be giving up their best chance of ending the two party system. They'd be back in the wildnerness for the rest of the century.


 
Clegg won't. But it ain't his choice. The MPs know they will all lose their seats because of this - they owe him no loyalty. The party has far, far more power in local councils than they do in parliament - the councillors will lose their seats too. It only takles 75 constituency parties (approx one in eight) to force a leadership election.

It's up to us to keep the pressure up. They won't get away with this, and enough careerists realising this can force the government to fall regardless of what the leadership wants.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

xes said:


> You're not going to get fair and balanced news reporting on a protest, from the BBC, SKY or any of the mainstream media outlets. They are all completly biased, and put their spin on everything.


 
Genuine question, where has there been anything bias in the BBC’s rolling coverage of the protests? 

Only I’ve had it on in the background all afternoon and it seemed fair enough to me, their reporters seemed genuinely surprised and shocked when the police made the fucking stupid horse charge, which was shown in full from the air.


----------



## rekil (Dec 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> I wouldn't fancy a large stone hitting my head, and a brick-size piece could easily kill.


 Only if they learn to throw it properly, .


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

The Lib Dem, as a political party, are over.

Next objective, bring down the Coalition


----------



## stupid kid (Dec 9, 2010)

nick h. said:


> But I can't see the Libdems allowing the govt to fall - they'd be giving up their best chance of ending the two party system. They'd be back in the wildnerness for the rest of the century.


 
They've basically ensured this happens anyway.


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2010)

copliker said:


> Then gets it taken away again for being a genuine couldn't give a fuck tory yahoo. Mark Reckless MP sorry for being 'too drunk to vote'.


 
i like him all the more for that tbh. a shame to send him to the lime pits, but we all have to make sacrifices.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> Clegg won't. But it ain't his choice. The MPs know they will all lose their seats because of this - they owe him no loyalty. The party has far, far more power in local councils than they do in parliament - the councillors will lose their seats too. It only takles 75 constituency parties (approx one in eight) to force a leadership election.


 
You seriously think the bulk of LibDems would fall on their own swords by bringing on an early election and getting themselves kicked out to save a few councillors? 

They will hang in there hoping that things will get better over the next four years, most of this will be forgotten, and they'll have at least some chance of saving their sorry arses - FFS they are politicians, not people of principal.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 9, 2010)




----------



## spitfire (Dec 9, 2010)

Both channels have now dropped coverage of the bridge.........

Maybe not a great place to be right now.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 9, 2010)

stupid kid said:


> Looked like some lads were gonna try to pull down the tree in trafalgur sq at one point but it didnt happen.



Why carry out that specific piece of pointless vandalism?


----------



## where to (Dec 9, 2010)

Clare Solomon on twitter:



> I'm 'not at all impressed' with the shabby response by Aaron Porter to today's fantastic demo & Shutdown London. NUS/UCU rally + glowstick vigil of 200 people= £12,000 (incl 60 paid professional security guards/stewards): ULU/LSA/London Region UCU March on Parliament of 50,000 = £600. This is just the beginning...


----------



## girasol (Dec 9, 2010)

spitfire said:


> If this is what it's like in the middle of winter, fuck knows what it will be like in the heat of summer.
> 
> I suppose it depends if the momentum keeps up.
> 
> ...


 
I hear there's one on Saturday for people what work


----------



## rekil (Dec 9, 2010)

killer b said:


> i like him all the more for that tbh. a shame to send him to the lime pits, but we all have to make sacrifices.


 


> Reckless is the grandson of Henry McDevitt, a Fianna Fáil Teachta Dála for Donegal East in the Dáil Éireann from 1938 until 1943.


He's one of ours, the lime pits it is and that's the end of it.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> You seriously think the bulk of LibDems would fall on their own swords by bringing on an early election and getting themselves kicked out to save a few councillors?
> 
> They will hang in there hoping that things will get better over the next four years, most of this will be forgotten, and they'll have at least some chance of saving their sorry arses - FFS they are politicians, not people of principal.


You appear not to have read, or at least comprehended, my post. I'll not bother repeating it.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 9, 2010)

shaman75 said:


>




Intresting, I watched that on the BBC on telly at work the person who filmed that clip was a Police Constable.

I am not pulling your leg here.

------0

Reviewing the clip it appear to be a t.v. footage, you do see the police with the camera run in front of the clp. Oh hum!


----------



## spitfire (Dec 9, 2010)

girasol said:


> I hear there's one on Saturday for people what work


 
oh rly?


----------



## twentythreedom (Dec 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Genuine question, where has there been anything bias in the BBC’s rolling coverage of the protests?
> 
> their reporters seemed genuinely surprised and shocked when the police made the fucking stupid horse charge



surprised? why did they bring crash helmets?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2010)




----------



## nick h. (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> Clegg won't. But it ain't his choice. The MPs know they will all lose their seats because of this - they owe him no loyalty. The party has far, far more power in local councils than they do in parliament - the councillors will lose their seats too. It only takles 75 constituency parties (approx one in eight) to force a leadership election.
> 
> It's up to us to keep the pressure up. They won't get away with this, and enough careerists realising this can force the government to fall regardless of what the leadership wants.



But if you're a Lib Dem MP you've got to choose between the lesser of two evils (a) bring down the govt, be hated, and get no votes in the next election or two, and back to the two party system indefinitely, or (b) keep the coalition together, pass some sort of PR bill, be hated, get no votes for an election or two, but retain some chance of getting power again one day.  Of course they'd have a tough sell on their hands if PR comes down to a simple public referendum - but perhaps the Tories will bribe them with something more winnable.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

spitfire said:


> Both channels have now dropped coverage of the bridge.........
> 
> Maybe not a great place to be right now.


 

Still on BBC 24


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2010)

Some pics:
















More here: http://www.urban75.org/blog/parliament-student-protest-photos/


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> You appear not to have read, or at least comprehended, my post. I'll not bother repeating it.



I comprehended what you were suggesting, you seem to think the party can change the leadership and a new leader could force their MPs to bring down the coalition, in theory with shitloads of ifs and buts that could happen.

Talking to local LibDem councillors and activists that's so unlikely that's in way off in cloud cuckoo land, as you appear to be.   

FFS earlier you posted the suggestion that Coronation Street was going to loss out on ratings to the News Channels, I seriously suggest you try to get a grip on your imagination.


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2010)

nick h. said:


> But if you're a Lib Dem MP you've got to choose between the lesser of two evils (a) bring down the govt, be hated, and get no votes in the next election or two, and back to the two party system indefinitely, or (b) keep the coalition together, pass some sort of PR bill, be hated, get no votes for an election or two, but retain some chance of getting power again one day.  Of course they'd have a tough sell on their hands if PR comes down to a simple public referendum - but perhaps the Tories will bribe them with something more winnable.


the problem with your second scenario, nick, is that _they aren't going to pass a PR bill_. so either way they're fucked.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

editor said:


> Some pics:




Poor horse


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 9, 2010)

So what happening to the protestors in the South Bank? Any News?


----------



## nick h. (Dec 9, 2010)

killer b said:


> the problem with your second scenario, nick, is that _they aren't going to pass a PR bill_. so either way they're fucked.


 

Why not? I thought the Tories had to deliver it to keep the coalition together. But I've been abroad all year so I don't know the details.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 9, 2010)

Watching the BBC the protestors are still on Westminster Bridge out of sight out of mind


----------



## IC3D (Dec 9, 2010)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Watching the BBC the protestors are still on Westminster Bridge out of sight out of mind


 like peaceful protest.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

nick h. said:


> But if you're a Lib Dem MP you've got to choose between the lesser of two evils (a) bring down the govt, be hated, and get no votes in the next election or two, and back to the two party system indefinitely, or (b) keep the coalition together, pass some sort of PR bill, be hated, get no votes for an election or two, but retain some chance of getting power again one day.  Of course they'd have a tough sell on their hands if PR comes down to a simple public referendum - but perhaps the Tories will bribe them with something more winnable.


 
They'll be dead as a parliamentary party for a generation. There's no way back for them now. It comes down to whether they can salvage the local parties - ie whether the local parties decide to fight for their own political lives and screw the MPs. That's where their power base is. 4000 councillors and dozens of councils where they hold power or the balance of power.


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2010)

nick h. said:


> Why not? I thought the Tories had to deliver it to keep the coalition together. But I've been abroad all year so I don't know the details.


 
they've got a referendum on AV (which is the weakest possible form of PR) next year, which they will almost certainly lose. there won't be another referendum this parliament, so that's their lot. 

once they lose the referendum (and all their councillors get wiped out in the local elections on the same day), they may get a bit more nervous on the lib dem benches.


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 9, 2010)

Good pics ed.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

twentythreedom said:


> surprised? why did they bring crash helmets?


 
Are you seriously that fucking stupid? 

Err, ‘missiles’ raining down were a fairly predictable outcome no matter what else happened, hence having helmets for protection, and were occurring before the police horse charge, which the BBC reporters were clearly surprised by.

Where you watching at the time?


----------



## weepiper (Dec 9, 2010)

killer b said:


> they've got a referendum on AV (which is the weakest possible form of PR) next year, which they will almost certainly lose. there won't be another referendum this parliament, so that's their lot.
> 
> once they lose the referendum (and all their councillors get wiped out in the local elections on the same day), they may get a bit more nervous on the lib dem benches.


 
we have a Scottish Parliamentary election next year, and the Scottish Lib-Dems are absolutely HUMPED after today.


----------



## DRINK? (Dec 9, 2010)

editor said:


> Some pics:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
That first photo is quality...one picture and all that


----------



## killer b (Dec 9, 2010)

weepiper said:


> we have a Scottish Parliamentary election next year, and the Scottish Lib-Dems are absolutely HUMPED after today.


 
5% in scotland atm aren't they?


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

killer b said:


> 5% in scotland atm aren't they?


 
Yep! 1% behind UKIP.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2010)

Great pics, ed!


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> They'll be dead as a parliamentary party for a generation. There's no way back for them now. It comes down to whether they can salvage the local parties - ie whether the local parties decide to fight for their own political lives and screw the MPs. That's where their power base is. 4000 councillors and dozens of councils where they hold power or the balance of power.



The local parties CAN NOT force their MPs to fall on their own swords, even if they elect a new leader.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

Nice pic


----------



## stupid kid (Dec 9, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Why carry out that specific piece of pointless vandalism?


 
No idea. Especially since it didn't happen.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> The local parties CAN NOT force their MPs to fall on their own swords, even if they elect a new leader.


Wut? You think the local parties would force a leadership election, and then vote for a leader who won't take them out of the coalition?

Yeah, sure.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 9, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Nice pic


 
Fuck me those pigeons are getting big!


----------



## revol68 (Dec 9, 2010)

lol sky news just had a clip of an aspy nerd student from central castings cwying about how he didn't expect such violence, lol.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 9, 2010)

Just read the whole thread, all very encouraging especially when coupled with what's been happening with wikileaks and anonymous.

And people on here are right. The real riots are coming, this is just a taster. I didn't realise that gentlegreen was an idiot before today either but as they say, scratch a liberal...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

8ball said:


> Fuck me those pigeons are getting big!


 
And they're growing bigger by the day.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 9, 2010)

Right I'm to see what's happening in the South Bank area. No news of them.


----------



## xes (Dec 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Genuine question, where has there been anything bias in the BBC’s rolling coverage of the protests?
> 
> Only I’ve had it on in the background all afternoon and it seemed fair enough to me, their reporters seemed genuinely surprised and shocked when the police made the fucking stupid horse charge, which was shown in full from the air.


 Only every protest ever. The way they always and I mean always, side with the police. even after Ian Tomlinson as killed, they still just chugged along on the official line. Never deviating. What else would you expect?


----------



## SF-02 (Dec 9, 2010)

They are bring held on the bridge in the freezing cold. Been over an hour now despite being told it was only going to be for 'a very short time' on loudspeaker.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

xes said:


> Only every protest ever. The way they always and I mean always, side with the police. even after Ian Tomlinson as killed, they still just chugged along on the official line. Never deviating. What else would you expect?


 
Innit. Fuck the BBC.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 9, 2010)

Only 20 police injured? Why aren't more of these cunts getting hospitalised? Next time, hopefully.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 9, 2010)

SF-02 said:


> They are bring held on the bridge in the freezing cold. Been over an hour now despite being told it was only going to be for 'a very short time' on loudspeaker.


 
1,000 of us kettled on westminster bridge now chanting "this is not a riot" with hands in the air. via twitter #dayx3


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

SF-02 said:


> They are bring held on the bridge in the freezing cold. Been over an hour now despite being told it was only going to be for 'a very short time' on loudspeaker.


 
Clever tactic, it'll be even colder on the River so the police probably think they'll freeze them into submission


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

Break on through!


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 9, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Lol.


That look on Camilla's face. Priceless.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 9, 2010)

Message from many members of the RHACA currently protesting in London:

"Thousands and thousands of young people, workers and lecturers have been kettled for 6 hours and up in Parliament Square and now on Westminster Bridge for more than an hour. No access to toilets, water or food. It is very cold. Please spread and disseminate this message."

Check out the London Student Journalist Support Network blog a student view of how todays events unfolded and continue to do so. lsjsn.wordpress.com


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 9, 2010)

stupid kid said:


> Looked like some lads were gonna try to pull down the tree in trafalgur sq at one point but it didnt happen.





Cobbles said:


> Why carry out that specific piece of pointless vandalism?





stupid kid said:


> No idea. Especially since it didn't happen.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2010)

dennisr said:


> Message from many members of the RHACA currently protesting in London:
> 
> "Thousands and thousands of young people, workers and lecturers have been kettled for 6 hours and up in Parliament Square and now on Westminster Bridge for more than an hour. No access to toilets, water or food. It is very cold. Please spread and disseminate this message."


 
Fuckin' pig cunts.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 9, 2010)

dennisr said:


> Message from many members of the RHACA currently protesting in London:
> 
> "Thousands and thousands of young people, workers and lecturers have been kettled for 6 hours and up in Parliament Square and now on Westminster Bridge for more than an hour. No access to toilets, water or food. It is very cold. Please spread and disseminate this message."
> 
> Check out the London Student Journalist Support Network blog a student view of how todays events unfolded and continue to do so. lsjsn.wordpress.com


 
More news from the ground on that kettle:

riotsarah 
@UCLOccupation most of Manchester Occupation kettled there. New Scot Yard promised to let them get their coaches. Stranded overnight. Vile.


----------



## twentythreedom (Dec 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Are you seriously that fucking stupid?
> 
> Where you watching at the time?



no, yes. surely one shouldn't be surprised...


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 9, 2010)

I think they should all jump off the bridge like Lemmings, preferably onto a passing barge


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> I think they should all jump off the bridge like Lemmings, preferably onto a passing barge


 
The police or the students?


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 9, 2010)

I'm not fussy


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 9, 2010)

SF-02 said:


> They are bring held on the bridge in the freezing cold. Been over an hour now despite being told it was only going to be for 'a very short time' on loudspeaker.


 
Lovely how the BBC "news ticker" says police are "trying to move protesters across Westminster Bridge".


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> Wut? You think the local parties would force a leadership election, and then vote for a leader who won't take them out of the coalition?
> 
> Yeah, sure.



Jesbus, you are totally detached from reality aren’t you? 

Pray tell us, oh great one, how the fucking hell is any new LibDem leader going to force any of their MPs to do what he/she wants, when even the current one hasn’t managed to do that today? 

If the local parties tried to force that on their MPs you would see the parliamentary party split, with deflections to both the Tories & Labour and/or two LibDem sets like the ‘national Liberals’ and ‘official Liberals’ of the 30s, resulting in total meltdown at local level too.

No matter what shit they are in at moment, they are not going to repeat history.

Besides they only just survived the 50s and into the 60s because of handful of constituencies in Scotland and Wales that clung onto their Liberal traditions, I can’t see that happening this time around – they would be totally fucked.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

8ball said:


> Fuck me those pigeons are getting big!


----------



## kenny g (Dec 9, 2010)

I can imagine some heads are being scratched as to how future protests can be policed.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

revol68 said:


> lol sky news just had a clip of an aspy nerd student from central castings cwying about how he didn't expect such violence, lol.


'Aspy' as a term of abuse? Fuck the fuck off.



Citizen66 said:


> Just read the whole thread, all very encouraging especially when coupled with what's been happening with wikileaks and anonymous.
> 
> And people on here are right. The real riots are coming, this is just a taster. I didn't realise that gentlegreen was an idiot before today either but as they say, scratch a liberal...


Oh aye, the news was a peach tonight. Student protests -> Anonymous protests -> imprisoned Chinese dissident -> MPs sanctioned over expenses. 



claphamboy said:


> Jesbus, you are totally detached from reality aren’t you?
> 
> Pray tell us, oh great one, how the fucking hell is any new LibDem leader going to force any of their MPs to do what he/she wants, when even the current one hasn’t managed to do that today?
> 
> ...


Wut?


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 9, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> And they're growing bigger by the day.


 
I wonder what the london pigeons make of it, flying around getting a scrap here or there ,and all of sudden all these students queering the pitch


----------



## ddraig (Dec 9, 2010)

and turn it in cb boy


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 9, 2010)

Ey up, these lads are spot on. Tell it.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 9, 2010)

Still more bullshit from the BBC bloke - saying the coppers on Westminster Bridge explained the protesters would be kept for a while and to be patient, which is bollocks - I was watching earlier & some cop over the PA said you'll only be a few minutes.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 9, 2010)

I get the feeling I'm the only one watching News 24...


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 9, 2010)




----------



## Blagsta (Dec 9, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> I get the feeling I'm the only one watching News 24...


 
naaah, I'm watching it too


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> I get the feeling I'm the only one watching News 24...


 
Question Time innit. First question: have the Lib Dems signed their own death warrant today. Belly laugh from the audience when Norman Lamb said "no".


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 9, 2010)

shaman75 said:


>


 
A great picture ,that will be used for many years to come


----------



## magneze (Dec 9, 2010)

shaman75 said:


>


amazing pic.

Nice one students!


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> Question Time innit. First question: have the Lib Dems signed their own death warrant today. Belly laugh from the audience when Norman Lamb said "no".


 
forgot about QT, cheers


----------



## stupid kid (Dec 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> J
> Pray tell us, oh great one, how the fucking hell is any new LibDem leader going to force any of their MPs to do what he/she wants, when even the current one hasn’t managed to do that today?


 
This might sound crazy but how about lead them on an ideological pathway that is concurrent with their election manifesto? You know, since that's what they all stood for and got elected on. Instead of basically fucking up their entire party. God I'd hate to be a LD MP in the next election.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> Wut?



Oh, OK, you're too thick to engage with.

I'll leave you to go back to your dream world of 'it's war' (no it's a fairly minor demo, hardly anyone hurt, no one killed), 'coronation street is going to loss out on ratings to the news channels (I'll leave the ratings next week to prove otherwise) and your fantasies about LibDems being [any further] suicidal.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> Question Time innit. First question: have the Lib Dems signed their own death warrant today. Belly laugh from the audience when Norman Lamb said "no".



Shit. Of course it is. All over with me days, what with the wife being off ill and the Boy only back at school yesterday.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 9, 2010)

> Never before has a government trembled in the face of thousands of sixth formers all dancing to dubstep.



Newsnight 2010.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

stupid kid said:


> This might sound crazy but how about lead them on an ideological pathway that is concurrent with their election manifesto? You know, since that's what they all stood for and got elected on. Instead of basically fucking up their entire party. God I'd hate to be a LD MP in the next election.


This might sound crazy, but a leader elected on a platform of taking them out of the coalition would have to do just that ... fuck knows what claphamboy is going on about.


----------



## kenny g (Dec 9, 2010)

newsnight's first 30 mins was great!


----------



## stupid kid (Dec 9, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Newsnight 2010.


 
I have stolen this for my facebook.


----------



## newharper (Dec 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Oh, OK, you're too thick to engage with.


----------



## kenny g (Dec 9, 2010)

https://lsjsn.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/hours-go-by-700-people-still-kettled-on-westminster-bridge/


----------



## 8ball (Dec 9, 2010)

I just saw on the Beeb that the protesters have apparently moved on and attacked Top Shop on Oxford Street.  I reckon this was a 'cheap Christmas shopping' lark all along.  What's the betting it's John Lewis next, then a raid on Argos before an impromptu smash'n'grab on Greggs?


----------



## kenny g (Dec 9, 2010)

8ball said:


> I just saw on the Beeb that the protesters have apparently moved on and attacked Top Shop on Oxford Street.  I reckon this was a 'cheap Christmas shopping' lark all along.  What's the betting it's John Lewis next, then a raid on Argos before an impromptu smash'n'grab on Greggs?



drunk? or a twat?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

A toast to those out today, and to those still occupying - each and every one a star


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 9, 2010)

8ball said:


> I just saw on the Beeb that the protesters have apparently moved on and attacked Top Shop on Oxford Street.  I reckon this was a 'cheap Christmas shopping' lark all along.  What's the betting it's John Lewis next, then a raid on Argos before an impromptu smash'n'grab on Greggs?


 
dick


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

OB unsurprisingly being none to gentle to people kettled on the bridge accoridng to twitter.

apparently a solidarity delegation from UCL and others are at the bridge now and are throwing food supplies up onto the bridge!


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

8ball said:


> I just saw on the Beeb that the protesters have apparently moved on and attacked Top Shop on Oxford Street.  I reckon this was a 'cheap Christmas shopping' lark all along.  What's the betting it's John Lewis next, then a raid on Argos before an impromptu smash'n'grab on Greggs?


Topshop is a UKuncut target - that store was shut down on Saturday. I expect they'll stick to looting the tax-dodgers.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> A toast to those out today, and to those still occupying - each and every one a star


 
seconded


----------



## kenny g (Dec 9, 2010)

https://london.indymedia.org/articles/6513 interesting link to some of those very effective books that were in the midst of things.

http://www.uniriot.org/uniriotII/in...t-the-beginning&catid=132:euniriot&Itemid=324


----------



## Goatherd (Dec 9, 2010)

Slightly better screencap of the earlier fuckstickery :





(click for big)


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> This might sound crazy, but a leader elected on a platform of taking them out of the coalition would have to do just that ... fuck knows what claphamboy is going on about.


 
A - such a leader will not be elected, because...

B- they will not be able to control their MPs and force them to bring down the government and put themselves out of a job, and…

C – even if they tried, it would totally split and destroy the parliamentary party. 

I don’t know how much simpler I can make this for you.  

Perhaps you would like to explain how you think any new leader of the LibDems could force their MPs to do that?


----------



## 8ball (Dec 9, 2010)

ymu said:


> Topshop is a UKuncut target - that store was shut down on Saturday. I expect they'll stick to looting the tax-dodgers.


 
Good point, if they stay 'on message' they can do M&S, though.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> A - such a leader will not be elected, because...
> 
> B- they will not be able to control their MPs and force them to bring down the government and put themselves out of a job, and…
> 
> ...


 
You make no sense whatsoever.

_One _of the possible ways to bring down this government is a leadership challenge, which is most likely to be forced by the constituency parties (only 75 out of 600+ required).

In the event that Clegg is successfully deposed, the new leader would be elected on a mandate to withdraw from the coalition.

It has nothing to do with the MPs. They do not elect the leader. The party elects the leader. If Clegg is deposed, they are out of the coalition.

Simple enough for you?


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 9, 2010)

photos: http://jwarren.co.uk/photos/protest/day-x3/


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2010)

magneze said:


> amazing pic.
> 
> Nice one students!


We'd stopped at to a nearby pub to warm up (it was fucking freezing today), saw that fire appear on TV and legged it back out again!

One rather unusual thing: I took along my press card at G20 and it turned out to be thoroughly useless, with cops just ignoring it completely. 

Today, the cops were falling over themselves to let me past the police lines, so I ended up right behind the 'battle zone'.  The cops were friendly as fuck too and tolerated me getting inbetween their lines trying to grab some pics. 

It was a bit unnerving to be honest, but credit where credit is due.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

editor said:


> We'd stopped at to a nearby pub to warm up (it was fucking freezing today), saw that fire appear on TV and legged it back out again!
> 
> One rather unusual thing: I took along my press card at G20 and it turned out to be thoroughly useless, with cops just ignoring it completely.
> 
> ...


 

No pictures of nice smiley coppers though 

How have you got a press card anyway?


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 9, 2010)

I could do with a press card.

How do you go about it?  Try to get some stuff published?


----------



## stupid kid (Dec 9, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> A - such a leader will not be elected, because...
> 
> B- *they will not be able to control their MPs and force them to bring down the government and put themselves out of a jo*b, and…
> 
> ...


 
In what way does this differ from Clegg's chosen course of action?


----------



## stupid kid (Dec 9, 2010)

Portillo just came out and said it's a bad day for the government. 

ETA: James Purnell is taking Diane's place on the sofa. He's already to the right of Portillo and an absolute cunt.


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2010)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> How have you got a press card anyway?


Because I'm a journalist.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Don't go in, lob fire. Let it burn.


 
Arson is the way forward of course....


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 9, 2010)

Bill Bailey tweeting his support to demonstrators and the UCL lot


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 9, 2010)

editor said:


> Because I'm a journalist.


 
Sneaky bugger. 

Really great photos today. Well done.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Arson is the way forward of course....


 
You lost big today  - and this is only the start.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Dec 9, 2010)

editor said:


> Because I'm a journalist.


 
oh, I thought you were a website designer/owner, techie sort, ex-band member who just happened to like taking lots of photos 

Bit of a jack of all trades then


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 9, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> ...... and why the Labour party hasn't benefitted from a rise in membership (something that could be virtually guaranteed during the last Tory government)..


 
Not between the late 70's, and middle to late 80's.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

I see the old canard _snooker balls_ has arrived!


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 9, 2010)

> I was there and will testify wherever that this man and his friend/relative were pushed into the street and then the disabled guy was dragged about 15 feet



http://twitpic.com/3ed5tq


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 9, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> http://twitpic.com/3ed5tq
> 
> View attachment 12825


 
The Guardian said:


> 4.42pm: We have an answer for the question posed at 4.02pm. The man pictured being pulled from his wheelchair is Jody McIntyre who, coincidentally, was interviewed in the Observer last month.
> 
> I spoke to his brother, Finlay, who says Jody was actually pulled from the chair twice. The first time was near Parliament Square when police insisted he move from close to the front of their lines. Three officers, he said, picked Jody up and dragged him away.
> The second was nearer the river, when officers insisted he and Finlay were in danger near police horses. This time, Finlays says, his brother was pulled bodily on the ground across the street.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/blog/2010/dec/09/student-protests-live-coverage


----------



## Chairman Meow (Dec 9, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> seconded


 
Thirded.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Dec 10, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> I could do with a press card.
> 
> How do you go about it?  Try to get some stuff published?


http://www.ukpresscardauthority.co.uk/


----------



## stupid kid (Dec 10, 2010)

Actually some decent analysis from both Purnell and Portillo tonight.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 10, 2010)

I tried to leave Parliament Square at 4.30pm. Finally escaped mass detention at 10.30pm. First held in the square, then on Westminster Bridge. There was a point in the square when everyone was tired, but as we walked out onto the bridge (thinking we were about to get out) there was a chant of 'we'll be back, we'll be back....'. As the hours dragged on the chants and songs on the bridge became more creative, ranging from 'We are people, what are you?' and 'Human rights, human rights' aimed at the police, to 'What do we want? Tea. When do we want it? Now.' (and a bizarre but amusing rendition of californication). It slowly dawned on everyone as we were held against our will out in the cold, without food, water, toilets or hope of getting out any time soon, that the headlines were going to be dominated not by our collective punishment but by Charles and Camilla. I didn't mind too much. I reckon this is the way people learn who will stand with them and who will treat them like shit


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

Chairman Meow said:


> Thirded.


 
Fourthed.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> I tried to leave Parliament Square at 4.30pm. Finally escaped mass detention at 10.30pm. First held in the square, then on Westminster Bridge. There was a point in the square when everyone was tired, but as we walked out onto the bridge (thinking we were about to get out) there was a chant of 'we'll be back, we'll be back....'. As the hours dragged on the chants and songs on the bridge became more creative, ranging from 'We are people, what are you?' and 'Human rights, human rights' aimed at the police, to 'What do we want? Tea. When do we want it? Now.' (and a bizarre but amusing rendition of californication). It slowly dawned on everyone as we were held against our will out in the cold, without food, water, toilets or hope of getting out any time soon, that the headlines were going to be dominated not by our collective punishment but by Charles and Camilla. I didn't mind too much. I reckon this is the way people learn who will stand with them and who will treat them like shit


 
So what changed your mind? 

Occupations, get out. support them - just get to the door and ask what they need, make the effort.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 10, 2010)

wankers


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 10, 2010)

seconded - went to a local occupation last night (the first night of it - admittedly sanctioned by the uni but heigh-ho!) Turned up with two bags of food as solidarity form the Wobblies print union and it went down a treat. Most present were eager for new ideas and to debate etc. I was warmly welcomed (unfortunetly I was the only non-student/academic staff) and really quizzed about ideas on how to organise, direct action etc. For nearly all this was their first ever kind of political involvment and they were imaginative and excited. The old 'violence' argument popped in and was pretty much dismissed as irrelevant.

Made a bunch of contacts and reckon we can really build something


----------



## ymu (Dec 10, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fourthed.


 
I'll raise a glass to that. 



gawkrodger said:


> seconded - went to a local occupation last night (the first night of it - admittedly sanctioned by the uni but heigh-ho!) Turned up with two bags of food as solidarity form the Wobblies print union and it went down a treat. Most present were eager for new ideas and to debate etc. I was warmly welcomed (unfortunetly I was the only non-student/academic staff) and really quizzed about ideas on how to organise, direct action etc. For nearly all this was their first ever kind of political involvment and they were imaginative and excited. The old 'violence' argument popped in and was pretty much dismissed as irrelevant.
> 
> Made a bunch of contacts and reckon we can really build something



And that!


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> So what changed your mind?


 I have said many things on here, and have views I've never written on here at all. If you want to fixate on certain things I've said, go ahead. I have never been liberal with a small l or a big L, and on a day when we have been trying to get through mounted police lines and held against our will for hours, I'll be selective too and take your comment in post 837 as your real thought of the moment


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 10, 2010)

oh, and nearly all seemed to think parliamentary politics is a waste of time


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 10, 2010)

I can't get to these things so easily any more so I sent a pizza across to a starving bristol occupation  They were well surprised.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 10, 2010)

Top tip of the day: if you can keep a tree between you and a police horse, there's really very little they can do to move you


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

gawkrodger said:


> seconded - went to a local occupation last night (the first night of it - admittedly sanctioned by the uni but heigh-ho!) Turned up with two bags of food as solidarity form the Wobblies print union and it went down a treat. Most present were eager for new ideas and to debate etc. I was warmly welcomed (unfortunetly I was the only non-student/academic staff) and really quizzed about ideas on how to organise, direct action etc. For nearly all this was their first ever kind of political involvment and they were imaginative and excited. The old 'violence' argument popped in and was pretty much dismissed as irrelevant.
> 
> Made a bunch of contacts and reckon we can really build something


,
 Went to both bristol occupations tonight - security tight as fuck but was told by crew at one that they'd all gone to london  but security covered, made it look like there was people there

(i'm edting this bit out very soon)


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 10, 2010)

^^


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 10, 2010)

ymu said:


> I'll raise a glass to that.



sixthed.


----------



## ymu (Dec 10, 2010)

Nice one on the pizza too fM. That's an ace idea.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 10, 2010)

scifisam said:


> A friend says the best protest sign he saw all day was 'Crimes Against Humanities.'


 
That's a good one.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 10, 2010)

Bristol really need to sort out twitter account.  Sounds crap, but it's true.  I only heard about it via bristle on facebook.


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 10, 2010)

Jeff Robinson said:


> sixthed.


 
yeh I should also for the record add my agreement ha.

I'm currently getting loads of messages from mates who were there (many non-political). They are all saying the same stuff - the OB were utter, utter cunts, but thousands of people were incredibly brave and imaginative and all finsihed with the same thing.

This is only the start and we're going to fucking win!

If you knew some of my non political mates saying this you'd see why I'm so excited about this!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

gawkrodger said:


> yeh I should also for the record add my agreement ha.
> 
> I'm currently getting loads of messages from mates who were there (many non-political). They are all saying the same stuff - the OB were utter, utter cunts, but thousands of people were incredibly brave and imaginative and all finsihed with the same thing.
> 
> ...


 
Your mates are right -when it tips over into stuff like this we've already won.


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 10, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Bristol really need to sort out twitter account.  Sounds crap, but it's true.  I only heard about it via bristle on facebook.


 
twitter really is being an amazing tool at the moment.


----------



## wtfftw (Dec 10, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Bristol really need to sort out twitter account.  Sounds crap, but it's true.  I only heard about it via bristle on facebook.


 
@brisoccupation ?


----------



## where to (Dec 10, 2010)

gawkrodger said:


> twitter really is being an amazing tool at the moment.



I never thought I'd say this but twitter is absolute quality, the best method of communication out there right now.  I'd really urge anyone reading this to get on there and have a shot at it.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Dec 10, 2010)

gawkrodger said:


> oh, and nearly all seemed to think parliamentary politics is a waste of time


 
The quality of quite a bit of the debating over the past couple of days was shocking - so many rhetorical and false-shock Q&As.

"Does my honourable friend agree that what they are proposing is really awful and have bad effects in his constituency as well as mine?"
"I absolutely agree with my honourable friend that what they are proposing is really awful and have bad effects in her constituency as well as mine"


----------



## where to (Dec 10, 2010)

not sure this is still up to date or not, contact details of the occupations:

http://edinunianticuts.wordpress.com/other-occupations/


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Dec 10, 2010)

where to said:


> I never thought I'd say this but twitter is absolute quality, the best method of communication out there right now.  I'd really urge anyone reading this to get on there and have a shot at it.


 
This - I recently found out how useful a method it is for bypassing the corporate media.


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 10, 2010)

I know it's pretty meaningless with me being the other side of the world, but just wanted to say well done to the everybody involved in the occupations and protests. As butchers said you're absolute stars.


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 10, 2010)

how cheaply can you get 'disposable' phones with twitter access?


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

.


----------



## killer b (Dec 10, 2010)

gawkrodger said:


> how cheaply can you get 'disposable' phones with twitter access?


 
i imagine any modern phone will be net-accessible enough to deal with twitter tbh.


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2010)

I've had to bring back my old avatar on Facebook.


----------



## where to (Dec 10, 2010)

9.12.2010: Dubstep rebellion - the British banlieue comes to Millbank

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2010/12/9122010_dubstep_rebellion_-_br.html


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 10, 2010)

killer b said:


> i imagine any modern phone will be net-accessible enough to deal with twitter tbh.


 
Yes, even the simplest browser can cope with mobile Twitter, all the phone needs is basic net access.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)

AKA pseudonym said:


> http://www.ukpresscardauthority.co.uk/


 
cheers. probably impossible then


----------



## 19sixtysix (Dec 10, 2010)

editor said:


> I've had to bring back my old avatar on Facebook.


 
Borrowed.


----------



## where to (Dec 10, 2010)

its 1am and kids are still on westminster bridge according to twitter.


----------



## albionism (Dec 10, 2010)

19sixtysix said:


> Borrowed.


 
same here


----------



## albionism (Dec 10, 2010)

Jeff Robinson said:


> sixthed.


 
seventhed


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 10, 2010)

redsquirrel said:


> I know it's pretty meaningless with me being the other side of the world, but just wanted to say well done to the everybody involved in the occupations and protests. As butchers said you're absolute stars.


 
eigthed.


----------



## where to (Dec 10, 2010)

kettling now reported over


----------



## ymu (Dec 10, 2010)

where to said:


> kettling now reported over


 
I just joined twitter, thanks to you.

Looks like the kettling is going to force more links to be forged. What a shame. 



> With school pupils-most age 15-from leeds who were on bridge.missed their coach home,will attempt to stay at one of the uni occupations


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Dec 10, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The Guardian said:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/blog/2010/dec/09/student-protests-live-coverage


 
I was right by him today, both brothers were very brave. What right have the police to move him? Utter cunts.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Dec 10, 2010)

I'm way too tired to read all of this thread tonight. All I can say is that I'm proud that we gave such a good account for ourselves, the amount of people willing to go toe to toe with the police was brilliant. Just wait until the workers join us students, we'll fucking have em. 

I'm from M'cr uni and the word is that our students that were stranded in the kettle will be staying at the UCL occupation tonight.


----------



## killer b (Dec 10, 2010)

is what the guy says on this blog true? maths isn't one of my strong points, and it's late...

http://niaccurshi.blogspot.com/2010/12/students-fees-itll-cost-us-all-in-end.html


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2010)

There was a hilarious bit where the cops tried to drive three horses inbetween where we were (peacefully) stood in Parliament. The cop on the horse kept screaming for us to 'move back' but there wasn't anywhere to go. 

Cue the first batch of kids running between horses 1 and 2, laughing as the cop failed to prevent them. As the cops moved the two horses closer, another bunch ran between horses 2 and 3. And so it went on until all of us ended getting through to the other side and the cops had to abandon their daft mission, and all us 'escapees' bonded for a shared moment.


----------



## ymu (Dec 10, 2010)

killer b said:


> is what the guy says on this blog true? maths isn't one of my strong points, and it's late...
> 
> http://niaccurshi.blogspot.com/2010/12/students-fees-itll-cost-us-all-in-end.html


 
I'm OK with maths, but money makes my eyes glaze over ...

I think it is substantially correct. I think the IFS did an analysis along these lines, but which also includes the massive amounts that government will have to write off from those low paid graduates who will never pay back the loan + interest inside the 30 year timeframe. It concluded that it will cost the government more than it saves. I'll have a dig around for their figures.


----------



## pk (Dec 10, 2010)

Keystone Cops versus Internet Justice.

For The Lulz


----------



## wreckhead (Dec 10, 2010)

I just wanted to say bravo to the students... hopefully the start of a mass movement, and that I've also nicked that avatar.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Dec 10, 2010)

wreckhead said:


> I just wanted to say bravo to the students... hopefully the start of a mass movement, and that I've also nicked that avatar.


 
I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree.


----------



## ymu (Dec 10, 2010)

This is the only IFS report I can find, and it doesn't really cover it. Might have been a different organisation that did the analysis I'm thinking of.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Dec 10, 2010)

wreckhead said:


> hopefully the start of a mass movement



Not if there isn't any cross-over with other anti-cuts/rising costs kicking-off with non-students.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)

killer b said:


> is what the guy says on this blog true? maths isn't one of my strong points, and it's late...
> 
> http://niaccurshi.blogspot.com/2010/12/students-fees-itll-cost-us-all-in-end.html


 
something about this here: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=414183


----------



## ymu (Dec 10, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> something about this here: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=414183


 
Million+ Them's the ones I was thinking of! Thanks. Slightly different angle to the blog killer b posted, but highly relevant.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)




----------



## rekil (Dec 10, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Given how often they happened to any of us who dared turn up to protest at Wapping, I hope so too. They're fucking painful!!


 
Yup, copper trampled by own horse. Looks a bit deliberate too. 0:50ish


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)

fair report? http://london.indymedia.org/articles/6634


----------



## miniGMgoit (Dec 10, 2010)

shaman75 said:


>


----------



## JimW (Dec 10, 2010)

Comments on the Chinese Internet are 99% supportive :


> 权力从来都是自己争取的，而不是自己跪出来的！


"Rights are always won by fighting for them, not by staying on your knees" is currently top-voted on this report.


----------



## Riklet (Dec 10, 2010)

I was there today, it was all pretty chaotic and crazy really, we went straight to Westminster and joined the march which had arrived at parliament square, the cops had their horses around the crowd and were properly edgy as the horses were freaking out.  Ended up having the pull back and whilst it wasn't a proper kettle they were trying to seal the square effectively.  I didn't want to get kettled so early on so climbed into the church yard and got out that way, through a side gate, then went all the way 'round seeing where the police positions were and trying to get in touch with people.

I think it was fairly effective in some ways their sealing off of westminster, but there were A LOT of protesters all over the place outside, where ever I went... ended up having a look in at the lame NUS "glowstick vigil" thing and whilst their were some interesting speakers it was still pretty shit, top-down dictatorial crap.  Yelled for the NUS to be burned with the health-and-safety hazard missing candles n then left.

Only really started seeing the violence and chaos I was hearing about later when it got dark, I met up with people and went back to whitehall to see the kettling etc from that side and see what we could do.  Whitehall was open and there were riot police dividing it off from the square, seemed like a lot of horse movements and tings from what I could see and a fair bit of shoving back.  Was a bit worried about getting kettled and some people were allowed out so a fair few people started moving back up the Mall but we were then kettled/re-kettled and penned in there into a second kettle.  The video of people smashing barricades into the cops and smashing up the treasury all happened there.  Saw some serious violence and police craziness going down, it was fucking scary at one point as the police lined all their horses up at the top of whitehall and we thought they were going to charge properly.  They battered and pushed everyone back and contained us for a couple of hours before people were allowed out.  Some people did manage to break out over a side wall but proper riot thugs went after them clotheslining people and beating them to the floor.  I think so many resources went into the central kettling people basically then could start running riot around trafalgar and places, up to oxford street.  A friend of mine saw the Christmas tree trying to be set alight, loads of windows smashed and the royal car attacked haha.  I had to get a bus and ended up getting out of the kettle and heading for that.  People from my uni saw a disabled guy pulled out of his chair, lots of people badly beaten/unconscious/covered in blood, a guy with his head split open and blood squirting out almost and also a girl who was sexually assaulted in the kettle and the police told to fuck off and get back in there along with some children who were also not allowed out.  Fucked up.

Was a seriously tense and violence atmosphere around Whitehall, I guess i've not been to many protests but i've never felt an atmosphere quite like that hah, people were properly fed up and going for the police, totally antagonised by being detained, repeatedly smacked and yelled at/intimidated.  No idea how the police can claim their operation was a proper success, they had a vast number of police out (3:1 kinda ratio) and were still struggling to contain stuff.  The centre was proper carnage though, loads of fire and smoke n noise, was fucking proud of everyone who was there and did loads more than me.

Need much more civil disruption next time IMO, groups all over the place shutting down traffic even more than yesterday, tunnels etc.  Thanks to the NUS incompetence, the police tactics and the sheer number of people things were pretty fragmented in a lot of places, but still, felt like a good message was sent!


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 10, 2010)

There was some confrontation at the beginning but the police closed the kettle pretty early and most of the damage was done once people were trapped and pissed off at being trapped. Anyone got footage of people using the fencing to attempt to batter down the door of the treasury?  They would have got in too but cops started pouring into the treasury building to defend it from the battering ram and the people smashing the windows in.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 10, 2010)

I should also say that despite the sterling attempts of the police to piss everyone off (their opening and closing of the kettle was like a cat and mouse game) there was a pretty fine carnival atmosphere in the square for a good few hours. People standing round fires singing, much dancing at a couple of small sound systems, some fine people serving tea, the statues getting dressed up a bit - it was a square of liberated space besieged by a sea of cops. At one corner the angriest were facing the police singing 'You can shove your fucking kettle up your arse, you can shove your fucking kettle up your arse etc' while at the other corner someone was playing a mouth organ to a circle gathered around a fire to keep warm.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

So can I have a second go at getting an answer.

1. The police should have allowed the protest to go right up to the doors of the HOP ?
2. If they had done so, there would have been no violence or vandalism on the part of the protesters ?
3. Therefore it was legitimate to try to injure the police and commit acts of vandalism. ?

Sorry to be thick.


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 10, 2010)

Fuck off, green slime.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Fuck off, green slime.



Oh well, don't ever let it be said I didn't make the effort.

But if you fail to sway the likes of me, what chance the general populace ?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 10, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> I should also say that despite the sterling attempts of the police to piss everyone off (their opening and closing of the kettle was like a cat and mouse game) there was a pretty fine carnival atmosphere in the square for a good few hours. People standing round fires singing, much dancing at a couple of small sound systems, some fine people serving tea, the statues getting dressed up a bit - it was a square of liberated space besieged by a sea of cops. At one corner the angriest were facing the police singing 'You can shove your fucking kettle up your arse, you can shove your fucking kettle up your arse etc' while at the other corner someone was playing a mouth organ to a circle gathered around a fire to keep warm.


 
I like it.


----------



## dylans (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> So can I have a second go at getting an answer.
> 
> 1. The police should have allowed the protest to go right up to the doors of the HOP ?
> 2. If they had done so, there would have been no violence or vandalism on the part of the protesters ?
> ...


 


The police were physically defending a decision by the lying dogs sitting in parliament to launch an attack on the poorest in society in order to pay for a crisis caused by the rich and powerful. That decision represents an act of violence against the working class and an assault on the dreams hopes and aspirations of a generation. By acting in defence of those making that decision the police become the enemy and therefore violence against them becomes legitimate and right. This is not a game and calls for the victims of those political attacks to peacefully accept them is a call for us to accept defeat. 

2. If the demonstrators had gained access to Parliament they would have physically assaulted those illegitimate MPs and attempted to disrupt the illegitimate decisions they were taking. Why not? They are making decisions about our lives and the future of our children and they have no democratic mandate to do so. In the face of their political unaccountability street violence is the only reply. Not only is it morally justified. It is the only possible response and the only thing that they take seriously. 

3. For the above reasons. Yes. When baton wielding thugs, with shields and horses act to defend the undemocratic actions of my enemies inside the HOP then they become my enemy. 

Hope this answered your questions


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

teeny boppers losing any moral high ground they had according to the press this morning.  Even Graeme Swann tweeted taking the piss out of idiot behaviour.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

I'm so proud of the protesters. Fucking brilliant. Getting Charlie and Camilla was icing on a delicious cake.


----------



## Flanflinger (Dec 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> The police were physically defending a decision by the lying dogs sitting in parliament to launch an attack on the poorest in society in order to pay for a crisis caused by the rich and powerful. That decision represents an act of violence against the working class and an assault on the dreams hopes and aspirations of a generation. By acting in defence of those making that decision the police become the enemy and therefore violence against them becomes legitimate and right. This is not a game and calls for the victims of those political attacks to peacefully accept them is a call for us to accept defeat.
> 
> 2. If the demonstrators had gained access to Parliament they would have physically assaulted those illegitimate MPs and attempted to disrupt the illegitimate decisions they were taking. Why not? They are making decisions about our lives and the future of our children and they have no democratic mandate to do so. In the face of their political unaccountability street violence is the only reply. Not only is it morally justified. It is the only possible response and the only thing that they take seriously.
> 
> ...



Can I be the first to wish you a very merry christmas.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Dec 10, 2010)

Well at least we can now look our French and Greek cousins in the eye and say we do protest too


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> Hope this answered your questions



The obvious next question is  - "mouth, trousers, or agent provocateur" ?


----------



## chilango (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> So can I have a second go at getting an answer.
> 
> 1. The police should have allowed the protest to go right up to the doors of the HOP ?
> 2. If they had done so, there would have been no violence or vandalism on the part of the protesters ?
> ...



1. Yes. I*t's our Parliament*, we should be able to go there whenever, and however we want.
2. See above. We made it , we can break it if we so wish.
3. Legitimate? Yes. Right? That's a different question.


----------



## chilango (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> The obvious next question is  - "mouth, trousers, or agent provocateur" ?


 
Yes, quite.

Look forward to your report from the next protest where you put views forward and convince the "violent thugs" of the error of their ways.

Put up or shut up GG?


----------



## dylans (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> The obvious next question is  - "mouth, trousers, or agent provocateur" ?


 
Miners strike. Wapping. Poll Tax riot. I've done enough not to have to justify myself to a coward like you. I would have at least a modicum of respect for you if you just made it clear you support the coalition government's attacks. I have zero respect for your fake outrage at people fighting back.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

Doing over the royals car ensured this story will be on the front page of newspapers the world over. <laughs like a hyena>


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 10, 2010)

Protesters need to learn to kettle the police.


----------



## dylans (Dec 10, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Protesters need to learn to kettle the police.


 
The book shields worked really well. Expect to see a lot more of them


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

chilango said:


> Yes, quite.
> 
> Look forward to your report from the next protest where you put views forward and convince the "violent thugs" of the error of their ways.
> 
> Put up or shut up GG?



Since this appears to be an early stage of the revolution, surely your duty is to convince others ?

Or are the rules of the revolution written down somewhere so I can gen up on it for myself ?


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

chilango said:


> 1. Yes. I*t's our Parliament*, we should be able to go there whenever, and however we want.
> 2. See above. We made it , we can break it if we so wish.
> 3. Legitimate? Yes. Right? That's a different question.



"we" ?

Just what proportion of the 60-odd million inhabitants of this island do you suppose would join you ?


----------



## Tankus (Dec 10, 2010)

police need to tool up with water cannons and gas .......just for the authenticity


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

Brilliant footage here of a police horse getting tired of the cunt half way up its back...


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 10, 2010)

Greens, liberals, TORY slime, they are all crawling out now...


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> I would have at least a modicum of respect for you if you just made it clear you support the coalition government's attacks. I have zero respect for your fake outrage at people fighting back.


 
Even if I _was _the Tory you suspect me of being, if you knew what I did for a living and who my employer has been for nearly 30 years, you would realise how directly I am affected by government education policy - even if only at the level of cynical self-interest.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 10, 2010)

the horses are revolting!


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> Miners strike. Wapping. Poll Tax riot. I've done enough not to have to justify myself to a coward like you. I would have at least a modicum of respect for you if you just made it clear you support the coalition government's attacks. I have zero respect for your fake outrage at people *fighting back*.



_Fighting back_ against what?

The Government (as duly elected) represent the MAJORITY of the British people.

If a few unwashed scum wish to take to the streets to carry our random acts of violence and vandalism then I'm sure that the Justice system will be able to cope.

If people don't like Government policy, then they can use tha ballot box at the next election.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 10, 2010)

GG, i have mixed views on violence, depending on who or what it is aimed at, but when politicians fail to listen, renage on promises and bring in their mafia bodyguards to beat and imprison people, i start to lose sympathy. 

1m people marched on Iraq in peace, and nothing changed. As someone once said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent change inevitable."

History speaks, listen.


----------



## magneze (Dec 10, 2010)

editor said:


> We'd stopped at to a nearby pub to warm up (it was fucking freezing today), saw that fire appear on TV and legged it back out again!
> 
> One rather unusual thing: I took along my press card at G20 and it turned out to be thoroughly useless, with cops just ignoring it completely.
> 
> ...


I eventually made it around to the Westminster Abbey bit around 7 - took me ages to walk all around the kettle from Westminster bridge as I went to each entrance to Parliament Sq to see what was happening at each. Tried contacting you when I got to the abbey, but texts weren't working - cell probably jammed from so many people using it.


----------



## chilango (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> "we" ?
> 
> Just what proportion of the 60-odd million inhabitants of this island do you suppose would join you ?



A higher one than is sat in there at present that's for sure...


----------



## ska invita (Dec 10, 2010)

editor said:


> One rather unusual thing: I took along my press card at G20 and it turned out to be thoroughly useless, with cops just ignoring it completely.
> 
> Today, the cops were falling over themselves to let me past the police lines, so I ended up right behind the 'battle zone'.  The cops were friendly as fuck too and tolerated me getting inbetween their lines trying to grab some pics.
> 
> It was a bit unnerving to be honest, but credit where credit is due.


 
On the whole I had the same experience (minus the press card) - definitely allowances made by the police, perhaps because they were younger than usual mobs. A number of times I thought, this is the moment all hell breaks loose  - all the triggers were there - and it never did.

Those who stuck out the freezing weather till very late did get kettled and taken out on though (amongst other cuntish incidents)... It was a loong cold day, and credit to the students for the twelve hour shift - a lot of which involved standing around doing not a lot. 

I guess its all about how it looks in the media, and good headlines (global ones) were scored. In my mind at least it still felt like a loss - the vote passed (of course). I wonder what next? I'll be v happily stunned if the momentum remains...


----------



## chilango (Dec 10, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> _Fighting back_ against what?
> 
> The Government (as duly elected) represent the MAJORITY of the British people.
> 
> ...



Oh Cobbles...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 10, 2010)

cobbles said, "The Government (as duly elected) represent the MAJORITY of the British people."

People didnt elect a coalition or LibDems in ordee from them to regage on promises.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 10, 2010)

cobbles went on.."If people don't like Government policy, then they can use tha ballot box at the next election."

'Manufacturing consent' i believe is the process you are describing.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 10, 2010)

JimW said:


> Comments on the Chinese Internet are 99% supportive :
> 
> "Rights are always won by fighting for them, not by staying on your knees" is currently top-voted on this report.


 
nice !!!


----------



## A380 (Dec 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> The police were physically defending a decision by the lying dogs sitting in parliament to launch an attack on the poorest in society in order to pay for a crisis caused by the rich and powerful. That decision represents an act of violence against the working class and an assault on the dreams hopes and aspirations of a generation. By acting in defence of those making that decision the police become the enemy and therefore violence against them becomes legitimate and right. This is not a game and calls for the victims of those political attacks to peacefully accept them is a call for us to accept defeat.
> 
> 2. If the demonstrators had gained access to Parliament they would have physically assaulted those illegitimate MPs and attempted to disrupt the illegitimate decisions they were taking. Why not? They are making decisions about our lives and the future of our children and they have no democratic mandate to do so. In the face of their political unaccountability street violence is the only reply. Not only is it morally justified. It is the only possible response and the only thing that they take seriously.
> 
> ...



So next week when it's the EDL trying to get all moslems deported should they be allowed inside too? Just asking?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

A380 said:


> So next week when it's the EDL trying to get all moslems deported should they be allowed inside too? Just asking?


 
Straw man of the day?


----------



## _angel_ (Dec 10, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> cobbles went on.."If people don't like Government policy, then they can use tha ballot box at the next election."
> 
> 'Manufacturing consent' i believe is the process you are describing.


 Yes you can choose  between the party that introduced tuition fees and the two that put them up!


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> If people don't like Government policy, then they can use tha ballot box at the next election.



Vote for bigger cages, longer chains....


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> teeny boppers losing any moral high ground they had according to the press this morning.  Even Graeme Swann tweeted taking the piss out of idiot behaviour.


 
Oh well that's it then, some cricketer tweets something derogatory and you think that's of any importance? You're are a fucking clown.


----------



## rekil (Dec 10, 2010)

shaman75 said:


>




The copper with white shoulder insignia and stripes on his helmet from 1:10 on looks exceptionally nasty.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 10, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> cobbles said, "The Government (as duly elected) represent the MAJORITY of the British people."
> 
> People didnt elect a coalition or LibDems in ordee from them to regage on promises.



Spot on. The Lib Dems didn't have to go into coalition with the Tories. They could have just as easily signed a confidence and supply agreement. As for them "representing  a majority of the British people", that's just ignorant bullshit.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 10, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> The Government (as duly elected) represent the MAJORITY of the British people.
> 
> .



Would you care to explain this deeply ignorant statement?


----------



## A380 (Dec 10, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Straw man of the day?



Not bad for half past nine...


----------



## Vintage Paw (Dec 10, 2010)

There are some self-righteous cunts on the internet (and tv) right now about yesterday's protest. One guy advocating the further increase of tuition fees FOR ALL because someone ripped a union flag. That isn't uncommon, and from people I, well, didn't expect to be at the vanguard of the revolution  but I held out hope for something better from. 

There are not enough words to describe my rage at the situation.

(Apols, I feel very impotent when I feel this much rage.)


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)




----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 10, 2010)

I think I may have to draft a letter of complaint to the BBC over their biased reporting. It's been disgraceful. They have

1. ignored the fact that the EMA is to be scrapped
2. Focussed solely on tuition fees and ignored the fact that the protests are about CUTS
3. Ignored police aggression and laid the blame on protesters.
4. Failed to question police tactics during the demo
5. 44 protester were injured and 12 coppers. How many of those injured protesters were victims of police violence?
6. Students who are interviewed in the studio are always asked "do you condone the violence"? It's an invitation to provocation.

Remember, the BBC's reporting of the Battle of Orgreave Colliery was entirely fabricated. The BBC also showed old footage of celebrating Palestinians in the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks and presented it as current.

Ironically, ABC News had more balance than the BBC


----------



## scifisam (Dec 10, 2010)

gawkrodger said:


> how cheaply can you get 'disposable' phones with twitter access?


 
I know this is an old post, but if you're going to use it only for posting rather than reading, you don't even need internet access - you can text your tweets in for the price of a normal text.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Oh well that's it then, some cricketer tweets something derogatory and you think that's of any importance? You're are a fucking clown.


 
lots of very similar tweets and press coverage


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> cobbles said, "The Government (as duly elected) represent the MAJORITY of the British people."
> 
> People didnt elect a coalition or LibDems in ordee from them to regage on promises.


 
I think you've invented a word - it'll cost £9k to get that Englsih GCSE


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 10, 2010)

nino_savatte said:


> 1. ignored the fact that the EMA is to be scrapped



It was mentioned on the BBC news this morning *yawn* ho hum - another cut that needs to be made - who needs thousands of poly graduates with third class degrees - not McDonalds.



nino_savatte said:


> 2. Focussed solely on tuition fees and ignored the fact that the protests are about CUTS



It would appear that the "protests" are mainly all about random vandalism.



nino_savatte said:


> 3. Ignored police aggression and laid the blame on protesters.



The police only *react* to random thuggish violence - they deal with "protestors" in the same way that they deal with any mob full of yobs such as football hooligans.  No matter how much training they get, it must be difficult for them to react in any way other than as a human being when they're confronted with a pack of braying lunatics who've just trashed a building that we (sorry - _some_ of us) pay for through our taxes.




nino_savatte said:


> 4. Failed to question police tactics during the demo



Indeed - where were the water cannon? Where was the CS gas - piss poor performance.



nino_savatte said:


> 5. 44 protester were injured and 12 coppers. How many of those injured protesters were victims of police violence?



Who cares? - nobody has to stand in front of a police horse or surge towards a building - what's wrong with a proper protest like the Countryside Alliance managed?



nino_savatte said:


> 6. Students who are interviewed in the studio are always asked "do you condone the violence"? It's an invitation to provocation.



Why? - the only possible answer is no. How is that provocation?

What should they ask them - "_Well, next time you organise a hissy fit, which areas do you intend to vandalise?_"


----------



## Flanflinger (Dec 10, 2010)

scifisam said:


> I know this is an old post, but if you're going to use it only for posting rather than reading, you don't even need internet access - you can text your tweets in for the price of a normal text.



And bump up the profits of the capitalist pigs........ROFLMAO.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 10, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> what's wrong with a proper protest like the Countryside Alliance managed?


 
It achieves fuck all


----------



## magneze (Dec 10, 2010)

@Cobbles: parody


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> And bump up the profits of the capitalist pigs........ROFLMAO.


 
Your not laughing though are you? We are, like hyenas.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 10, 2010)

magneze said:


> @Cobbles: parody


 
Best way to treat it really


----------



## chilango (Dec 10, 2010)

Cobbles are you bored or something?


----------



## scifisam (Dec 10, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> And bump up the profits of the capitalist pigs........ROFLMAO.


 
I'm sure those 2p texts will send their share prices soaring. Obviously, the alternative solution is not to text - better to not communicate at all!


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> The police were physically defending a decision by the lying dogs sitting in parliament to launch an attack on the poorest in society in order to pay for a crisis caused by the rich and powerful. That decision represents an act of violence against the working class and an assault on the dreams hopes and aspirations of a generation. By acting in defence of those making that decision the police become the enemy and therefore violence against them becomes legitimate and right. This is not a game and calls for the victims of those political attacks to peacefully accept them is a call for us to accept defeat.
> 
> 2. If the demonstrators had gained access to Parliament they would have physically assaulted those illegitimate MPs and attempted to disrupt the illegitimate decisions they were taking. Why not? They are making decisions about our lives and the future of our children and they have no democratic mandate to do so. In the face of their political unaccountability street violence is the only reply. Not only is it morally justified. It is the only possible response and the only thing that they take seriously.
> 
> ...


 
Good


----------



## scifisam (Dec 10, 2010)

chilango said:


> Cobbles are you bored or something?


 
He's a particularly vile troll. I'm really not sure why anyone bothers responding to him.


----------



## chilango (Dec 10, 2010)

He's a particularly crap troll. Doesn't even rile anyone up properly. Too obvious.

Cobbles, seriously, go have some real fun somewhere. It's a bit sad.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 10, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Crimble No 1 for Kaiser Chiefs?


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 10, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> It was mentioned on the BBC news this morning *yawn* ho hum - another cut that needs to be made - who needs thousands of poly graduates with third class degrees - not McDonalds.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah, the party line. There's so much wrong with this post that I scarcely know where to begin. However as i am short of time, I will deal with this woefully ignorant statement.



> Who cares? - nobody has to stand in front of a police horse or surge towards a building - what's wrong with a proper protest like the Countryside Alliance managed?



You're having a laugh. Weren't Countryside Alliance protesters attacked by riot cops? You have a very short and selective memory of the event. Such was your haste to pour scorn on yesterdays' demos that you left yourself exposed. Bravo.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 10, 2010)

chilango said:


> He's a particularly crap troll. Doesn't even rile anyone up properly. Too obvious.
> 
> Cobbles, seriously, go have some real fun somewhere. It's a bit sad.



Innit?


----------



## girasol (Dec 10, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Who cares? - nobody has to stand in front of a police horse or surge towards a building - what's wrong with a proper protest like the Countryside Alliance managed?



I don't remember this particular protest, but ask the mainstream media why is that they only give coverage to violent protests and there's your answer...  

No one listens to peaceful protest, it doesn't grab headlines.  Remember the 1 million people who peacefully marched against the war?    Blame the media, not the protesters.


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Dec 10, 2010)

copliker said:


> The copper with white shoulder insignia and stripes on his helmet from 1:10 on looks exceptionally nasty.



The one smashing someone in the kneecaps, when they're already backing off with their hands in the air?  (about 1:27?)


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 10, 2010)

The people who say "violent protests achieve nothing" would do well to remember the example of the Suffragettes and how they achieved votes for women.

Who says history doesn't matter?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 10, 2010)

copliker said:


> The copper with white shoulder insignia and stripes on his helmet from 1:10 on looks exceptionally nasty.



1.29 - how can that be justified? Fucking pig _twat._


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 10, 2010)

What we are seeing is finally the arrival of tens of thousands of people who are willing to act together for themselves independently of institutions and the student union which is now virtually irrelevant. Congratulations to those in the thick of things, and the rest of the ‘radicals’/ 'ultra left' were noticeable by their absence, off the pace as usual & completely unable to participate in a movement.

The NUS leader was whining on TV yesterday, recycling the same stale crap that previous student leaders have done on a way to a safe career in the labour party. It wasn’t good enough then and it has no relevance today when people can see the political lying class, and the people who attempt to make student protest irrelevant by turning it into stale old fashioned Labour party views.

Incidentally, that is one reason why the Labour party is dying, they have no answer beyond managerial bureaucracy and the elective cretinism of parliament. Rather the power is on the streets.

That is not to say that there is not more work we need to do. In the North East Newcastle was good yesterday, Sunderland had its first progressive march for 10 years too, and I’m not sure about Durham. everybody is totally motivated by what the students are doing in the new occupation movement and beyond. Power to the people


----------



## scifisam (Dec 10, 2010)

chilango said:


> He's a particularly crap troll. Doesn't even rile anyone up properly. Too obvious.
> 
> Cobbles, seriously, go have some real fun somewhere. It's a bit sad.


 
He is so crap that he hasn't even managed to get banned yet. But people respond to his posts - don't they realise they're responding to some sadsack stinking of pavement fags and unwashed clothes who spends the rest of his time ranting out loud as he stands outside the off-licence in the morning waiting for it to open? Then shouts racist abuse at the local kids walking to school, but they ignore him because even they pity him?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 10, 2010)

nino_savatte said:


> The people who say "violent protests achieve nothing" would do well to remember the example of the Suffragettes and how they achieved votes for women.



Or the poll tax riots.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 10, 2010)

"Violent protest" did for Thatcher within 7 months or so.

It's a great shame yesterday isn't seen more as a response to the extreme violence committed by the Etonians and friends on the life-chances of so many teenagers; people were defending themselves yesterday - and, generally speaking, in proportion.


----------



## kavenism (Dec 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> The book shields worked really well. Expect to see a lot more of them


 
They were ace. Best work out Adorno's had in a while!


----------



## chilango (Dec 10, 2010)

These protests haven't even been that violent yet.

Not really. Not even by recent UK standards.

It's just every minor thing is captured from a million camera angles and instantly broadcast.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

Police project the power of the government and get totally fucked over.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 10, 2010)

. . while themselves being cut by 25%.


----------



## rekil (Dec 10, 2010)

Ms Ordinary said:


> The one smashing someone in the kneecaps, when they're already backing off with their hands in the air?  (about 1:27?)


 


Steel☼Icarus said:


> 1.29 - how can that be justified? Fucking pig _twat._


That's the one. There's always one bad apple isn't there. Btw, I suspect that the horse which trampled its copper "bumped into" the stable door a few times last night.


----------



## xes (Dec 10, 2010)

This may have been asked, but when was the last time a peaceful protest actually got a decent reult?


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 10, 2010)

No idea, but I'm not sure the shires can get too upset given the invasion of Parliament by the Countryside Alliance.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 10, 2010)

Paul Mason's comments are worth reading, certainly fits in with what I saw: 
"it is unprecedented to see a government teeter before a movement in whom the iconic voices are sixteen and seventeen year old women, and whose anthems are mainly dubstep."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2010/12/9122010_dubstep_rebellion_-_br.html

_"Any idea that you are dealing with Lacan-reading hipsters from Spitalfields on this demo is mistaken. While a good half of the march was undergraduates from the most militant college occupations - UCL, SOAS, Leeds, Sussex - the really stunning phenomenon, politically, was the presence of youth: bainlieue-style youth from Croydon, Peckam, the council estates of Islington.

Having been very close to the front line of the fighting, on the protesters side, I would say that at its height - again - it broke the media stereotype of being organised by "political groups": there was an anarchist black bloc contingent, there were the socialist left groups - but above all, again, I would say the main offensive actions taken to break through police lines were done by small groups of young men who dressed a lot more like the older brothers of the dubsteppers. The fighting itself is still going on - I am seeing people break the windows of HM Revenue and Customs live on TV. At one point after 2pm there were just two lines of riot cops between the students and parliament and it was at this point, with nowhere to go, that people began to push forward and attack the police. Despite that, those involved were a minority and it was fairly "ritual" involving placard sticks and the remains of the metal fence around Parliament Square, until people realised there was nowhere to break through *to* and changed direction."_


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 10, 2010)

> Young men, mainly black, grabbed each other around the head and formed a surging dance to the digital beat lit, as the light failed, by the distinctly analog light of a bench they had set on fire.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 10, 2010)

tbf, we already know Disco Dave has no bollocks and the only thing keeping him upright is Osbourne.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> y'all know it's going to kick perhaps today but certainly tomorrow.


 
nice to be proved right


----------



## JimW (Dec 10, 2010)

I've been posting that all over the shop too, dennisr. Fair play to him


----------



## dennisr (Dec 10, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> What we are seeing is finally the arrival of tens of thousands of people who are willing to act together for themselves independently of institutions and the student union which is now virtually irrelevant. Congratulations to those in the thick of things, and the rest of the ‘radicals’/ 'ultra left' were noticeable by their absence, off the pace as usual & completely unable to participate in a movement.



What are you talking about you riot porn wank over. Stop trying to fit your readymade theories to something that happened 200 miles from were you were mr 'participator'. The event was the result of organising activities of lefts, activists and radicals. It didn't appear out of thin air.
Jezeus when are you ejets going to stop fantasising and start recognising what is actually happening on the ground


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 10, 2010)

I can't get my head around the muppets that are the old bill. Are they not arsed about the diminished life chances of their own progeny?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 10, 2010)

Anyone aware of how far Anarchists are involved in this? Id have thought sit-in's would be the perfect opportunity to get involved with uni students?


----------



## dennisr (Dec 10, 2010)

JimW said:


> I've been posting that all over the shop too, dennisr. Fair play to him


 
Yep, it is the most accurate assessment I've seen of the crowds composition and actions.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

dennisr said:


> What are you talking about you riot porn wank over. Stop trying to fit your readymade theories to something that happened 200 miles from were you were mr 'participator'. The event was the result of organising activities of lefts, activists and radicals. It didn't appear out of thin air.
> Jezeus when are you ejets going to stop fantasising and start recognising what is actually happening on the ground


 
denniss - it's the tbh equivalent of the penchant for some leftsists to fetishise social movements on the other side of the world.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> denniss - it's the tbh equivalent of the penchant for some leftsists to fetishise social movements on the other side of the world.


 
yep, agreed


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

I hope you wevolutionawies realise that the UK's actual, genuine working classes almost certainly want nothing to do with your wevolution  ?

*Not in my name* for a start and I'm a worker - at least as defined in "Marxism 101"  - and as I have said before, my own job is potentially on the line.
My own Union encouraged us to attend an earlier demo - I will be asking my shop steward what Unison's view is about what happened yesterday.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 10, 2010)

xes said:


> This may have been asked, but when was the last time a peaceful protest actually got a decent reult?


 
Arguably, this one got some sort of result -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11508226

Initial threats of a 25% cut were scaled back to a freeze on funding.

I think it's very difficult to say how much effect peaceful protests can have. You can never know what would have happened without the protest taking place.

As far as the current protests are concerned - I don't have an objection to a bit of "violence" as long as it's against property rather than people.

I'm not sure the whole argument about garnering public support is as clear cut as many here like to think it is. Yes of course the violence etc gets the protest more coverage. I'm sure it does turn a significant number of people away from supporting the demos, though, particularly with the way it's reported in the mainstream news etc. Whether that matters is another question of course.

What is perhaps significant about these fees protests is that a lot of people attending them (as far as I can make out) aren't your usual activist sorts. Lots of well-to-do kids/students with well-to-do parents who will hear their accounts of what actually happened; the whole kettling thing etc. Maybe a certain segment of the population will question things a bit more than they usually would.

I do think it's important for the protests, violent or otherwise, to be backed up with a strong effort to present the arguments against the fees increases and the cuts generally, in an objective way, thoroughly backed up with the relevant numbers and so on. That's the way to counter the tendency for many to see the protests and think, it's a bunch of students making a kneejerk reaction to proposals that aren't actually that bad when you look calmly at the details (as per the line being pushed by Cable/Nick Clegg).

I know that many don't think that the views of the middle classes are really relevant in all this - but, well, I do and I think there's a good opportunity at this moment to get more of them on side which I hope won't be wasted.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 10, 2010)

Mason's just being true to his own roots; former Trot and son of a lorry driver.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I hope you wevolutionawies realise that the UK's actual, genuine working classes almost certainly want nothing to do with your wevolution  ?
> 
> *Not in my name* for a start and I'm a worker - at least as defined in "Marxism 101"  - and as I have said before, my own job is potentially on the line.
> My own Union encouraged us to attend an earlier demo - I will be asking my shop steward what Unison's view is about what happened yesterday.


you do know solidarity cuts both ways, don't you?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

I've been to a few of these demos, although not yesterday, and the kids are overwhelmingly working class, many from the poorest backgrounds. I'm unconvinced by the media narrative of these being 'middle class kids'. Seems to me the definition of middle class is being stretched ever tighter. I am yet to meet a middle class kid who gives a fuck about EMA.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Dec 10, 2010)

nino_savatte said:


> I think I may have to draft a letter of complaint to the BBC over their biased reporting. It's been disgraceful. They have
> 
> 1. ignored the fact that the EMA is to be scrapped
> 2. Focussed solely on tuition fees and ignored the fact that the protests are about CUTS
> ...


 
It has been dreadful, but I'm actually not surprised (that's not to say complaints shouldn't be made, of course).

Every protester I saw interviewed by Ben Bradshaw on the BBC yesterday started by talking about the police violence, many citing examples they'd witnessed. I don't remember it being followed up on, but the pat question "why are you here today?" being trundled out time and again. 

It's a disgrace.

*gets out green pen*


----------



## ddraig (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I hope you wevolutionawies realise that the UK's actual, genuine working classes almost certainly want nothing to do with your wevolution  ?
> 
> *Not in my name* for a start and I'm a worker - at least as defined in "Marxism 101"  - and as I have said before, my own job is potentially on the line.
> My own Union encouraged us to attend an earlier demo - I will be asking my shop steward what Unison's view is about what happened yesterday.


nunison are apathetic shower and doing nothing down here, "there is a demo in march" (yes next year) is the shit answer you will get
they refuse to back or even publicise cuts meetings and peaceful marches down here and can't even be arsed to have a branch banner on an anti public sector cuts march from a to b
uterrly pathetic, weak and pandering to politicians
not good enough


----------



## Santino (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I've been to a few of these demos, although not yesterday, and the kids are overwhelmingly working class, many from the poorest backgrounds. I'm unconvinced by the media narrative of these being 'middle class kids'. Seems to me the definition of middle class is being stretched ever tighter. I am yet to meet a middle class kid who gives a fuck about EMA.


 
Middle class is a much abused term, often stretching to include anyone who doesn't live on a decaying council estate, right up to millionaire business owners who aren't actually landed gentry.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

nino_savatte said:


> I think I may have to draft a letter of complaint to the BBC over their biased reporting. It's been disgraceful. They have
> 
> 1. ignored the fact that the EMA is to be scrapped
> 2. Focussed solely on tuition fees and ignored the fact that the protests are about CUTS
> ...


the other issue you're missing is that this only applies to english students, not to for example the welsh.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I hope you wevolutionawies realise that the UK's actual, genuine working classes almost certainly want nothing to do with your wevolution  ?
> 
> *Not in my name* for a start and I'm a worker - at least as defined in "Marxism 101"  - and as I have said before, my own job is potentially on the line.
> My own Union encouraged us to attend an earlier demo - I will be asking my shop steward what Unison's view is about what happened yesterday.


 
Like the working class are one monothinking group that can be lumped one way or the other.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I've been to a few of these demos, although not yesterday, and the kids are overwhelmingly working class, many from the poorest backgrounds. I'm unconvinced by the media narrative of these being 'middle class kids'. Seems to me the definition of middle class is being stretched ever tighter. I am yet to meet a middle class kid who gives a fuck about EMA.


 
Hm, the impression I got yesterday (not from within the protest; I went down there after work and could only look on from outside the police lines) wasn't that the protesters were overwhelmingly working class. This is based on the people stood chanting behind the police lines, and those walking away from the area who had obviously been protesting earlier in the day, who I passed on my way there.

Not very scientific but there you go; that was my impression. Felt different from other protests I've been to.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I hope you wevolutionawies realise that the UK's actual, genuine working classes almost certainly want nothing to do with your wevolution  ?
> 
> *Not in my name* for a start and I'm a worker - at least as defined in "Marxism 101"  - and as I have said before, my own job is potentially on the line.
> My own Union encouraged us to attend an earlier demo - I will be asking my shop steward what Unison's view is about what happened yesterday.


 
I'm sure the youth will be gutted. 

What about the violence from the police? Is it surprising that, on demo number 4 (including Millbank), some protestors have by now clocked on to the fact that the police don't give a fuck what your intentions are and will bully you anyway, and are instead starting to fight back?

You're the fucking wevolutionary. Fucking creme egg. Stick to candlelit vigils.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I hope you wevolutionawies realise that the UK's actual, genuine working classes almost certainly want nothing to do with your wevolution  ?
> 
> *Not in my name* for a start and I'm a worker - at least as defined in "Marxism 101"  - and as I have said before, my own job is potentially on the line.
> My own Union encouraged us to attend an earlier demo - I will be asking my shop steward what Unison's view is about what happened yesterday.


 
I was one the demo as a union member. I spent most of the time with the RMT fellas I knew - down there with their banners. Yep, most folk will not like the violence and see it as pointless. Most folk will be reading this in millionaire run newspapers and will have not witnessed what actually happened. But they will blame the government for it as much as those youths and will probably be much more concerned about their own jobs and insecurities. Millions will participate in events - some will end up experienceing exactly what these students have and start looking on the 'law' in a different light - some already have - see Lewisham a few days ago. "I don't support violence, but what is happening to these/my kids is all wrong". That's going to be the general response - I would bet my last dollar on it.

So whats your point - we are all meant to bend over and get shafted. We are meant to try and reason with the ideologically driven burlington club toffs - like we tried to reason with the new labour government about the war? To show our 'moral' superiority? Have you ever tried 'reasoning' with a riot copper on a horse? If you are scarred of your own shadow I would recommend you stay indoors, close your curtains and shut the fuck up


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 10, 2010)

video report from the guardian from students POV - some impressive frontline footage in there. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/video/2010/dec/10/student-fees-protest-london-video


----------



## agricola (Dec 10, 2010)

dennisr said:


> "bainlieue-style youth from Croydon, Peckam, the council estates of Islington."


 
Jesus wept.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Like the working class are one monothinking group that can be lumped one way or the other.


 
and that unison have one view on this - i think many people from my branch would be in favour of yesterday's _evenements_


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2010)

This is a pretty reasonable account:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11959950


----------



## dennisr (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Stick to candlelit vigils.



Glowstick vigils (health and safety - innit)


----------



## strung out (Dec 10, 2010)

so these snooker balls. any evidence for it actually happening, or is it just more made up bullshit?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

dennisr said:


> Glowstick vigils (health and safety - innit)


 
Let's form a ring and sing kumbaya


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 10, 2010)

Neither the 80% cuts to the university teaching budget, nor the subsequent trebling of fees are necessary on the coalition’s own terms of deficit reduction.

The ‘country’ did not demand that the Liberal Democrats enabled a minority Conservative administration, let alone that they form a coalition with them; party political interests as identified by key figures in both partners were the drivers for this marriage of convenience.

In this context, faced with a government propelled by a toxic mixture of ideological commitment, naked careerism and tribal self interest, what are the students' alternatives? 

They could listen to that doleful chorus, repeating ad-nauseum  the tired old mantra that there is no alternative, then quietly turn their backs and return home to endure. 

They could march respectfully from the Embankment to Trafalgar Square as millions have done before, and to the same effect. 

They could lobby their disinterested, whip bound MP or hold a candle, hopelessly in the dark.

That many of them choose none of the above, preferring instead to show in turn bravery, imagination, determination and desire, is cause for celebration. 

A heartfelt cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2010)

strung out said:


> so these snooker balls. any evidence for it actually happening, or is it just more made up bullshit?


I didn't see any myself, but I loved the idea of the festive Christmas baubles filled with paint that were apparently lobbed at the police.

Mind you, there was a lot of stuff being lobbed at police - I was right behind their lines and had to duck to avoid objects flying over. It was mainly pretty harmless objects though - the biggest thing I saw was a plastic workers helmet.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 10, 2010)

strung out said:


> so these snooker balls. any evidence for it actually happening, or is it just more made up bullshit?


 
i would like to see evidence also, they went on about it enough!
loving the neat pile of broken breezeblocks on sky news this morning filmed this morning
all the graffiti had gone but conveniently the "dangerous weapons" were left lying about
this was after 9am as well 
tossers

and praise be or the 'remarkably restrained armed police' wtf!


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 10, 2010)

> its 1am and kids are still on westminster bridge according to twitter.


 oh my God. I saw them there around 10:35pm last night, I asked a couple of kids were they serach and they said no. This would explain the police moving people away from the south side. There were Police Van parked like cattle containers and letting people squeeze through in between. Were anyone serached?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 10, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Neither the 80% cuts to the university teaching budget, nor the subsequent trebling of fees are necessary on the coalition’s own terms of deficit reduction.
> 
> The ‘country’ did not demand that the Liberal Democrats enabled a minority Conservative administration, let alone that they form a coalition with them; party political interests as identified by key figures in both partners were the drivers for this marriage of convenience.
> 
> ...


 
Hard to disagree with any of that.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 10, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I can't get my head around the muppets that are the old bill. Are they not arsed about the diminished life chances of their own progeny?


 
I bet a lot of them are, but equally some of them are too caught up in the battle to see which side they should be on. This is based on their actual individual actions - they don't have an awful lot of choice about being sent in to police the protests. The protesters'd be a lot worse off if all the decent cops quit.


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 10, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Neither the 80% cuts to the university teaching budget, nor the subsequent trebling of fees are necessary on the coalition’s own terms of deficit reduction.
> 
> The ‘country’ did not demand that the Liberal Democrats enabled a minority Conservative administration, let alone that they form a coalition with them; party political interests as identified by key figures in both partners were the drivers for this marriage of convenience.
> 
> ...


 

POTD!


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Dec 10, 2010)




----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)

"The hidden dangers of higher tuition fees"

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=414553&c=1


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 10, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Neither the 80% cuts to the university teaching budget, nor the subsequent trebling of fees are necessary on the coalition’s own terms of deficit reduction.
> 
> The ‘country’ did not demand that the Liberal Democrats enabled a minority Conservative administration, let alone that they form a coalition with them; party political interests as identified by key figures in both partners were the drivers for this marriage of convenience.
> 
> ...



well said


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

Great post Louis. _bravery, imagination, determination and desire_ is exactly what we need now.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 10, 2010)

wtfftw said:


> @brisoccupation ?


 
cheers!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 10, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Neither the 80% cuts to the university teaching budget, nor the subsequent trebling of fees are necessary on the coalition’s own terms of deficit reduction.
> 
> The ‘country’ did not demand that the Liberal Democrats enabled a minority Conservative administration, let alone that they form a coalition with them; party political interests as identified by key figures in both partners were the drivers for this marriage of convenience.
> 
> ...



Well said.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

scifisam said:


> they don't have an awful lot of choice about being sent in to police the protests. The protesters'd be a lot worse off if all the decent cops quit.



I know what, let's go back to the situation pre-Peel ... no police, just vigilantes - that'd save money too.


----------



## treelover (Dec 10, 2010)

'I am yet to meet a middle class kid who gives a fuck about EMA.' 



Thats rubbish, plenty of 'M/C' young students have raised the issue of EMA and have been very angry about it all.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

treelover said:


> 'I am yet to meet a middle class kid who gives a fuck about EMA.'
> 
> 
> 
> Thats rubbish, plenty of 'M/C' young students have raised the issue of EMA and have been very angry about it all.


 
How are they middle class?


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 10, 2010)

Riklet said:


> I was there today, it was all pretty chaotic and crazy really, we went straight to Westminster and joined the march which had arrived at parliament square, the cops had their horses around the crowd and were properly edgy as the horses were freaking out.  Ended up having the pull back and whilst it wasn't a proper kettle they were trying to seal the square effectively.  I didn't want to get kettled so early on so climbed into the church yard and got out that way, through a side gate, then went all the way 'round seeing where the police positions were and trying to get in touch with people.
> 
> I think it was fairly effective in some ways their sealing off of westminster, but there were A LOT of protesters all over the place outside, where ever I went... ended up having a look in at the lame NUS "glowstick vigil" thing and whilst their were some interesting speakers it was still pretty shit, top-down dictatorial crap.  Yelled for the NUS to be burned with the health-and-safety hazard missing candles n then left.
> 
> ...


 
quoted for the morning crew


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I know what, let's go back to the situation pre-Peel ... no police, just vigilantes - that'd save money too.


 
Or we could try to go forward to a situation where polcing is carried out by people who are recognised by, respected by and accountable to the public they serve; at present recognition, respect and accountability are not the key characteristics of the relationship between many many of those being policed and those doing the policing.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## dennisr (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> How are they middle class?


 
everyone who is not as poor as treelover is middle-class in t/ls world


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I know what, let's go back to the situation pre-Peel ... no police, just vigilantes - that'd save money too.


 
you don't know what you're talking about. again.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 10, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> cobbles said, "The Government (as duly elected) represent the MAJORITY of the British people."
> 
> People didnt elect a coalition or LibDems in ordee from them to regage on promises.


 
People never elect governments, they elect MPs which can then form governments. Most people elected to the house support tuition fees and would have voted to raise them. Face it more Tory MPs were elected, and Labour were only opposing them opportunistically.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> People never elect governments, they elect MPs which can then form governments. Most people elected to the house support tuition fees and would have voted to raise them. Face it more Tory MPs were elected, and Labour were only opposing them opportunistically.


 
Fuck off moon.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> People never elect governments, they elect MPs which can then form governments. Most people elected to the house support tuition fees and would have voted to raise them. Face it more Tory MPs were elected, and Labour were only opposing them opportunistically.


 
you're a tory now? 

well i never


----------



## scifisam (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I know what, let's go back to the situation pre-Peel ... no police, just vigilantes - that'd save money too.


 
Did you even read what I said. or did just see the word 'cop' and decide I must be ACAB?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> People never elect governments, they elect MPs which can then form governments. Most people elected to the house support tuition fees and would have voted to raise them. Face it more Tory MPs were elected, and Labour were only opposing them opportunistically.


 Genius  A lib-dem attacking labour for opportunism. What the fuck do you think this thread is about?


----------



## moon23 (Dec 10, 2010)

What I saw yesterday, was not a mass uprising of students, but a load of peaceful protestors having their event hijacked by the far-left for whom fees are simply a pretext for the type of mass riotting and revolution they have been trying to provoke for years.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Or we could try to go forward to a situation where polcing is carried out by people who are recognised by, respected by and accountable to the public they serve; at present recognition, respect and accountability are not the key characteristics of the relationship between many many of those being policed and those doing the policing.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Yes. On form today Louis!

Nothing wrong with having a police force, we just need one that is accountable to the people not to the political/state bureaucracy.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> People never elect governments, they elect MPs which can then form governments. Most people elected to the house support tuition fees and would have voted to raise them. Face it more Tory MPs were elected, and *Labour were only opposing them opportunistically*.


 
You're criticising the opposition party for opposing the governing party?


----------



## moon23 (Dec 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Genius  A lib-dem attacking labour for opportunism. What the fuck do you think this thread is about?


 
Half the Lib Dems were trying to work with the Tories to make the proposals fairer which they are. Now no poor graduate is going to have to pay back anything unless they are in a position to do so. The other half rebelled as they still thought things didn't go far enough.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)




----------



## fractionMan (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> What I saw yesterday, was not a mass uprising of students, but a load of peaceful protestors having their event hijacked by the far-left for whom fees are simply a pretext for the type of mass riotting and revolution they have been trying to provoke for years.


 
are you on drugs?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

No. what you saw was a loaf of pissed off kids acting in defence of their and societies  interests. red-baiting, esp when the far-left were not in any way behind any trouble (i wish they were!) is tragic. It's slipped. You're gone.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 10, 2010)

Jesus - do you mind if i repost this on fb riklet?


----------



## past caring (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> People never elect governments, they elect MPs which can then form governments. Most people elected to the house support tuition fees and would have voted to raise them. Face it more Tory MPs were elected, and Labour were only opposing them opportunistically.



Deluded. Whilst there may be a minority of MPs elected on the basis of their constituency work, the vast majority are elected on the basis of what government the voter is voting for. People do elect governments.

And yeah, fuck off moonie.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> What I saw yesterday......


 
With your eyes, or filtered through the media and your own preconceptions?


----------



## moon23 (Dec 10, 2010)

scifisam said:


> You're criticising the opposition party for opposing the governing party?



Saying they would have implemented the Browne review they commissioned if they had been in power. That's the problem too many Labour and Tory MPs were elected, both of whom would have supported fees if in power.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)




----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Half the Lib Dems were trying to work with the Tories to make the proposals fairer which they are. Now no poor graduate is going to have to pay back anything unless they are in a position to do so. The other half rebelled as they still thought things didn't go far enough.


 
are you on drugs?

Working with the toies to make something that you didn't have to support at all fairer. You're hopeless


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 10, 2010)

TopCat said:


>


 
Protector of the sad State of affairs with proverbial egg on face...


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Saying they would have implemented the Browne review they commissioned if they had been in power. That's the problem too many Labour and Tory MPs were elected, both of whom would have supported fees if in power.


 
Fuck off moon.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> People never elect governments, they elect MPs which can then form governments. Most people elected to the house support tuition fees and would have voted to raise them. Face it more Tory MPs were elected, and Labour were only opposing them opportunistically.


 
If suffiicient Lib Dems hadn't supported the Tories then the fees wouldn't have been raised; that is the legacy of dishonesty and party self-interest which lays about your opportunist crew like Marley's chains.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 10, 2010)

I hope the 8 abstaining bollockless mps feel suitably shit.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> What I saw yesterday, was not a mass uprising of students, but a load of peaceful protestors having their event hijacked by the far-left for whom fees are simply a pretext for the type of mass riotting and revolution they have been trying to provoke for years.


 
red baiting - thats desperate even for you


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Saying they would have implemented the Browne review they commissioned if they had been in power. That's the problem too many Labour and Tory MPs were elected, both of whom would have supported fees if in power.


 
Fuck off moon.


----------



## girasol (Dec 10, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> video report from the guardian from students POV - some impressive frontline footage in there.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/video/2010/dec/10/student-fees-protest-london-video


 
That's good, everyone should watch that!  I'm sharing it


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> People never elect governments, they elect MPs which can then form governments. Most people elected to the house support tuition fees and would have voted to raise them. Face it more Tory MPs were elected, and Labour were only opposing them opportunistically.


 
If suffiicient Lib Dems hadn't supported the Tories then the fees wouldn't have been raised; that is the legacy of dishonesty and party self-interest which lays about your opportunist crew like Marley's chains.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 10, 2010)

TopCat said:


>


 
Protector of the sad State of affairs with proverbial egg on face...


----------



## Zabo (Dec 10, 2010)




----------



## teuchter (Dec 10, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Or we could try to go forward to a situation where polcing is carried out by people who are recognised by, respected by and accountable to the public they serve; at present recognition, respect and accountability are not the key characteristics of the relationship between many many of those being policed and those doing the policing.


 
Not that the ACAB lot could imagine such a situation existing anyway - the choice for them is black & white - between the status quo and some imaginary alternative that they can't define in any realistic way.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Not that the ACAB lot could imagine such a situation existing anyway - the choice for them is black & white - between the status quo and some imaginary alternative that they can't define in any realistic way.


 
Damn right, i hate their crude strawmen.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> some imaginary alternative that they can't define in any realistic way.


 
Like a police force that is actually accountable to the public, that sort of vague thing?

And almost all coppers are bastards.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 10, 2010)

NOt the same man as pictured above:



> London student 'struck by truncheon' has brain injury
> 
> 
> A student suffered bleeding to the brain when he was struck by a police truncheon during the tuition fees protest, his mother has alleged.
> ...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11967098


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> What I saw yesterday, was not a mass uprising of students, but a load of peaceful protestors having their event hijacked by the far-left for whom fees are simply a pretext for the type of mass riotting and revolution they have been trying to provoke for years.


Perhaps you should got off your apologist arse and gone down to the protest and _asked the protesters themselves_ rather than posting up your clueless opinions about what really went on?

I was there and chatted to loads of students - and their anger at your lying shitbag leader was very real.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 10, 2010)

You're fucked.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> What I saw yesterday, was not a mass uprising of students, but a load of peaceful protestors having their event hijacked by the far-left for whom fees are simply a pretext for the type of mass riotting and revolution they have been trying to provoke for years.


 
You're in the same denial as two of my Lib Dem activist friends.

The anger is very much directed towards Clegg and the Lib Dems, especially as you courted a reasonable student vote in the general election.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No. what you saw was a loaf of pissed off kids acting in defence of their and societies  interests. red-baiting, esp when the far-left were not in any way behind any trouble (i wish they were!) is tragic. It's slipped. You're gone.


 
The far-left flags were everywhere BA, they clearly started the violence.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

Liberals were happy with the youth protesting when they were dressed up in purple...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The far-left flags were everywhere BA, they clearly started the violence.


 
Lol. You knob.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 10, 2010)

editor said:


> Perhaps you should got off your apologist arse and gone down to the protest and _asked the protesters themselves_ rather than posting up your clueless opinions about what really went on?
> 
> I was there and chatted to loads of students - and their anger at your lying shitbag leader was very real.


 
Of course it's real anger they have been fed a narrative that it's all the Lib Dem's fault. It's bollocks.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 10, 2010)

Rutita1 said:


> NOt the same man as pictured above:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11967098



A 20 year old lad - Poor kid - Lets hope he recovers. 
And if he doesn't....


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 10, 2010)

dennisr said:


> What are you talking about you riot porn wank over. Stop trying to fit your readymade theories to something that happened 200 miles from were you were mr 'participator'. The event was the result of organising activities of lefts, activists and radicals. It didn't appear out of thin air.
> Jezeus when are you ejets going to stop fantasising and start recognising what is actually happening on the ground



Get a grip Dennis - you're contradicting yourself - you quote this favourably;

 "Any idea that you are dealing with Lacan-reading hipsters from Spitalfields on this demo is mistaken. While a good half of the march was undergraduates from the most militant college occupations - UCL, SOAS, Leeds, Sussex - the really stunning phenomenon, politically, was the presence of youth: bainlieue-style youth from Croydon, Peckam, the council estates of Islington.

Having been very close to the front line of the fighting, on the protesters side, I would say that at its height - again - it broke the media stereotype of being organised by "political groups": there was an anarchist black bloc contingent, there were the socialist left groups - but above all, again, I would say the main offensive actions taken to break through police lines were done by small groups of young men who dressed a lot more like the older brothers of the dubsteppers. The fighting itself is still going on - I am seeing people break the windows of HM Revenue and Customs live on TV. At one point after 2pm there were just two lines of riot cops between the students and parliament and it was at this point, with nowhere to go, that people began to push forward and attack the police. Despite that, those involved were a minority and it was fairly "ritual" involving placard sticks and the remains of the metal fence around Parliament Square, until people realised there was nowhere to break through *to* and changed direction."


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Of course it's real anger they have been fed a narrative that it's all the Lib Dem's fault. It's bollocks.


 
No, they _know_ what they've been fed. That's why they're coming for you.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The far-left flags were everywhere BA, they clearly started the violence.


 
Yeah, I can really see the anarchist and class war placards in abundance!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 10, 2010)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education...rotests-charles-camilla-attack-aftermath-live



> 12.10pm: Elizabeth Draper, an MA student at University College London, has written to say she was one of the protesters kettled in Parliament Square. She too was "disgusted" with the police's tactics. She writes:
> 
> Live blog: email
> 
> ...


----------



## chilango (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The far-left flags were everywhere BA, they clearly started the violence.


 
Even by your standards that's lame.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Of course it's real anger they have been fed a narrative that it's all the Lib Dem's fault. It's bollocks.


 
apologist. No one needs toi be 'fed a narrative'. Your mates flat out lied and sold out to the tories, simple as that. Yellow water.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The far-left flags were everywhere BA, they clearly started the violence.



You really don't get it do you. You and your dead in the water party. Desperate for some phantom to blame.

You organised this violence moon. You clegg and all the other smug fuckers. You started it.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Not that the ACAB lot could imagine such a situation existing anyway - the choice for them is black & white - between the status quo and some imaginary alternative that they can't define in any realistic way.



Strawman! That is just not true....


----------



## dennisr (Dec 10, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> Get a grip Dennis - you're contradicting yourself - you quote this favourably



fuck off. there is no contradiction you fantasist


----------



## scifisam (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The far-left flags were everywhere BA, they clearly started the violence.


 
Those are all far-left flags, are they? And the existence of flags proves that they started the violence? 

Do you really, really believe that?


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The far-left flags were everywhere BA, they clearly started the violence.


 
good god, even you cant be sad enough to believe what you just wrote.  If you bothered listening to the students at all (which you wont of course), you'd know exactly who cause the violence.

You.  You and Clegg and all scum like you who keep lying.  Those students want you all strung up, and who can blame them?


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Neither the 80% cuts to the university teaching budget, nor the subsequent trebling of fees are necessary on the coalition’s own terms of deficit reduction.
> 
> The ‘country’ did not demand that the Liberal Democrats enabled a minority Conservative administration, let alone that they form a coalition with them; party political interests as identified by key figures in both partners were the drivers for this marriage of convenience.
> 
> ...


Great post. I'll add that to my photo piece, if you don't mind.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 10, 2010)

dennisr said:


> fuck off. there is no contradiction you fantasist


Tsk tsk toucy are we...

What I wrote was consistent, you were the one that brought in irrelevance... 

 I know quite well what I wrote and your hyperbole is the one that is out of place...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 10, 2010)

editor said:


> Great post. I'll add that to my photo piece, if you don't mind.


 
Of course I don't mind Ed...quite the opposite.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 10, 2010)

belboid said:


> good god, even you cant be sad enough to believe what you just wrote.  If you bothered listening to the students at all (which you wont of course), *you'd know exactly who cause the violence*.
> 
> You.  You and Clegg and all scum like you who keep lying.  *Those students want you all strung up*, and who can blame them?


----------



## treelover (Dec 10, 2010)

Apparently, according to the Times the Coalition has a 'war chest of many billions' from the sale of the Student Loans Company book and other privatisations, the Fees/Cuts are ideological...


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Dec 10, 2010)

There's some shocking first hand accounts of police brutality going up on the Guardian site: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education...rotests-charles-camilla-attack-aftermath-live


----------



## dylans (Dec 10, 2010)

jer said:


>


 
I have a question for you mr Babylondon.  

A slave owner keeps his slave in chains as he quietly picks cotton under the eyes of his whip holding overseers. He calls this state of affairs peace.

One day the slave uses violence to break his chains,  after which he strings his former "master" up from a tree and burns down his house

Who started the violence?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Like a police force that is actually accountable to the public, that sort of vague thing?
> 
> .


 
Would such a police force employ any police?

It's what the first A in ACAB stands for that makes it illogical to hold such a position and start talking about "accountable" policing.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 10, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> Strawman! That is just not true....


 
Go on then - tell me what the realistic alternative is.


----------



## editor (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The far-left flags were everywhere BA, they clearly started the violence.


Unlike you, I bothered to go to the protest and talk to people. Quite a few of the students I spoke to had voted LibDem and they were incandescent with rage at Clegg's shameful deceit and any violence was a direct response to his lies.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 10, 2010)

Fuck them.




> I just got home after attending the embers of the protest at the end  of Victoria Street. While there I got chatting to a 17year-old girl. A  while later a group of people who I believe to be neo-Nazis turned up  and started causing trouble. They were trying to start on an old man of  about 60. A policeman calmed him down. They then started picking on this  girl. They all started to scream "Cunt!" at her and she called them  this back. The group (about 12-15) walked up to her in a very menacing  way. We backed off towards the police and then one of the group pushed  the girl violently in the head, causing her to fall down on her back. I  pulled her away to the police and asked for help. Two of them smirked at  each other and one said: "You wanted free speech." They then continued  to watch as the neo-Nazis caused trouble. This occurred at around 7pm.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/education...rotests-charles-camilla-attack-aftermath-live


----------



## dennisr (Dec 10, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> What I wrote was consistent.



Consistent only in its bollocks and inability to read what is in front of you

As much as the main argument is with idiots like moon - what pisses me off about fools like you is that you don't face the consequences of your uninformed 'violent crowd' fantasies (from 200 miles away). One of those youngsters has life threatening injuries, many more were badly done in. You are busy wanking over that and thinking its some 'autonomous' bid for freedom - It isn't its folk deperately defending themsleves from state attack. Some of those kids are not having to pay an awful price for the bravado they showed - you don't.

And if you think this action appears out of nowhere and is the only method of struggle open to that movement you are a complete idiot. But most of us here already know that


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Would such a police force employ any police?



Um, yes.



teuchter said:


> It's what the first A in ACAB stands for that makes it illogical to hold such a position and start talking about "accountable" policing.



Why? Somebody joining a police force that is genuinely accountable and genuinely serves the people is very different to somebody joining a police force that is unaccountable and protects the state not the people. You have to question the worldview of people who believe that they are serving the public by acting as thugs for the state.


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

jer said:


>


 
You're not actually very good at doing joined up thinking are you?

Self defence is no offence, by the way.

And pro active self defence is the best defence of all.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

Better to break the law than break the poor


----------



## teuchter (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Um, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Somebody joining a police force that is genuinely accountable and genuinely serves the people is very different to somebody joining a police force that is unaccountable and protects the state not the people. You have to question the worldview of people who believe that they are serving the public by acting as thugs for the state.


 
They are still joining a police force though aren't they, and that police force employs coppers, and we are told that ACAB.

Or, when people say "ACAB" is it really just to get a rise, and what they actually mean is "AC who are currently employed by the police force in its present form AB"?

Seems to me that if you are going to talk about a police force being "accountable", that's quite a difficult thing to define and there is going to be a sliding scale (with probably more than one dimension to it) of "accountability" , with different people deciding on different points along that line as being suitably "accountable" for them.

I don't see how the ACAB position fits with anything like that.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)

Fuck this makes me angry.



> 9.32am: A 20-year-old student was left unconscious with bleeding on the brain after a police officer hit him on the head with a truncheon yesterday, the Press Association news agency is reporting:
> 
> Alfie Meadows, a philosophy student at Middlesex University, was struck as he tried to leave the area outside Westminster Abbey during last night's tuition fee protests, his mother said.
> 
> ...



After G20 police were criticised for planning only for violence.  Yet this appears to be what they have been doing with these protests.  They certainly haven't been facilitating them have they?

And now we have youngsters undergoing three hours ops for bleeding on the brain?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> They are still joining a police force though aren't they, and that police force employs coppers, and we are told that ACAB.
> 
> Or, when people say "ACAB" is it really just to get a rise, and what they actually mean is "AC who are currently employed by the police force in its present form AB"?
> 
> ...


 
You are making no sense. Would you prefer it if they said 'ACAB except possibly in a post-revolutionary situation'?

How is accountability on a sliding scale? Either they are, or are not, accountable to the public, as opposed to the state bureaucracy. And they are not.

Anybody who joins the police and hangs around for a while will know exactly who's interests they serve, so I don't see the objection to people pointing out that they must basically be shits. 80% of police work is probably socially useful, but it's the other 20%, that we see at its most pronounced during, for example, the miners strike or the student protests. For example, look a drugs - they are everywhere, in every level of society. The City runs on coke. Yet it is overwhelmingly the poorest in society who are criminalised over drugs. Why? Because the police don't target the City - they target the estates.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

Charging at a crowd of people on horseback is an act of violence. The police started the violence yesterday. That much is crystal clear.


----------



## Sean (Dec 10, 2010)

The more I read about the police violence the more sick and angry I feel. He's lucky to be alive and the chances of tracking his attacker down and prosecuting him are zilch.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> How is accountability on a sliding scale? Either they are, or are not, accountable to the public, as opposed to the state bureaucracy. And they are not.


 
Can you explain how a police force "accountable to the public" works exactly? How does one create such a thing, so that it definitely is accountable to the public? Who gives them their orders, pays their salary, and so on? How is this all scrutinised and who decides whether or not they are doing something in the interests of "the public" whatever that actually means? What happens in the instance where one section of "the public" has a different opinion to another section of "the public" about what the police's role is in a certain set of circumstances?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Dec 10, 2010)

Dave Gilmores (Pink Floyd) son. has publically apologised for pissing at the cenotaph....


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Can you explain how a police force "accountable to the public" works exactly? How does one create such a thing, so that it definitely is accountable to the public? Who gives them their orders, pays their salary, and so on? How is this all scrutinised and who decides whether or not they are doing something in the interests of "the public" whatever that actually means? What happens in the instance where one section of "the public" has a different opinion to another section of "the public" about what the police's role is in a certain set of circumstances?


 
We could have a truly independent body to investigate the police with enough resources to manage those investigations without relying on the police to investigate themselves for starters.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Can you explain how a police force "accountable to the public" works exactly? How does one create such a thing, so that it definitely is accountable to the public? Who gives them their orders, pays their salary, and so on? How is this all scrutinised and who decides whether or not they are doing something in the interests of "the public" whatever that actually means? What happens in the instance where one section of "the public" has a different opinion to another section of "the public" about what the police's role is in a certain set of circumstances?



Might want a new thread for this


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

The police are an instrument of the state, teuchter. They are there to enforce the will of the state, by violent means as necessary – and some aspects of that enforcement will be seen as good by most people, other aspects less good. The police force exists above all else to maintain the current distribution of property and to maintain order. You change the nature of the police by changing the nature of the state and, crucially, by changing the nature of _ownership_. It makes no sense to discuss the one without reference to the other.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> Fuck this makes me angry.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is it any wonder people get hurt when things are being thrown and others agitated deliberately.?


----------



## 8ball (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Is it any wonder people get hurt when things are being thrown and others *agitated deliberately*.?


 
Presumably you're talking about the 'kettling' here...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

Fuck off.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

8ball said:


> Presumably you're talking about the 'kettling' here...


 
no Im talking ablout the police having items thrown at them and god knows what else.  If it had been a copper hurt everyone would have been saying 'great'.  It wasn't - and this was bound to happen.

He will get little sympathy I suspect


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 10, 2010)

Would they really?


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Would they really?



check back through some of the threads at the gloating at some of the injured coppers


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Can you explain how a police force "accountable to the public" works exactly? How does one create such a thing, so that it definitely is accountable to the public? Who gives them their orders, pays their salary, and so on? How is this all scrutinised and who decides whether or not they are doing something in the interests of "the public" whatever that actually means? What happens in the instance where one section of "the public" has a different opinion to another section of "the public" about what the police's role is in a certain set of circumstances?


 
You really want me to explain democracy to you? Fucking hell teuchter, you're better than this.

We have a state bureaucracy - under the guise of so-called liberal parliamentary democracy - that is not accountable, and the police are only semi-accountable to that bureaucracy. Were we to remove that bureaucracy and replace it with a system of social & economic order based on genuine democracy then immediately the police would become semi-accountable to the people. Add reforms to policing - to make local forces accountable to local people, not to a centralised police bureaucracy, and the jobs a good un. Of course some people would still resent the police - nobody likes getting caught - but we wouldn't see police attacking ordinary working people because it serves the interests of their paymasters or their paymasters' paymasters.

For the people by the people isn't a difficult concept to understand.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> no Im talking ablout the police having items thrown at them and god knows what else.  If it had been a copper hurt everyone would have been saying 'great'.  It wasn't - and this was bound to happen.
> 
> He will get little sympathy I suspect


 
So trained policemen in armour are entitled to beat people up if a missile is thrown at them? You don't expect them to have any self-control at all?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> no Im talking ablout the police having items thrown at them and god knows what else.  If it had been a copper hurt everyone would have been saying 'great'.  It wasn't - and this was bound to happen.
> 
> He will get little sympathy I suspect


sorry, but this is bollocks, by just about every account the police were by far the guiltier party


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

The police started the violence. 'Kettling' is violence.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Dec 10, 2010)

scifisam said:


> So trained policemen in armour are entitled to beat people up if a missile is thrown at them? You don't expect them to have any self-control at all?


 
Ah but let's not forget, they did show remarkable restraint by not shooting protesters. We should be proud of them.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

Ignore him, he's just a gypsy-hating tax-dodging parasite. He's lower than a scab.


----------



## stowpirate (Dec 10, 2010)

editor said:


> Unlike you, I bothered to go to the protest and talk to people. Quite a few of the students I spoke to had voted LibDem and they were incandescent with rage at Clegg's shameful deceit and any violence was a direct response to his lies.


 
I wish I had seen this one coming and got on the train with camera ready for action. There was a point during the unfolding events that the subjects nearly became citizens. Unfortunately this is going to become the defining news story.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> sorry, but this is bollocks, by just about every account the police were by far the guiltier party



I didnt say theyre werent but I fully understand provocation and Id get pissed off with a load of spotty kids throwing things it if had been me.

I said it was likely to happen and I said there would have been gloating if it had been a copper.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Ignore him, he's just a gypsy-hating tax-dodging parasite. He's lower than a scab.



ha ha the sponger's back


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> no Im talking ablout the police having items thrown at them and god knows what else.  If it had been a copper hurt everyone would have been saying 'great'.  It wasn't - and this was bound to happen.
> 
> He will get little sympathy I suspect


 
Police can't justify individual attacks on people based on what other people are doing though can they?  No more than I can justify beating the crap out of a copper because of what his pals do at some other time or location.

If he was running at lines with a weapon, or attacking an innocent person, perhaps they could justify it.  It's down to the Met now though, to justify what happened to this individual.

He was there to protest, but we can't say he was violent.  And he could easily, very easily, have been caught in a kettle and trying to get out as an innocent member of the public, as the Ian Tomlinson situation so clearly demonstrates.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I didnt say theyre werent but I fully understand provocation and Id get pissed off with a load of spotty kids throwing things it if had been me.
> 
> I said it was likely to happen and I said there would have been gloating if it had been a copper.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 10, 2010)

Get lost Dennis - you're projecting irrelevance and misinformation again cos your holy grails are being challenged- - well fek your narrative.

You're trying to fit what I wrote into some traditional ultra anarchist narrative that fools in the Socialist party have been peddling for decades. They were false and stale lies then and your narrative hasn't improved here. Get a grip.

As for the 'consequences' I am far more familiar than you are with brain injuries and their after affects (cue pathetic ultra left 'you've got brain injury jibes)...



dennisr said:


> Consistent only in its bollocks and inability to read what is in front of you
> 
> As much as the main argument is with idiots like moon - what pisses me off about fools like you is that you don't face the consequences of your uninformed 'violent crowd' fantasies (from 200 miles away). One of those youngsters has life threatening injuries, many more were badly done in. You are busy wanking over that and thinking its some 'autonomous' bid for freedom - It isn't its folk deperately defending themsleves from state attack. Some of those kids are not having to pay an awful price for the bravado they showed - you don't.
> 
> And if you think this action appears out of nowhere and is the only method of struggle open to that movement you are a complete idiot. But most of us here already know that


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

Fuck off Black Hand, you're shit


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


>



id post a pic of a big sponge - but I cant be asked - have my accounts to do!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> id post a pic of a big sponge - but I cant be asked - have my accounts to do!


 
Off to rob poor people blind are you?


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)

Kettle Scotland Yard

11 December · 15:30 - 17:00

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=156466817731842


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> I have a question for you mr Babylondon.
> 
> A slave owner keeps his slave in chains as he quietly picks cotton under the eyes of his whip holding overseers. He calls this state of affairs peace.
> 
> ...


 
The slave's former neighbour who captured them during some petty tribal dispute and sold them to an Arab trader, presumably?

Surely you don't want to blame Ashanti warlords in the Middle Ages for the mindless violence of a bunch of thugs yesterday?


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Fuck off Black Hand, you're shit


 
Fek off proper tidy youre shit.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Saying they would have implemented the Browne review they commissioned if they had been in power. That's the problem too many Labour and Tory MPs were elected, both of whom would have supported fees if in power.


true
A lot of wolfie smiths in here 

what do you realisitcally expect to achieve ?

Seem to remember during the miners strike (when I was a student living in the valleys)the kinnocks and the prescotts and all the other uber leftie_ socialists being on the front line _ ...Now look at them .......

Couldnt take up to the ermine fast enough to get their snouts in the into the champers , and the power...these were the people who brought in the loans and fees after stating in their mainifesto that they wouldnt ...where were the riots then ? ...what ....no backing ?
NUS is just a breeding ground for labour wannabe MP's 

people using people for their own personal gain ......nothing changes ......

The safest job you can get is a union job within the union ..the trough is long deep and wide....

To qoute a yorkshire miner "Thing is to know about Arthur , he went into a huge union  with a small house , and came out with a huge house and a small union "

all the Red Ed has said "is that he pledges not to make any pledges".........dont hold your breath

Why dont we have a bit on honesty about our education system ?
Labour *have*  pumped money into the system .........but in the decade from 2000/10 we have dropped from 7th to 27th in the worlds educational  league tables .....standards have* fallen *as labour has gone from *quality to bulk *..money is not the answer. (we now have no money anyway )

The real primary objective was to increase the school leaving age to *reduce the numbers* of *unemployed young*....... It was a ticking time bomb that has now gone off ...thats why labour instigated the brown review with cross party support. It was unsustainable .

The tory answer is exactly the same as the labour one ..just changing the billing source........  It is a delaying tactic ....... £30k debit's (but insn't debits bad ?) at the end of a lower value degree ,not suited to the job market , and lots of them vying for the same job, how long do you think that money is going to take to get repaid ? when they will take any job they can get?.....Some *future* government's problems and cost. 

By 2014 if Osbourne's cuts are adhered too(back to Blair 2004 spending levels) we will STILL be creating a *deficit* , increasing our *debt* of  £1.4 trillion plus , the interst repayments of which will be more than our whole current defense and education annual costs combined ........(THATS WHAT PROVIDED THAT WE MAINTAIN A AAA RATING)

Its also when Gordons PFI bills and other of his offbalance accounting kicks in ,the decline of N. sea revenue........and other nasty delayed bills (nuclear decommission and power infrastructure being one of the deffered biggies) hit us

We have spent our childrens future and tax revenue yet to be collected................................. this is just the start.


If I had an answer I would go back to the 70's starting with O's and A's .........
vairable pass level based on percentages ...the bottom 40% of would fail (C-) only the very top level..... 5%would achieve an A
reduce student numbers to 100,000 (from 450,000) and make it free ...... Bite the bullet on the unemployed they exist anyway ...the numbers are just hidden from view 
Double the price for foreign students .....

Anyone else got an answer ...instead of bleating ..."yeah ..power to the people"

Dont forget ....All the our old anti establishment donkeys (straw,darling prescott, etc) who rioted and walked with CND during the cold war ......are now the establishment ,people on here so hate ....and so the circle continues

It does need an answer ..........bricking coppers isnt it 

And no Im not tory .........cameron is going to fail .....the police are using this as practice for worse to come.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> The slave's former neighbour who captured them during some petty tribal dispute and sold them to an Arab trader, presumably?
> 
> Surely you don't want to blame Ashanti warlords in the Middle Ages for the mindless violence of a bunch of thugs yesterday?


 
Another tax dodging parasite


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> Seem to remember during the miners strike (when I was a student living in the valleys)the kinnocks and the prescotts and all the other uber leftie_ socialists being on the front line _ ...Now look at them .......


 
Lol. Your memory fails you.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 10, 2010)

so we can add 'analogy' to the list of things cobbles does not understand.


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> Seem to remember during the miners strike (when I was a student living in the valleys)the kinnocks and the prescotts and all the other uber leftie_ socialists being on the front line _


 
well your memory is fucking shit then, cos the worthless cunts were nowhere to be seen.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Another tax dodging parasite



you really are so thick it's painful.  I hope you've got a spare £27k or you have a life of misery ahead.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 10, 2010)

They never are.


belboid said:


> well your memory is fucking shit then, cos the worthless cunts were nowhere to be seen.


 
Incidentally I have more time for Prescott than Kinnock, but that's not saying a lot.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

Fuck off, gunneradt. Really. Fuck off.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> you really are so thick it's painful.  I hope you've got a spare £27k or you have a life of misery ahead.


 
I hope you've got a helicopter or one day you'll be hanging by your shoelaces you tax dodging cunt.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 10, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> fek your narrative



which reminds be of a petty incident last night. went for a drink after getting out the kettle. having a fag outside the pub and some folk got cheesed off with the doorwoman who didn't want to let them in. i was sympathetic and saying don't be daft to the lass, appealing to her better judgement - these folk arn't exactly gonna riot they just want a drink. In a friendly way like. Then quentin and co started: who do you think we are - we are lecturers - this is an outrage - we demand your names (getting notebook out) - i'm reporting you - etc etc etc. At that point I said on second thoughts - fuck em to the lass at the door and went back to finish my pint. 

no, fuck your narrative you idiot


----------



## Tankus (Dec 10, 2010)

Kinnock turned up at bedwas collery near where I lived ....they voted not to close ...but they wouldnt cross a picket line  ...It never reopened

but what about the rest of it ......? whats the answer ?

big reduction in student numbers ...?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> Kinnock turned up at bedwas collery near where I lived ....they voted not to close ...but they wouldnt cross a picket line  ...It never reopened
> 
> but what about the rest of it ......? whats the answer ?
> 
> big reduction in student numbers ...?


 
You fucking tool


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> but what about the rest of it ......?


 
when you start off with a pile of shite, i think we all just took it as read the rest of your post was equally shite


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

belboid said:


> when you start off with a pile of shite, i think we all just took it as read the rest of your post was equally shite


 
It was.


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

aah, cheers for saving me the effort


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I hope you've got a helicopter or one day you'll be hanging by your shoelaces you tax dodging cunt.



teenage rampage


----------



## Tankus (Dec 10, 2010)

belboid said:


> when you start off with a pile of shite, i think we all just took it as read the rest of your post was equally shite


heh ...fine you know a few swear words

not to bothered if you dont read it 

How would you resolve it then  .... thats not a shite answer


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> teenage rampage


 
I'm approaching middle age you fucking robbing bastard.


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> How would you resolve it then  .... thats not a shite answer


 
make the rich pay


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I'm approaching middle age you fucking robbing bastard.



oops - about time you acted your age really then!!


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

belboid said:


> make the rich pay


 
really hoping that the tax burden can be reduced over the next five years!!!


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

there's a suprise


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> oops - about time you acted your age really then!!


 
I do. I started my transformation into adulthood by accepting that only twats use multiple exclamation marks, you dirty robbing bastard.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I do. I started my transformation into adulthood by accepting that only twats use multiple exclamation marks, you dirty robbing bastard.



see you've positively calmed down - only one swear word in that sentence.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> see you've positively calmed down - only one swear word in that sentence.


 
Fuck off tax thief (!!!!!)


----------



## Tankus (Dec 10, 2010)

belboid said:


> there's a suprise



so was your answer ..

..what about the bit on bulk and quality inorder to hide youth unemployment .?...dont you think there should be some reform?


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 10, 2010)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Or the poll tax riots.



Yep.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> so was your answer ..
> 
> ..what about the bit on bulk and quality inorder to hide youth unemployment .?...dont you think there should be some reform?


 
What?


----------



## peterkro (Dec 10, 2010)

A day late and 20p short,a heartfelt thanks to the protesters each and everyone of them(even the twats with glowing necklaces).Where are the complicated verbals twists from D-B?Before anyone bleats on about teenage angst I'm 60 years old and ashamed I didn't make the effort to join in.

(of course it should go without saying Fuck off Moon)


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 10, 2010)

lol, I've just been accused of "supporting terrorism" on Facebook for posting up a picture of the royal car getting attacked


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2010)

There's no two ways about it.  The police used inappropriate violence against innocent and defenceless children and those only just out of childhood.

All the talk in the world about "spotty youths", people throwing missiles and sneering at "middle class spongers" doesn't change that simple fact.

The question is this: if you have been brutalised by the police for nothing more than --legally-- happening to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, should you have a comeback?  Or should you really be expected to just suck it up, because the police are sacrosanct and untouchable?


----------



## Tankus (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> What?


 
this bit   sorry....... quoting my shite 


> Why dont we have a bit on honesty about our education system ?
> Labour have pumped money into the system .........but in the decade from 2000/10 we have dropped from 7th to 27th in the worlds educational league tables .....standards have fallen as labour has gone from quality to bulk ..money is not the answer. (we now have no money anyway )
> 
> The real primary objective was to increase the school leaving age to reduce the numbers of unemployed young....... It was a ticking time bomb that has now gone off ...thats why labour instigated the brown review with cross party support. It was unsustainable .
> ...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> this bit   sorry....... quoting my shite


 
So the answer to alleged falling education standards is to cut funding?


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

kabbes said:


> There's no two ways about it.  The police used inappropriate violence against innocent and defenceless children and those only just out of childhood.
> 
> All the talk in the world about "spotty youths", people throwing missiles and sneering at "middle class spongers" doesn't change that simple fact.
> 
> The question is this: if you have been brutalised by the police for nothing more than --legally-- happening to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, should you have a comeback?  Or should you really be expected to just suck it up, because the police are sacrosanct and untouchable?



But we have had people on this thread suggesting that these "innocent and defenceless children and those only just out of childhood." should have been allowed to proceed to the HOP and attack the MPs - the implication being that was the original intent.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 10, 2010)

kabbes said:


> There's no two ways about it.  The police used inappropriate violence against innocent and defenceless children and those only just out of childhood.
> 
> All the talk in the world about "spotty youths", people throwing missiles and sneering at "middle class spongers" doesn't change that simple fact.
> 
> The question is this: if you have been brutalised by the police for nothing more than --legally-- happening to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, should you have a comeback?  Or should you really be expected to just suck it up, because the police are sacrosanct and untouchable?


 
Ideally you should hold back from hitting/harming actual people, especially if they're not the precise people who hit _you_, but it's more than understandable if you don't manage that. 

It's not understandable when the police 'fight back.' The police should be trained to keep their own reactions under control, especially with the back-up of hundreds of other armed officers, armour and the might of the law. We should expect more restraint from them than the average person, not less. 

And neither should _start_ the violence, but given what I said about the police above, it's far worse when they do. Kettling and horse charges are violence.


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> So the answer to alleged falling education standards is to cut funding?


 
no, its to make sure only the right people get educated, and then to include only them in the figures so it looks like 'the country' is doing better!  This is how league table work.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 10, 2010)

kabbes said:


> There's no two ways about it.  The police used inappropriate violence against innocent and defenceless children and those only just out of childhood.
> 
> All the talk in the world about "spotty youths", people throwing missiles and sneering at "middle class spongers" doesn't change that simple fact.
> 
> The question is this: if you have been brutalised by the police for nothing more than --legally-- happening to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, should you have a comeback?  Or should you really be expected to just suck it up, because the police are sacrosanct and untouchable?


 
The police were attacked kabbes _*and how can you not see that?*_ Vicious little thugs, they deserve no better than jackboots and hooves!


{Bitter and weary sarcasm in case people get the wrong idea}


----------



## scifisam (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> But we have had people on this thread suggesting that these "innocent and defenceless children and those only just out of childhood." should have been allowed to proceed to the HOP and attack the MPs - the implication being that was the original intent.


 
The protest didn't have a central organising body - there was no 'original intent.' FWIW, I see only one person suggesting that; why are you focusing on them alone? Because they're easier to build a strawman from?


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> But we have had people on this thread suggesting that these "innocent and defenceless children and those only just out of childhood." should have been allowed to proceed to the HOP and attack the MPs - the implication being that was the original intent.


 
That's irrelevant.  Again.

Look at the blogs coming out of the day.  We're talking about 5-foot teenage girls being pushed from behind towards the police, only to have the police _hit them in the face with a truncheon_.

Everything else is a distraction from this central question: what should be done about this?  Should we ignore it?  Please, tell me.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

belboid said:


> no, its to make sure only the right people get educated, and then to include only them in the figures so it looks like 'the country' is doing better!  This is how league table work.


 
So you think we should keep the poor people out of uni so as to keep the (meaningless) league tables looking good? I'm hoping I've misunderstood you.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 10, 2010)

TruXta said:


> The police were attacked kabbes _*and how can you not see that?*_ Vicious little thugs, they deserve no better than jackboots and hooves!
> 
> 
> {Bitter and weary sarcasm in case people get the wrong idea}


 
A friend of an ex-friend said that anyone proven to have been at the protests should be barred from going to uni. This got six Facebook 'likes.'


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 10, 2010)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> lol, I've just been accused of "supporting terrorism" on Facebook for posting up a picture of the royal car getting attacked


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Fuck off tax thief (!!!!!)


 
and you were doing so well too.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)

Another protest on Monday: http://anticuts.org.uk/?page_id=1258


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2010)

scifisam said:


> A friend of an ex-friend said that anyone proven to have been at the protests should be barred from going to uni. This got six Facebook 'likes.'


 
There have always been a solid minority in this country that believe that simply going somewhere and holding a placard with a message should be illegal.

These people are utter wankers.  _They_ should be illegal.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> and you were doing so well too.


 
How many charity boxes have you robbed lately?


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> So you think we should keep the poor people out of uni so as to keep the (meaningless) league tables looking good? I'm hoping I've misunderstood you.


 
I think thats what Tankus thniks


----------



## ymu (Dec 10, 2010)

We need to think about providing our own toilet facilities for the next kettle. I'm thinking a funnel and some balloons for easy disposal ... set up nice and close to the police lines, natch.


----------



## chilango (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> But we have had people on this thread suggesting that these "innocent and defenceless children and those only just out of childhood." should have been allowed to proceed to the HOP and attack the MPs - the implication being that was the original intent.


 
If you mean me, not at all.

We should all be able to enter our parliament whenever and however we want. No implication of violence at all. Not from me anyway.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

ymu said:


> We need to think about providing our own toilet facilities for the next kettle. I'm thinking a funnel and some balloons for easy disposal ... set up nice and close to the police lines, natch.


 
I saw a bloke shit in the street in a kettle. Alas he didn't fling it at the ob.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> So the answer to alleged falling education standards is to cut funding?



Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for the standards ..... labour and the tories  use them.
Labours spent billions increasing eduction spending  (sorry PFI... the bills will be arriving soon ) ..its an expensive way to keep the unemployed off the books 

Why not turn the clock back ....and make it free to those with ability ....but just the few with the ability


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

ymu said:


> We need to think about providing our own toilet facilities for the next kettle. I'm thinking a funnel and some balloons for easy disposal ... set up nice and close to the police lines, natch.


 
Pringles contaners are very handy for that - for men or women!


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> .but just the few with the ability


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> How many charity boxes have you robbed lately?



i give to charity but I am not one


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for the standards ..... labour and the tories  use them.
> Labours spent billions increasing eduction spending  (sorry PFI... the bills will be arriving soon ) ..its an expensive way to keep the unemployed off the books
> 
> Why not turn the clock back ....and make it free to those with ability ....but just the few with the ability



quite agree - every portakabin has university status these days


----------



## ymu (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I saw a bloke shit in the street in a kettle. Alas he didn't fling it at the ob.


Yeah. Should include some placcy bags for the solid stuff. Needs a good handle for successful lobbing.


----------



## chilango (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> quite agree - every portakabin has university status these days


 
God you're boring.

Get an arguement or you're on "ignore". Cobbles too.

GG and moon are different, they're wrong, but at least they mean it.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for the standards ..... labour and the tories  use them.
> Labours spent billions increasing eduction spending  (sorry PFI... the bills will be arriving soon ) ..its an expensive way to keep the unemployed off the books
> 
> Why not turn the clock back ....and make it free to those with ability ....but just the few with the ability


 
How do you ascertain that ability? How would you prevent rich people sending their thick kids off to uni? Don't you see that it is just social apartheid? Wouldn't all the graduate jobs just go to upper middle/upper class kids? Why not just create more jobs, thus ending you pedicament?

You went to uni. You don't seem particularly bright. Why do you want to pull the ladder up behind you?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for the standards ..... labour and the tories  use them.
> Labours spent billions increasing eduction spending  (sorry PFI... the bills will be arriving soon ) ..its an expensive way to keep the unemployed off the books
> 
> *Why not turn the clock back ....and make it free to those with ability ....but just the few with the ability*


 
That wouldn't be turning the clock back. Turning the clock back would mean excluding huge numbers of people who could have made great use of higher education but were massively disadvantaged by the primary and secondary education system (as well as the admissions procedures of large sections of of the HE sector). There aren't any halcyon days to go back to; it's forward either towards rights based openess and inclusion or the market.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## teuchter (Dec 10, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The police are an instrument of the state, teuchter. They are there to enforce the will of the state, by violent means as necessary – and some aspects of that enforcement will be seen as good by most people, other aspects less good. The police force exists above all else to maintain the current distribution of property and to maintain order. You change the nature of the police by changing the nature of the state and, crucially, by changing the nature of _ownership_. It makes no sense to discuss the one without reference to the other.


 


Proper Tidy said:


> You really want me to explain democracy to you? Fucking hell teuchter, you're better than this.
> 
> We have a state bureaucracy - under the guise of so-called liberal parliamentary democracy - that is not accountable, and the police are only semi-accountable to that bureaucracy. Were we to remove that bureaucracy and replace it with a system of social & economic order based on genuine democracy then immediately the police would become semi-accountable to the people. Add reforms to policing - to make local forces accountable to local people, not to a centralised police bureaucracy, and the jobs a good un. Of course some people would still resent the police - nobody likes getting caught - but we wouldn't see police attacking ordinary working people because it serves the interests of their paymasters or their paymasters' paymasters.



Thanks for the lectures but you are both talking rather vaguely about some new order without being very specific about how it's going to come about and how it's going to work when it does.



Proper Tidy said:


> For the people by the people isn't a difficult concept to understand.


 
Easy concept, difficult to actually put into practice.


The point here is that the whole ACAB thing refuses to deal with the problem - it's lazy thinking as far as I'm concerned. Even if we accept that what it really means is "ACAB until we have brought about a new social and economic order", well, all it does is state that we need a new social and economic order without having to actually explain how that is going to appear and function. Meanwhile, it shuts out any discussion about how to improve the police force we have under our current system, and ignores the fact that many members of the police would probably agree that there are changes that should be made.

Additionally it's directed at individual police officers personally - what's this supposed to achieve? It's not those individual officers who decide to make the horse charge or whatever, it's those who command them, and indirectly, those institutions of the state that you want to get rid of. Likewise it's not really the individual officers who decide what level of police violence is "acceptable" when dealing with protests, even though it might be them that carry it out. Ok, so "just following orders" is by no means a justification for anything, but what is the point of directing anger at individual police officers (and I mean mainly in the context of sitting at home typing ACAB on the internet, not in the context of being face to face with them at a protest).

What's it supposed to achieve - make enough police officers uncomfortable enough about their role that they quit to be replaced with folk that have an even more mercenary attitude to their work? Demoralise those that genuinely want to do good stuff in those roles which are socially useful?



eta

Crispy is right, this should be on another thread though rather than disrupting this one.


----------



## ymu (Dec 10, 2010)

belboid said:


> Pringles contaners are very handy for that - for men or women!


 
I'm not sure I could collect thousands of Pringles containers, let alone carry them to a demo, but balloons are small and cheap. Couple of people with sheets to provide a makeshift cubicle, and let the punters dispose of their mess in whatever way they see fit...

If the cops want to kettle people without providing any facilities ... they really should be the ones suffering the consequences.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> i give to charity but I am not one


 
No, you're a thieving little shit


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Thanks for the lectures but you are both talking rather vaguely about some new order without being very specific about how it's going to come about and how it's going to work when it does.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Just following orders is not a defence.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> this bit   sorry....... quoting my shite





I think you make some relevant points, but you ruined it by starting off with some tabloid, tap room bore nonsense about the miners' strike and the likes of Prescott and Kinnock being former revolutionaries. At least try and be original. 

The thing is that higher education has indeed become, to a large extent, a social parking scheme for kids who'd otherwise be on the dole. But that's the key to understanding what's going on-what else is there for these kids? They've been sold the idea that you're nothing without a degree (increasingly losing prestige for all but the products of the top universities), conned into starting working life with a millstone round their necks in the form of a debt that most of them will take decades to pay off (well-paid jobs are disappearing fast)-and are now having thousands more in debt piled upon them. It would be different if there were an alternative in the form of an abundence of well-paid (eventually) careers or hundreds of thousands of apprenticeships etc, but there aren't and there won't be. So what then? 

I admit to being pleasantly surprised by the level of militancy being shown.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Just following orders is not a defence.


 
As stated in my post that you quoted


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

chilango said:


> God you're boring.
> 
> Get an arguement or you're on "ignore". Cobbles too.
> 
> GG and moon are different, they're wrong, but at least they mean it.



It was the Labour government's way of stopping too many go straight to the dole queue.  Ive always thought university education should be free but not to those not talented enough or at laughbable establishments.

I couldnt care less whether you ignore me or not.


----------



## past caring (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I saw a bloke shit in the street in a kettle. Alas he didn't fling it at the ob.


 
A kettle would be quite a decent projectile, particularly if it connected with one of the pig cunts. Bit difficult to take a shit in one though.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> No, you're a thieving little shit


 
of course!  you scrounging yet?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

past caring said:


> A kettle would be quite a decent projectile, particularly if it connected with one of the pig cunts. Bit difficult to take a shit in one though.


 
Easier than a balloon I have to say


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> of course!  you scrounging yet?


 
Nope. You still tax dodging? Of course you are.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

past caring said:


> A kettle would be quite a decent projectile, particularly if it connected with one of the pig cunts. Bit difficult to take a shit in one though.



and we're supposed to feel sorry for demonstrators that get hurt!!!


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Nope. You still tax dodging? Of course you are.


 
I pay what my accountant tells me to pay when he's done my accounts


----------



## Tankus (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> How do you ascertain that ability? How would you prevent rich people sending their thick kids off to uni? Don't you see that it is just social apartheid? Wouldn't all the graduate jobs just go to upper middle/upper class kids? Why not just create more jobs, thus ending you pedicament?
> 
> You went to uni. You don't seem particularly bright. Why do you want to pull the ladder up behind you?


10-12-2010 13:52 #1152
Tankus  


> If I had an answer I would go back to the 70's starting with O's and A's .........
> vairable pass level based on percentages ...the bottom 40% of would fail (C-) only the very top level..... 5%would achieve an A
> reduce student numbers to 100,000 (from 450,000) and make it free ...... Bite the bullet on the unemployed they exist anyway ...the numbers are just hidden from view
> Double the price for foreign students .....


10-12-2010 14:45 #1209 Proper Tidy


> "Why not just create more jobs, thus ending your predicament?"



what happens if you cant , to the extent you need ? ...We will still be paying the last decade's debits until 2050 and possibly beyond


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I pay what my accountant tells me to pay when he's done my accounts


 
You and your accountant are both robbing cunts


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Easier than a balloon I have to say


 
A balloon filled with piss _and_ shit would be useful.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I pay what my accountant tells me to pay when he's done my accounts


 
How much tax on how much earnings then cunt?


----------



## Spion (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Easier than a balloon I have to say


Imagine trying to shit into a balloon *juddering lolz*


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I pay what my accountant tells me to pay when he's done my accounts





If you're the type who has an accountant, what are you doing spending your days baiting lefties on an obscure message board?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You and your accountant are both robbing cunts





He hasn't got an accountant.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> what happens if you cant , to the extent you need ? ...We will still be paying the last decade's debits until 2050 and possibly beyond


 
Why can't we? Many people in the UK are extremely rich, it's ludicrous to pretend that there isn't enough to go around. The issue is how wealth is distributed.


----------



## rekil (Dec 10, 2010)

Spion said:


> Imagine trying to shit into a balloon *juddering lolz*


 
It's easy if you try.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 10, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> That wouldn't be turning the clock back. Turning the clock back would mean excluding huge numbers of people who could have made great use of higher education *but were massively disadvantaged by the primary and secondary education system *(as well as the admissions procedures of large sections of of the HE sector). There aren't any halcyon days to go back to; it's forward either towards rights based openess and inclusion or the market.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



get it right first time perhaps


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

*goes to search for balloon*


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> get it right first time perhaps


 
Do you have a time machine?


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

LLETSA said:


> If you're the type who has an accountant, what are you doing spending your days baiting lefties on an obscure message board?


 
getting other people to do the work for him, _thats_ what people with accountants do.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 10, 2010)

Spion said:


> Imagine trying to shit into a balloon *juddering lolz*


 
I bet I know someone who has that manga.


----------



## miniGMgoit (Dec 10, 2010)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> lol, I've just been accused of "supporting terrorism" on Facebook for posting up a picture of the royal car getting attacked


 
Post this one


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 10, 2010)

belboid said:


> getting other people to do the work for him, _thats_ what people with accountants do.




If you're wealthy enough to have other people are working for you and you spend your days on obscure left leaning message boards then you've got to be one of the saddest cunts alive.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> *goes to search for balloon*


 
You just need a lower air pressure on the outside of the balloon. Shit into a vacuum, and things should be fine.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

Crispy said:


> You just need a lower air pressure on the outside of the balloon. Shit into a vacuum, and things should be fine.


 
Henry won't be happy


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Dec 10, 2010)

Clare Solomon
Middlesex student Alfie Meadows has had a haemorrhage & brain surgery after being beaten up by police yday. Rallies planned at 3.30 and 6pm outside kensington & chelsea hospital. Spread word. No to police violence. Bring ur banners.


----------



## Dan U (Dec 10, 2010)

a spokesman for NATS (i think is the name of the org) who called for the march was just on a press conference on sky sticking up for the protesters and firmly laying the blame at the police for the violence.

Self defence is no offence


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

LLETSA said:


> If you're the type who has an accountant, what are you doing spending your days baiting lefties on an obscure message board?



seeing how the other half lives


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

Shit into a bucket, mix with piss, cover and leave in warm place for a week. Insert funnel into balloon and fill with mixture. Enjoy!


----------



## Spion (Dec 10, 2010)

belboid said:


> getting other people to do the work for him, _thats_ what people with accountants do.


you only need to be self employed, not rich, to use an accountant. A market trader or builder would use one. 

Gunner's just a cunt tho


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

LLETSA said:


> If you're wealthy enough to have other people are working for you and you spend your days on obscure left leaning message boards then you've got to be one of the saddest cunts alive.



who mentioned anyone working for me?


----------



## ExtraRefined (Dec 10, 2010)

If "tuition fees" were rebranded as a "student tax", perhaps they'd be more popular. We all know how much lefties like taxes after all, although admittedly they prefer it if they're taxes on other people.

Perhaps the tax could be in the form of an income tax on earnings above £21k pa. Oh wait.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Spion said:


> you only need to be self employed, not rich, to use an accountant. A market trader or builder would use one.
> 
> Gunner's just a cunt tho



precisely (apart from the last bit)


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Dec 10, 2010)

Dan U said:


> a spokesman for NATS (i think is the name of the org) who called for the march was just on a press conference on sky sticking up for the protesters and firmly laying the blame at the police for the violence.
> 
> Self defence is no offence


 
Those guys are sound, that Simon Hardy knows what's what. Puts Aaron Porter to shame.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> get it right first time perhaps


 
Yep that would be good, although it would still leave high and dry all those who have been let down thus far (and any who slip through the net subsequently). 

Louis MacNeice


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

Dan U said:


> a spokesman for NATS (i think is the name of the org) who called for the march was just on a press conference on sky sticking up for the protesters and firmly laying the blame at the police for the violence.
> 
> Self defence is no offence


 
National Campaign against Fees and Cuts.  He lived with me n mrs belboid a couple of yeasr ago, we taught him everything he knows


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You and your accountant are both robbing cunts



no no you're mistaken - he's very good and I don't feel robbed!!


----------



## Spion (Dec 10, 2010)

Crispy said:


> You just need a lower air pressure on the outside of the balloon. Shit into a vacuum, and things should be fine.


So all the students need to do next time is to bring a vacuum chamber into the _kessel_.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 10, 2010)

Photoshop moment: How long before that head shot of Camilla forms the basis of an arse pounding photo . . .


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Shit into a bucket, mix with piss, cover and leave in warm place for *a week*. Insert funnel into balloon and fill with mixture. Enjoy!


 
the police are bastards, but even they don't tend to keep people kettled quite that long!


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2010)

LLETSA said:


> If you're wealthy enough to have other people are working for you and you spend your days on obscure left leaning message boards then you've got to be one of the saddest cunts alive.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> who mentioned anyone working for me?





Who gives a fuck really?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

LLETSA said:


> I admit to being pleasantly surprised by the level of militancy being shown.


 
<more shocked by this than the attack on Charlies car>


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Dec 10, 2010)

Dan U said:


> a spokesman for NATS (i think is the name of the org) who called for the march was just on a press conference on sky sticking up for the protesters and firmly laying the blame at the police for the violence.
> 
> Self defence is no offence



I noticed on FB Jenny Edwards (director of Pov Pimps, Housing link) saying her son was on demo and the media got it all wrong....


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

ExtraRefined said:


> If "tuition fees" were rebranded as a "student tax", perhaps they'd be more popular. We all know how much lefties like taxes after all, although admittedly they prefer it if they're taxes on other people.
> 
> Perhaps the tax could be in the form of an income tax on earnings above £21k pa. Oh wait.


 
How about the tax is on people earning over 50k p/a whether they went to uni or not.

By the way, you may appreciate this piece from your hero:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...o-of-the-european-parliament-is-a-trotskyist/


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 10, 2010)

TopCat said:


> <more shocked by this than the attack on Charlies car>





Why?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

belboid said:


> the police are bastards, but even they don't tend to keep people kettled quite that long!


 
Yeah this needs to be done in advance!


----------



## Tankus (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Do you have a time machine?



so we are stuck with this one for another decade ? .............

Credit cards run out


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

kabbes said:


> That's irrelevant.  Again.
> 
> Look at the blogs coming out of the day.  We're talking about 5-foot teenage girls being pushed from behind towards the police, only to have the police _hit them in the face with a truncheon_.
> 
> Everything else is a distraction from this central question: what should be done about this?  Should we ignore it?  Please, tell me.



If the purpose of a crowd is to protest and not invade HOP, how to instigate crowd control ?

There is a terrible history of crushing casualties where rigid barriers have been used.
.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

LLETSA said:


> Why?


 
You expressing support, however qualified for these events, is uncharted waters indeed.


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Yeah this needs to be done in advance!


 
and preferably not taken with you on the coach down


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> If the purpose of a crowd is to protest and not invade HOP, how to instigate crowd control ?
> 
> There is a terrible history of crushing casualties where rigid barriers have been used.
> .


 So don't use rigid barriers.

In what way is it appropriate for police to truncheon a defenseless and helpless girl who is simply being pushed towards the barrier.

Frankly, I find it simply incredible that you are unwilling to acknowledge this issue.  It's like you are tacitly endorsing it.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 10, 2010)

TopCat said:


> <more shocked by this than the attack on Charlies car>


----------



## Spion (Dec 10, 2010)

LLETSA said:


> Why?


Because you're a perennial depressive with regard to any struggle type events


----------



## Dan U (Dec 10, 2010)

Threshers_Flail said:


> Those guys are sound, that Simon Hardy knows what's what. Puts Aaron Porter to shame.


 
That was my impression watching. 

Condemnation only for the police


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> If the purpose of a crowd is to protest and not invade HOP, how to instigate crowd control ?
> 
> There is a terrible history of crushing casualties where rigid barriers have been used.
> .



The implicit assumption here is that the crowd needs an external force to control it. It is a highly questionable assumption.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 10, 2010)

TopCat said:


> You expressing support, however qualified for these events, is uncharted waters indeed.




I don't see how I qualified my support. 

I'm not creaming myself over the rioting (which is being exaggerated anyway), although I can understand why it's happening. But it's encouraging to see that so many working class kids, after three decades of working class defeat and social atomisation, are still able to recognise their own interests.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> If the purpose of a crowd is to protest and not invade HOP, how to instigate crowd control ?


 
Ideally by means other than false imprisonment.


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11971724

Simons defence of the students.  Well said that man (even with your shit beard)


----------



## ymu (Dec 10, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Yeah this needs to be done in advance!


 
Yeah, but then you either have a very limited amount of ammunition, or a very heavy load to take with you. You also have the problem of bringing it in a container that will stay strong in a rucksack for hours, but disintegrate when it hits a copper.

Balloons and a funnel, placcy bags, couple of sheets and a big sign to let people know where the bog is. Instant ammunition, and as much of it as you could ever need if there are a couple of thousand people being kettled for hours...


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 10, 2010)

Spion said:


> Because you're a perennial depressive with regard to any struggle type events





Just because I'm often sceptical about the prospects of success, it doesn't mean I don't support such events.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

kabbes said:


> So don't use rigid barriers.
> 
> In what way is it appropriate for police to truncheon a defenseless and helpless girl who is simply being pushed towards the barrier.
> 
> Frankly, I find it simply incredible that you are unwilling to acknowledge this issue.  It's like you are tacitly endorsing it.



By entering a situation like that - by making your way to the front of a crowd, you are implicitly accepting some element of risk.

Speaking as a 250lb 6 foot adult, I won't go anywhere like that - never did at concerts or raves. I once left a night on a moored boat because of a gut feeling that it was dangerous.

They should probably have handed out health and safety warnings in advance.


----------



## killer b (Dec 10, 2010)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> lol, I've just been accused of "supporting terrorism" on Facebook for posting up a picture of the royal car getting attacked


 
all your facebook friends seem to be tory nobheads. what's going on?


----------



## dennisr (Dec 10, 2010)

LLETSA said:


> I'm not creaming myself over the rioting (which is being exaggerated anyway), although I can understand why it's happening. But it's encouraging to see that so many working class kids, after three decades of working class defeat and social atomisation, are still able to recognise their own interests.



with you on that


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> By entering a situation like that - by making your way to the front of a crowd, you are implicitly accepting some element of risk.
> 
> Speaking as a 250lb 6 foot adult, I won't go anywhere like that - never did at concerts or raves. I once left a night on a moored boat because of a gut feeling that it was dangerous.
> 
> They should probably have handed out health and safety warnings in advance.


 
There's a logic fail there. If you have a crowd, somebody has to be at the front.

Also, just because someone has shown a bit of bravery, that does not in any way justify them being hurt.

Anyway, this was a demonstration. She and anyone else ought to have the fucking right to be at the front of any demonstration. That you would refuse to stand at the front of a march for fear of being hurt does not give you any right to judge those who would not.


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

dennisr said:


> with you on that


 
Me too.

Which shows what a magnificent event this was, even bringing together Urbans gangs of in-fighting lefties


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> By entering a situation like that - by making your way to the front of a crowd, you are implicitly accepting some element of risk.
> 
> Speaking as a 250lb 6 foot adult, I won't go anywhere like that - never did at concerts or raves. I once left a night on a moored boat because of a gut feeling that it was dangerous.
> 
> They should probably have handed out health and safety warnings in advance.


 
You've never been in a kettle. It isn't a concert or a fucking rave. Whether you are at the front, the back or in the middle is very seldom wholly your own choice. You wet liberal.


----------



## Spion (Dec 10, 2010)

belboid said:


> Me too.
> 
> Which shows what a magnificent event this was, even bringing together Urbans gangs of in-fighting lefties



Me too.

For me it just goes to show that no matter how moribund the class struggle has got for us over recent years the fundamental nature of this society _will _show through, and for a whole bunch of younsters recently they'll have learned some massive lessons they won't forget. Let's hope it's the start of a new wave of class struggle.

*raises tea mug to all those involved yesterday*


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

_Well burrowed old mole_


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> By entering a situation like that - by making your way to the front of a crowd, you are implicitly accepting some element of risk.
> 
> Speaking as a 250lb 6 foot adult, I won't go anywhere like that - never did at concerts or raves. I once left a night on a moored boat because of a gut feeling that it was dangerous.
> 
> They should probably have handed out health and safety warnings in advance.


That's it?  Nothing to say about the police behaviour at all?  Simply that somebody who is exercising a legal right to protest is getting what is coming to them by daring to be there?


----------



## Tankus (Dec 10, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Yep that would be good, although it would still leave high and dry all those who have been let down thus far (and any who slip through the net subsequently).
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Well thats the bit I dont get ...why replace the coalition with the bunch that caused the problem in the first place? .......but this time they dont even have the money to throw around..........

I dont know what the answer is ..and I feel really sad......but it looks like a whole generation is going to get written off  , Youth unemployment is already at 42%, and thats with the education fiddle...Its going to get worse too 

All this action is going to do is put water cannon and gas back onto our streets ...but we cannot continue as we are !


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

kabbes said:


> That's it?  Nothing to say about the police behaviour at all?  Simply that somebody who is exercising a legal right to protest is getting what is coming to them by daring to be there?



It's amazing no one was actually killed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You've never been in a kettle. It isn't a concert or a fucking rave. Whether you are at the front, the back or in the middle is very seldom wholly your own choice. You wet liberal.


 
Yep.


----------



## Spion (Dec 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> _Well burrowed old mole_


you cryptic old cunt


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> It's amazing no one was actually killed.


 
And if someone had been killed, you'd have been blaming the protesters.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> By entering a situation like that - by making your way to the front of a crowd, you are implicitly accepting some element of risk.



I guess this bloke in a wheelchair must have been "implicitly accepting some element of risk":
http://www.rstewart.org/2010/12/10/disabled-journalist-pulled-from-wheelchair-by-riot-police


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> _Well burrowed old mole_


 
Marx AND Shakespeare


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> Well thats the bit I dont get ...why replace the coalition with the bunch that caused the problem in the first place? .......but this time they dont even have the money to throw around..........
> 
> I dont know what the answer is ..and I feel really sad......but it looks like a whole generation is going to get written off  , Youth unemployment is already at 42%, and thats with the education fiddle...Its going to get worse too
> 
> All this action is going to do is put water cannon and gas back onto our streets ...but we cannot continue as we are !


 
The _bunch that caused the problem in the first place_ are the capitalist class, of which tories, liberals and labour are all representatives.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 10, 2010)

Spion said:


> you cryptic old cunt


 
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Karl Marx 1852 arf (as our fav anarcho-stalinist would add)


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

as taken from Hamlet, when Princey meets his fathers ghost and swears revenge!


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> The _bunch that caused the problem in the first place_ are the capitalist class, of which tories, liberals and labour are all representatives.





His points about youth unemployment are relevant, though. Assuming this goes through and thousands drop out of higher education, where are the jobs coming from? Literally nobody in mainstream politics even mentions it.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> The _bunch that caused the problem in the first place_ are the capitalist class, of which tories, liberals and *labour* are all representatives.



Who were the _right on_ Marxists trots and revolutionary's in their youth ........all it takes is one sniff


----------



## Spion (Dec 10, 2010)

Anyway, there's been some fantasticly inventive tactics on display from the studes, avoiding the _kessel _etc. Breaking out of one is a problem that needs to be solved at some point


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

LLETSA said:


> I don't see how I qualified my support.
> 
> I'm not creaming myself over the rioting (which is being exaggerated anyway), although I can understand why it's happening. But it's encouraging to see that so many working class kids, after three decades of working class defeat and social atomisation, are still able to recognise their own interests.


Excellent!


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

LLETSA said:


> Just because I'm often sceptical about the prospects of success, it doesn't mean I don't support such events.


 
Quoted for posterity. Excellent!
<buries hatchet>


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

LLETSA said:


> His points about youth unemployment are relevant, though. Assuming this goes through and thousands drop out of higher education, where are the jobs coming from? Literally nobody in mainstream politics even mentions it.


 
Indeed, but his whole argument is contradictory and confused. He talks about youth unemployment hitting 41% but also says that we should 'accept unemployment', prevent working class people from pursuing an education that might just strengthen their position in the labour market, and have a situation where only the children of the rich can get graduate jobs. You're looking for polish when all there is is turd.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 10, 2010)

scifisam said:


> A friend of an ex-friend said that anyone proven to have been at the protests should be barred from going to uni. This got six Facebook 'likes.'


 
I teach a group of Uni students here in London and you'd be surprised at how few of these (none of which went to the demos) could see through the media bullshit about it being a violent protest blah blah blah. One girl even opposed an occupation here in the college because the occupation made it impossible for her society to do their rehearsals. I didn't have the heart to blast her in front of everyone for being so incredibly selfish and short-sighted.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> Who were the _right on_ Marxists trots and revolutionary's in their youth ........all it takes is one sniff


 
No, they weren't. Your knowledge of the history of the Labour party is sadly lacking.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I know what, let's abolish the police. Let the mob do what it likes.


Even for you, that's ignorant.

And perhaps, just perhaps, the protesters wouldn't have rioted if the police hadn't decided to use mounted charges to neutralise a negligible threat to the integrity of their cordon?


----------



## dennisr (Dec 10, 2010)

belboid said:


> as taken from Hamlet, when Princey meets his fathers ghost and swears revenge!


 
one thing i've noticed among some of the well-burrowed moles i still know as mates is the numbers that at now re-appearing - many with kids - some of these youngsters on these demos. the student movement has been genuinely inspirational


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

agricola said:


> Nonsense.  Its a Tory government (alright, ConDem  ) so people feel empowered to kick off against the traditional enemy.


 
Because there's never been social disorder under Labour or Liberal govts, oh no!


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Dec 10, 2010)

Dan U said:


> That was my impression watching.
> 
> Condemnation only for the police


 
He spoke at an event we had in Manchester earlier in November. He tore the NUS exec member present to shreds. The more time the likes of him get on the tv instead of that twat Porter the better.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 10, 2010)

belboid said:


> National Campaign against Fees and Cuts.  He lived with me n mrs belboid a couple of yeasr ago, we taught him everything he knows


 
tell him he's a star, massive respect for taking the flak on tv and getting the points across
and mostly for not apologising 

e2a and the yungun in the red hoodie too

gg - very dissapointed in your strange arguments here, just imagine the plod are lycra clad big boys taking up your cycle path with no lights


----------



## Dan U (Dec 10, 2010)

ddraig said:


> tell him he's a star, massive respect for taking the flak on tv and getting the points across
> and mostly for not apologising


 
X2


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

nick h. said:


> Does anyone think this ruckus could actually force a change in govt policy? I like to think it could, if the demos keep happening. I'd like to see demos leading the news every week until the govt has a rethink. But am I being naive? Could we really get a Poll Tax-style climbdown and the humiliation of a PM? I don't think it's going to happen unless this dastardly kettling can be overcome. Basically we need much, much bigger demos and more disruption to London life. Doesn't have to be property damage necessarily - anything which paralyses London would do the job. The students need to persuade the rest of the population to join them on the barricades. But I can't see this happening while the media and the NUS are banging on about a small minority of criminal thugs who don't represent anyone. I'm afraid we need sweet, innocent teenagers to be hurt by the police if the grown-ups are going to take to the streets.


 

I believe that we're going to see a war of attrition, and given the nature of the protests (and not just those by the students) so far, it's going to be difficult to call who breaks first. The media will have to be very forceful about representing dissent as "thuggery" and "riot" to convince "Joe Public" (who will also be affected by the cuts brought about by the budget and the CSR) that the protesters are beyond the pale.

The govt also has the "added burden" that it has to keep spinning some egregiously unfair policies as being "progressive", and in the face of refutation of that claim from all points of the compass.

We live in interesting times.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 10, 2010)

There has been a massive learning curve, expertly negotiated by the young people. it would be reasonable to assume the demos are going to become better attended, more voracious and successful.


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 10, 2010)

anyone heard anything about this?

Two different people I know (and aren't in the habit of making things up) claim there were anti-student counter-protesters who briefly attacked marchers before being beaten back (and not by the OB?)

Plain clothes or far-right?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

gawkrodger said:


> anyone heard anything about this?
> 
> Two different people I know (and aren't in the habit of making things up) claim there were anti-student counter-protesters who briefly attacked marchers before being beaten back (and not by the OB?)
> 
> Plain clothes or far-right?


 
I heard stories of EDL/far-right types intimidating protestors, yes.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Dec 10, 2010)

gawkrodger said:


> anyone heard anything about this?
> 
> Two different people I know (and aren't in the habit of making things up) claim there were anti-student counter-protesters who briefly attacked marchers before being beaten back (and not by the OB?)
> 
> Plain clothes or far-right?



That's been stated on the Guardian live blog, the guy who writes there says it was far right. He also writes that the police didn't do anything and just watched as a 60 yr old man and a teenage girl were attacked. 

I would find it but I'm on my way.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Dec 10, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There's a logic fail there. If you have a crowd, somebody has to be at the front.
> 
> Also, just because someone has shown a bit of bravery, that does not in any way justify them being hurt.
> 
> Anyway, this was a demonstration. She and anyone else ought to have the fucking right to be at the front of any demonstration. That you would refuse to stand at the front of a march for fear of being hurt does not give you any right to judge those who would not.


agree

GG - if I was sitting by my daughters hospital bed last night because of police violence should I have blamed her for taking a stand about unfair issues that will affect the rest of her working life ?


----------



## dennisr (Dec 10, 2010)

Account from a 17 year old lass from Barnsley:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/sheffield/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9276000/9276699.stm


----------



## ymu (Dec 10, 2010)

TopCat said:


> There has been a massive learning curve, expertly negotiated by the young people. it would be reasonable to assume the demos are going to become better attended, more voracious and successful.


 
Yep.

Next up: make better use of those police barriers. Rope handles to provide a good knuckle-protecting grip, and to tie two barriers together at one end so that they can be used to force a gap in the police, ie deployed at an acute angle, protecting the protesters inside as they push through the lines - widening out to let everyone else through behind them.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Dec 10, 2010)

TopCat said:


> There has been a massive learning curve, expertly negotiated by the young people. it would be reasonable to assume the demos are going to become better attended, more voracious and successful.



yup october 12th I had to throw a newspaper at my daughter to let her know about the browne review
come nov/dec she's been out three times, been kettled, been shocked that police would push a girl rolleyes and gotten informed and angry


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

Miss-Shelf said:


> agree
> 
> GG - if I was sitting by my daughters hospital bed last night because of police violence should I have blamed her for taking a stand about unfair issues that will affect the rest of her working life ?



I only just remembered - didn't this all start because the protest deviated from the agreed route ?

I've been on two events in London over the years - most notably the Rock against Racism one in 1977 - I don't recall any problems at all.

And what of the police who were injured trying to prevent even more carnage. ?


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I heard stories of EDL/far-right types intimidating protestors, yes.


 
hmm, something to keep an eye on then


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I only just remembered - didn't this all start because the protest deviated from the agreed route ?



It's been said before - a lot of the protesters are angry because the yellow Tories have deviated from the agreed route.

Why shouldn't protesters go exactly where they want, anyway?


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I only just remembered - didn't this all start because the protest deviated from the agreed route ?


 
no, it was because the Liberal Scum deviated from their agreed policy


----------



## Tankus (Dec 10, 2010)

My shite from earlier without the extra added shite


Tankus said:


> Why dont we have a bit on honesty about our education system ?
> Labour *have*  pumped money into the system .........but in the decade from 2000/10 we have dropped from 7th to 27th in the worlds educational  league tables .....standards have* fallen *as labour has gone from *quality to bulk *..money is not the answer. (we now have no money anyway )
> 
> The real primary objective was to increase the school leaving age to *reduce the numbers* of *unemployed young*....... It was a ticking time bomb that has now gone off ...thats why labour instigated the brown review with cross party support. It was unsustainable .
> ...


 10-12-2010 15:43 #1302
Proper Tidy  


> Indeed, but his whole argument is contradictory and confused. He talks about youth unemployment hitting 41% but also says that we should 'accept unemployment', prevent working class people from pursuing an education that might just strengthen their position in the labour market, and have a situation where only the children of the rich can get graduate jobs. You're looking for polish when all there is is turd.



accept   I mean ..a bit more honest ........unemployed is unemployed ...not a student studying for a degree in David Beckham   A more level playing field can be created by going back to the original A level marking 

10-12-2010 15:44 #1304
Proper Tidy  



> _Who were the right on Marxists trots and revolutionary's in their youth ........all it takes is one sniff_
> 
> No, they weren't. Your knowledge of the history of the Labour party is sadly lacking.



 I was thinking of this ...... obviously a cut and paste somewhere from the right 



> THE STALINIST WING
> 
> Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary Former Broad Left president of the NUS; branded "a troublemaker" by the Foreign Office when, on an NUS trip to Chile, his "childish politicking" aimed at embarrassing his right-wing opponents, was "nearly disastrous" for Anglo-Chilean relations.
> 
> ...


and the odd marxist or two ...Darling etc


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

edl were _supposed_ to have done cleaning jobs on the Churchill statue..


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I only just remembered - didn't this all start because the protest deviated from the agreed route ?
> 
> I've been on two events in London over the years - most notably the Rock against Racism one in 1977 - I don't recall any problems at all.
> 
> And what of the police who were injured trying to prevent even more carnage. ?


 
Yes, a protest from 33 years ago is obviously directly comparable to one today.

Anyway, what _of _the police that were injured?  Is there a direct correspondance between those that injured them and the people they injured in turn?  Or did the police just lash out at whomever happened to be nearest?

Are you happy for your representatives to injure whomever happens to be nearest, just because they are in a bad mood?  Are you happy that this should remain unchallenged, just because other things happened that day too?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 10, 2010)

I wish people would stop spouting Mail-esque rubbish about "degrees in David Beckham". The fees are going to affect every student who wants to do a degree, be it psychology, physics, accounting, economics, or Balinean nose-flute music. Talk of "Mickey Mouse" degrees is just a straw man, and not a very good one at that.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

The fantastic thing is that the students are only the canaries.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Indeed, but his whole argument is contradictory and confused. He talks about youth unemployment hitting 41% but also says that we should 'accept unemployment', prevent working class people from pursuing an education that might just strengthen their position in the labour market, and have a situation where only the children of the rich can get graduate jobs. You're looking for polish when all there is is turd.




I know-I meant that his point is a relevant one not that he has any answer to the problem.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> It's been said before - a lot of the protesters are angry because the yellow Tories have deviated from the agreed route.
> 
> Why shouldn't protesters go exactly where they want, anyway?


 
Right up to the doors of Parliament ?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Right up to the doors of Parliament ?



Yes. It's our Parliament.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Right up to the doors of Parliament ?


 
If there is anywhere in the whole country that protesters should have the right to demand to go, it is right up to the doors of parliament.


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Right up to the doors of Parliament ?


 
INTO parliament would obviously be better


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2010)

I must say, gentlegreen, you expect really depressingly low standards of behaviour from your official representatives.  Even at best, you require them to behave no better than the nearest thug that happens to be in the vacinity.

Personally, I expect more of the people I am paying to represent good order.


----------



## ymu (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I only just remembered - didn't this all start because the protest deviated from the agreed route ?
> 
> I've been on two events in London over the years - most notably the Rock against Racism one in 1977 - I don't recall any problems at all.
> 
> And what of the police who were injured trying to prevent even more carnage. ?


I don't think so, no. The agreed route was to the NUS vigil, I think - but few were intending to go to that anyway. The majority were always going to head for parliament.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

ymu said:


> I don't think so, no. The agreed route was to the NUS vigil, I think - but few were intending to go to that anyway. The majority were always going to head for parliament.


 
Fuck the agreed route. We do not protest with the permission of the state. We protest against the state. No individual protester has any duty to follow any agreed route.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> I wish people would stop spouting Mail-esque rubbish about "degrees in David Beckham". The fees are going to affect every student who wants to do a degree, be it psychology, physics, accounting, economics, or Balinean nose-flute music. Talk of "Mickey Mouse" degrees is just a straw man, and not a very good one at that.


 
it's more mickey mouse polys not the degrees themselves


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 10, 2010)

dennisr said:


> Account from a 17 year old lass from Barnsley:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/sheffield/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9276000/9276699.stm


 
A good read for anybody pushing the police were just doing their job line; of course the police were just doing their job, which on this occasion was to criminalise dissent and intimidate future protest. The message is clear, only the timid, the cowed, the bought of, or the ineffective voices are legitimate. Anything with a bit of swagger, some confidence and independence, anything not for sale to the highest bidder, in short anything that might actually help to make a difference is out of bounds, yobbish, alien, criminal, maybe even terroristic...even if it's a frightened 17 year old girl.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> I comprehended what you were suggesting, you seem to think the party can change the leadership and a new leader could force their MPs to bring down the coalition, in theory with shitloads of ifs and buts that could happen.
> 
> Talking to local LibDem councillors and activists that's so unlikely that's in way off in cloud cuckoo land, as you appear to be.
> 
> FFS earlier you posted the suggestion that Coronation Street was going to loss out on ratings to the News Channels, I seriously suggest you try to get a grip on your imagination.


 
Thing is, do you really think that the constituency parties (all 500+ of them) are going to sit still and say nothing while the antics of the *parliamentary LD party* put the LD local authority power base (much bigger and stronger than the parliamentary party has ever been) at risk?
I don't see how thinking that constituency parties, acting from rational self-interest, might spark a leadership contest, is pie-in-the-sky, especially not when the parliamentary party are compromising not only their own seats, but probably a good three-quarters (or more) of their local authority seats too.
If pols (local or national) are anything, it's pragmatic, and I'm sure that Clegg is aware of this, and bricking himself about it.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

belboid said:


> INTO parliament would obviously be better


 
I rest my case.

Even if there wasn't a single MP I would piss on if on fire, there is a limit.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2010)

Really?  That's your case?

You have nothimg else to say about police brutality on 17 year-old girls?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

You don't have a case. You went on one march 33 years ago, which was highlighting an issue that the government of the day will have _supported_. 

You don't know what you're talking about. You seem to admit as much yourself.


----------



## ymu (Dec 10, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fuck the agreed route. We do not protest with the permission of the state. We protest against the state. No individual protester has any duty to follow any agreed route.


 
Of course. A lesson learned stupendously quickly by these kids. The kettle yesterday was because parliament was the focus - but there was still plenty of breakaway action elsewhere. But still, agreed routes have their uses. Get them to deploy hundreds of coppers in the wrong place, and leave the rest of London (plus Charlie and Camilla) unprotected. 

Also, calling national days of protest in different cities prevents them from bringing in loads of cops from the provinces, and it means people can afford to get out there twice a week, not just twice a year.

It's all going swimmingly.


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I rest my case.
> 
> Even if there wasn't a single MP I would piss on if on fire, there is a limit.


 
Being able to enter parliament to lobby ones MP is (supposedly) a cornerstone of British democracy.

And you're agin it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I rest my case.
> 
> Even if there wasn't a single MP I would piss on if on fire, there is a limit.


 
Have you a holder for your case?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

ymu said:


> agreed routes have their uses. Get them to deploy hundreds of coppers in the wrong place, and leave the rest of London (plus Charlie and Camilla) unprotected.


 
Good point.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

belboid said:


> lobby ones MP



Yeah right ...


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

Lobby them, or lob them.  Either would do for me.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> Who were the _right on_ Marxists trots and revolutionary's in their youth


which, when true (a few instances, but most were traineee careerists evcen then) makes it even worse, an even bigger betrayal


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Right up to the doors of Parliament ?


 
Are you a Bennite by any chance?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I only just remembered - didn't this all start because the protest deviated from the agreed route ?


 
Why would they follow an agreed route if the explicit police tactic is to kettle them in somewhere?

No-one should be obliged to follow an "agreed route" anyway.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Why would they follow an agreed route if the explicit police tactic is to kettle them in somewhere?
> 
> No-one should be obliged to follow an "agreed route" anyway.


 
Police also prevented a YFJ march from taking their agreed route, for the fourth time in the space of a few weeks.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 10, 2010)

Spion said:


> Me too.
> 
> For me it just goes to show that no matter how moribund the class struggle has got for us over recent years the fundamental nature of this society _will _show through, and for a whole bunch of younsters recently they'll have learned some massive lessons they won't forget. Let's hope it's the start of a new wave of class struggle.
> 
> *raises tea mug to all those involved yesterday*


yup, these studes have really raised the bar several notches, and perhaps shown us wrinklies up. I totally salute them.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> _Well burrowed old mole_


 
like


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> Well thats the bit I dont get ...why replace the coalition with the bunch that caused the problem in the first place? .......but this time they dont even have the money to throw around..........


then tax the rich and the banks,. and crack down on all the tax dodges


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2010)

Gentlegreen, I would like to point out to you that at no point, despite repeated appeals, have you shown anything but endorsement for the police hitting innocent teenaged girls in the face with truncheons in entirely unprovoked attacks.

Is that _really_ how you want to be remembered and thought of?  The old guy that thinks girls should be hit in the face if they stand in the wrong olace?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

Never trust a green


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I rest my case.
> 
> Even if there wasn't a single MP I would piss on if on fire, there is a limit.


bollocks to that! confront the bastards, so _they_ feel the full force of our anger


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Gentlegreen, I would like to point out to you that at no point, despite repeated appeals, have you shown anything but endorsement for the police hitting innocent teenaged girls in the face with truncheons in entirely unprovoked attacks.
> 
> Is that _really_ how you want to be remembered and thought of?  The old guy that thinks girls should be hit in the face if they stand in the wrong olace?


 
it's too late for what he wants to matter, it's how he's going to be recalled.


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Never trust a green


----------



## grogwilton (Dec 10, 2010)

My mate has just got back from work, she works at a school and teaches two 6th formers who were both attacked apparently randomly by guys with concrete blocks. No mention about who they were far right or not, it was in the middle of a lesson so she couldn't get any more detail on this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I've been on two events in London over the years - most notably the Rock against Racism one in 1977 - I don't recall any problems at all.


not fucking surprising after 33 years.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 10, 2010)

Amazing pics from the boston globe: http://tinyurl.com/dayx3pictures


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

grogwilton said:


> My mate has just got back from work, she works at a school and teaches two 6th formers who were both attacked apparently randomly by guys with concrete blocks. No mention about who they were far right or not, it was in the middle of a lesson so she couldn't get any more detail on this.


 she should have gone down the sidetrack


----------



## grogwilton (Dec 10, 2010)

gawkrodger said:


> anyone heard anything about this?
> 
> Two different people I know (and aren't in the habit of making things up) claim there were anti-student counter-protesters who briefly attacked marchers before being beaten back (and not by the OB?)
> 
> Plain clothes or far-right?



My mate has just got back from work, she works at a school and teaches two 6th formers who were both attacked apparently randomly by guys with concrete blocks. No mention about who they were far right or not, it was in the middle of a lesson so she couldn't get any more detail on this.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)

Quite worrying that the copper in charge thinks deviating from a route is proof of the intention to commit violent disorder.

“It is absolutely obvious that people have come to London with the intention of committing violent disorder, not coming for peaceful protest,” said Julia Pendry, a Met chief superintendent. “That can be proved by the fact they have deviated from the agreed route.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26712950-03d2-11e0-8c3f-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz17jFipV6x


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Amazing pics from the boston globe: http://tinyurl.com/dayx3pictures


 
this is the sort of thing 'gentle'green likes:


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 10, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Amazing pics from the boston globe: http://tinyurl.com/dayx3pictures


 
fuck


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 10, 2010)

R4 news just now: "Police are facing mounting criticism about their handling of yesterday's student protests..."  "...after the car carrying the Prince of Wales..." 

They did tag on about five seconds of "oh and some people are complaining about one guy being hit on the head and sent to hospital as well" at the end I suppose. Balance.


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 10, 2010)

Bollocked for the Millbank shambles, bollocked for kettling, bollocked for being bollocked.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 10, 2010)

Bollocked Praised for being incompetent thugs every hour on the hour on BBC news.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Dec 10, 2010)

The BBC coverage is a disgrace - talk about a fucking mouthpiece of the establishment

The only good thing about the kettle yesterday as it was clearly against the law because they didn't provide water or toilet facilities (dec. in European court) so I hope to see lots and lots of pissed off students suing the arse off the Met


----------



## revlon (Dec 10, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> Quite worrying that the copper in charge thinks deviating from a route is proof of the intention to commit violent disorder.
> 
> “It is absolutely obvious that people have come to London with the intention of committing violent disorder, not coming for peaceful protest,” said Julia Pendry, a Met chief superintendent. “That can be proved by the fact they have deviated from the agreed route.”
> 
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26712950-03d2-11e0-8c3f-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz17jFipV6x


 
i think they're genuinely shitting it over the lack of success over the strategy of contain and batter 

"But sir paul we _are_ hitting them harder but they keep coming back"


----------



## GuerillaPhoto (Dec 10, 2010)

http://guerillaphotography.tumblr.com/post/2166624697/dayx3-student-protests-london-9th-dec-2010

my blog post from inside Parliament square yesterday, well that was fun.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> this is the sort of thing 'gentle'green likes:
> 
> http://inapcache.boston.com/univers...gpicture/londonprotest_12_10/l11_26266229.jpg



As if a picture like that actually paints 1,000 words - it's useless without context - shame on you.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 10, 2010)

Anyone else seen this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...inging-as-the-son-of-rock-n-roll-royalty.html


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 10, 2010)

Fucking torygraph, handed to them on a plate.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 10, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Amazing pics from the boston globe: http://tinyurl.com/dayx3pictures


 
Revolutionary heroes:






I don't understand - is the tree a Government Minister or even a capitalist - nah, it's just flammable...........

Caption: "Protesters attempt to set fire to the Norwegian Christmas tree in Trafalgar Square, London" - clearly not students of any of the sciences if they couldn't manage to set a tree alight......


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

Threshers_Flail said:


> I was right by him today, both brothers were very brave. What right have the police to move him? Utter cunts.


 
I'm sure that detective-boy will be along soon to explain that the bloke was committing a public order offence by protesting in a wheelchair.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Fucking torygraph, handed to them on a plate.


 
Ignore it, it's not what about. EMA kids out all day are what its about.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> As if a picture like that actually paints 1,000 words - it's useless without context - shame on you.


 
as i see it the context is you're a wanker who likes cops to beat up women.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 10, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm sure that detective-boy will be along soon to explain that the bloke was committing a public order offence by protesting in a wheelchair.


 
He wouldn't fuckin' dare


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> He wouldn't fuckin' dare


 
section 137 highways act 1980


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> As if a picture like that actually paints 1,000 words - it's useless without context - shame on you.


 
No. Shame on you. You're the one ignoring the context here in order to excuse police brutality. You also, by your own admission, have never been on an anti-government march, and even if you did you would do your best to ensure that someone else was at the front. 

You have zero right to comment on any of this really, yet here you are...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> section 137 highways act 1980


 
lol


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Are you a Bennite by any chance?


 
I wouldn't know - I've never related to mainstream politics -  always focussed on issues I can actually understand a little - from first principles.
I tried the OU's social science foundation course in an attempt to understand the human condition , but didn't get beyond basic Smith, Weber and Marx - and I've forgotten nearly all that.

My Physics essays tended to get marked down as full of irrelevances and my social science ones "succinct to the point of meaninglessness".


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)

James Whale on LBC.  He's had an interview with Boris in which he says the protesters are undermining the rights of others to have peaceful protests, whilst also saying we can't let them think they have scared people from coming into central london or created a negative image of the capital for the world.

Then Paddick came on.  He thinks masked youths should be arrested and searched from the outset.  Asked about police masking up, he launches into 'they only get their helmets and shields on after disorder' and never mentions masking up.

Emails flooding in saying the monday protest should be banned n all.

Oh.  And Paddick said a Police Officer was seriously hurt 2 hours before any containment when asked if the kettling provoked the violence, as claimed by protesters.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2010)

Gentlegreen, under what circumstances would it _not_ be OK for cops to hit random girls in the face?

Or are there no such circumstances?


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 10, 2010)

is there a protest on monday too? what about?


----------



## rekil (Dec 10, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm sure that detective-boy will be along soon to explain that the bloke was committing a public order offence by protesting in a wheelchair.


 Come now, that's one of his infirm types that are living longer than nature intended. His wheelchair should be sold and the proceeds spent on gruel for youngsters. A proportion of the proceeds anyway.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> My Physics essays tended to get marked down as full of irrelevances and my social science ones "succinct to the point of meaninglessness".


 
No shit


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I wouldn't know - I've never related to mainstream politics -  always focussed on issues I can actually understand a little - from first principles.
> I tried the OU's social science foundation course in an attempt to understand the human condition , but didn't get beyond basic Smith, Weber and Marx - and I've forgotten nearly all that.
> 
> My Physics essays tended to get marked down as full of irrelevances and my social science ones "succinct to the point of meaninglessness".


 
yeah you are a bit thick.


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I wouldn't know - I've never related to mainstream politics -  always focussed on issues I can actually understand a little - from first principles.
> I tried the OU's social science foundation course in an attempt to understand the human condition , but didn't get beyond basic Smith, Weber and Marx - and I've forgotten nearly all that.
> 
> My Physics essays tended to get marked down as full of irrelevances and my social science ones "succinct to the point of meaninglessness".


 
So, in a nutshell, you didn't understand anything.  Plus ça change


----------



## revlon (Dec 10, 2010)

cobbles said:


> revolutionary heroes:
> 
> i don't understand - is the tree a government minister or even a capitalist - nah, it's just flammable...........
> 
> Caption: "protesters attempt to set fire to the norwegian christmas tree in trafalgar square, london" - clearly not students of any of the sciences if they couldn't manage to set a tree alight......


 
please someone think of the trees :d


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> is there a protest on monday too? what about?


 
Monday is EMA. Get out there lad.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 10, 2010)

will do, thought that was wednesday though


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

agricola said:


> Jesus wept.


 
Yeah, but to be fair, he's a fucking hippy.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> yeah you are a bit thick.



Yes - too thick for uni.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Revolutionary heroes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
"spotty oik fails to set fire to tree at a range of 1 foot"


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Monday is EMA. Get out there lad.


 
EMA - the joke temptation by Labour so as not to swell the dole queues - too right it should be scrapped


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> James Whale on LBC.  He's had an interview with Boris in which he says the protesters are undermining the rights of others to have peaceful protests, whilst also saying we can't let them think they have scared people from coming into central london or created a negative image of the capital for the world.
> 
> Then Paddick came on.  He thinks masked youths should be arrested and searched from the outset.  Asked about police masking up, he launches into 'they only get their helmets and shields on after disorder' and never mentions masking up.
> 
> ...







cops on the strand 30/11/2010


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I know what, let's go back to the situation pre-Peel ... no police, just vigilantes - that'd save money too.


 
More ignorance. Pre-Peel policing was by local constabulary in collaboration with the magistracy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> More ignorance. Pre-Peel policing was by local constabulary in collaboration with the magistracy.


 
i pointed out the ignorance some time ago


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> More ignorance. Pre-Peel policing was by local constabulary in collaboration with the magistracy.


And magistrates being almost exclusively whom ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> And magistrates being almost exclusively whom ?


 
men  the sexist pigs


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> EMA - the joke temptation by Labour so as not to swell the dole queues - too right it should be scrapped


 
Yeah, kids staying in college, getting qualifications instead of being on the dole. Diabolical. I mean, how fucking dare they?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Dec 10, 2010)

I can't read any more eye witness accounts

The whole thing makes me fucking mad


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> EMA - the joke temptation by Labour so as not to swell the dole queues - too right it should be scrapped


 
you can't claim dole at 16 retard.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> I can't read any more eye witness accounts
> 
> The whole thing makes me fucking mad


 
the thing is those accounts could come from a wide range of demonstrations over (at least) the past 20-25 years. only now there are more ways of getting them out


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 10, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm sure that detective-boy will be along soon to explain that the bloke was committing a public order offence by protesting in a wheelchair.


I haven't got the faintest idea what he was doing.  But he is certainly capable of committing criminal offences just like anyone else.  And any use of force on him would have to be justified (or not) in exactly the same way as anyone else.

Are you implying that because he is dsiabled he _isn't_ capable of committing a criminal offence?    Not very "right on" that, eh?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> EMA - the joke temptation by Labour so as not to swell the dole queues - too right it should be scrapped


 
It's for under 18s you fucking tax dodging thicko


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 10, 2010)

fucking Stephen Hawkins!!1!


Police hoodies again. Jesus.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The far-left flags were everywhere BA, they clearly started the violence.


 
You halfwit. 
Are you not aware that the Swappies leave piles of placards around for people to pick up? That doesn't mean that the people holding the placards are "far-left", you donkey!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I haven't got the faintest idea what he was doing.  But he is certainly capable of committing criminal offences just like anyone else.  And any use of force on him would have to be justified (or not) in exactly the same way as anyone else.
> 
> Are you implying that because he is dsiabled he _isn't_ capable of committing a criminal offence?    Not very "right on" that, eh?


 
yes. there are a wide range of criminal offences someone in a wheelchair might commit. so best give him a whacking before he realises this.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 10, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I haven't got the faintest idea what he was doing.  But he is certainly capable of committing criminal offences just like anyone else.  And any use of force on him would have to be justified (or not) in exactly the same way as anyone else.
> 
> Are you implying that because he is dsiabled he _isn't_ capable of committing a criminal offence?    Not very "right on" that, eh?


 
So dragging him along for fifteen feet is proportionate how? FFS all they needed to do was just push the bloody wheelchair, but hey, why do that when you can drag him along the ground. It's not like he could stand up for his rights anyway.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The far-left flags were everywhere BA, they clearly started the violence.


 
yes. cos the presence of placards clearly means "we are going to attack you"


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 10, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I haven't got the faintest idea what he was doing.  But he is certainly capable of committing criminal offences just like anyone else.  And any use of force on him would have to be justified (or not) in exactly the same way as anyone else.
> 
> Are you implying that because he is dsiabled he _isn't_ capable of committing a criminal offence?    Not very "right on" that, eh?


 
"Oink oink".


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

ex-coppers have, i'd expect, a higher proportion of criminals among them than people confined to wheelchairs.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

Before engaging further on this thread and dissecting the intricacies of the law, would you like to express your support for the demonstrators yesterday, detective-boy?


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> men  the sexist pigs


 
I obviously meant they have never tended to be one's peers....

At least there is an evolving complaints procedure - compared to a few years ago most of the police seem like social workers to me.
Naturally there will be thugs - hopefully fewer than in society as a whole - they do after all have to go on training courses.

Why not check out the Daily Hate's opinion of the policing methods used. ?

Or how it's done just about everywhere else ...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> "spotty oik fails to set fire to tree at a range of 1 foot"


 
Cold, damp ferns/trees are NOt that easy to burn. FACT!


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Dec 10, 2010)

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2010/12/young-protesters-police


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 10, 2010)

the IPCC is a paper tiger.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Naturally there will be thugs - hopefully fewer than in society as a whole - they do after all have to go on training courses.


 eh? of course there are thugs in the police. and of course there are fewer thugs in the police than in society as a whole because the cops are a minority of society. but there's no need to suggest that the police thugs are only thuggish because they've been trained to be. most cops manage thuggery quite easily without any tuition.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Naturally there will be thugs - hopefully fewer than in society as a whole ?



Your hopes are unfounded. The police force has always attracted ex-school bullies.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> It's for under 18s you fucking tax dodging thicko


 
it's paying to keep kids in school, sponger


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I obviously meant they have never tended to be one's peers....
> 
> At least there is an evolving complaints procedure - compared to a few years ago most of the police seem like social workers to me.
> Naturally there will be thugs - hopefully fewer than in society as a whole - they do after all have to go on training courses.
> ...


 

They profile/select them _for_ thuggery


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> it's paying to keep kids in school, sponger


 
so nothing to do with the dole.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> They profile/select them _for_ thuggery


 
even the diddy cops?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 10, 2010)

dp


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> it's paying to keep kids in school, sponger


 
It's supporting young people during school/college, think lunch, travel expenses, stationery...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> even the diddy cops?


 
Esp them


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Esp them


 
there do seem a fair proportion of dwarfish figures in the police.


----------



## Dowie (Dec 10, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> I wish people would stop spouting Mail-esque rubbish about "degrees in David Beckham". The fees are going to affect every student who wants to do a degree, be it psychology, physics, accounting, economics, or Balinean nose-flute music. Talk of "Mickey Mouse" degrees is just a straw man, and not a very good one at that.


 
I dunno - some universities offer homeopathy degrees which are about as micky mouse as you can get and I don't quite see the point of an accountancy degree - what do people learn on an accountancy degree that isn't covered by simply studying for and passing chartered accountancy exams.

I'd rather we got rid of shit universities and made education completely free.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

Rutita1 said:


> It's supporting young people during school/college, think lunch, travel expenses, stationery...


 
It's not a policy without problems, though, because it is paying kids to be at school when often they don't really want to be there. In many cases, it would be far better to provide them with proper apprenticeships, where they'd have to attend or they'd lose the chance of a real job at the end of it, and they might actually be doing something they enjoy.


----------



## dylans (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> it's paying to keep kids in school, sponger


 
Can you show me the post where you refer to the parasite Royals attending the best schools as sponging? 

Why do you think it ok for their life to be mapped out from birth as one of privilege but  some smart kid from a council estate with dreams and aspirations beyond the dole queue or labouring in a building site wanting to reach his potential is sponging?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

Dowie said:


> I dunno - some universities offer homeopathy degrees .


 
No they don't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No they don't.


 
university of westminster used to.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 10, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not a policy without problems, though, because it is paying kids to be at school when often they don't really want to be there. In many cases, it would be far better to provide them with proper apprenticeships, where they'd have to attend or they'd lose the chance of a real job at the end of it, and they might actually be doing something they enjoy.


 
I am not suggesting it is without problems or that it wouldn't be better than x, y, z. It is though, better than nothing. I know young people that rely on it as their parents are simply not in a position to help them either.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

ymu said:


> We need to think about providing our own toilet facilities for the next kettle. I'm thinking a funnel and some balloons for easy disposal ... set up nice and close to the police lines, natch.


 
And a newspaper, so that if you have to drop a stool, you can wrap it and lob the warm package at a riot shield.


----------



## Serotonin (Dec 10, 2010)

Im cross posting this from a friend on another forum. Pretty disgusting if what he says is true (Ive no reason to disbelieve him, hes  a decent sort.)

"I was at the protests yesterday and witnessed many examples of police brutality. My 19-year-old sister was forced to the floor by police when caught in a crowd an...d when attempting to get up was punched in the face by a male officer. She is sporting a black eye this morning.* I was also punched in the face by an officer and when I went to make a note of his numbers, two of his colleagues spotted me doing so and placed their hands on his shoulders, making sure I couldn't see them. I continuously asked for him to make his numbers visible. His response was to smirk and say that he couldn't hear me."*

"It seemed more to be motivated by traditional aims of kettling that are rarely stated: to demoralise protesters so much that they are dissuaded from taking part again, and to exhaust them physically so that they go home quietly (not that there was any need for the latter by this stage of the night). *While queueing to leave Parliament Square, a woman next to me jokingly told a police officer that if they let us go, she would promise that this would be her last demonstration. The officer replied, "That's the point.""*

Another poster who is ex police, stated that 

"I'm ex police who is now a full time student, so as I'm watching this I'm in a position of knowing exactly how it feels to be on both sides.

A purely personal and anecdotal thing I wanted to say was this. Most cops I met who joined up to PSU (the riot cops), did it because *they fucking love a ruck and get dead excited when there is a big job like this coming up*. Having been a cop, I know first hand they are not always 100% professional. "


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

Fair enough, rutita. I'm not suggesting it isn't really good for some kids, but I've been told by a friend who teaches at an FE college that it does lead to significant numbers of disruptive students who have no desire to learn anything – there need to be different, entirely non-academic alternatives too as some kids have just had enough of academic learning by age 16. It's a waste of their time being there, and it doesn't help other kids who want to be there.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 10, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fair enough, rutita. I'm not suggesting it isn't really good for some kids, but I've been told by a friend who teaches at an FE college that it does lead to significant numbers of disruptive students who have no desire to learn anything – there need to be different, entirely non-academic alternatives too as some kids have just had enough of academic learning by age 16. It's a waste of their time being there, and it doesn't help other kids who want to be there.


 
I am sure that does go on too, like I said I was not suggesting it is without problems. Quite frankly I just really didn't like gunnerboy accusing them all of being spongers. He clearly doesn't have a bloody clue.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

Rutita1 said:


> I am sure that does go on too, like I said I was not suggesting it is without problems. Quite frankly I just really didn't like gunnerboy accusing them all of being spongers. He clearly doesn't have a bloody clue.


 
he's never had one


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

Rutita1 said:


> He clearly doesn't have a bloody clue.


 
Clearly.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> Can you show me the post where you refer to the parasite Royals attending the best schools as sponging?
> 
> Why do you think it ok for their life to be mapped out from birth as one of privilege but  some smart kid from a council estate with dreams and aspirations beyond the dole queue or labouring in a building site wanting to reach his potential is sponging?



I didnt saying anyone want to study was a sponger - you've got the wrong end of the stick.  What I do object to are the low rent colleges masquerading as unis that give degrees not worth the paper theyre written on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I didnt saying anyone want to study was a sponger - you've got the wrong end of the stick.  What I do object to are the low rent colleges masquerading as unis that give degrees not worth the paper theyre written on.


 
what i object to are low-grade posters who masquerade as intelligent commentators.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I didnt saying anyone want to study was a sponger - you've got the wrong end of the stick.  What I do object to are the low rent colleges masquerading as unis that give degrees not worth the paper theyre written on.



Such as? List of these Universities and their worthless degrees? As a percentage of "worthwhile" degrees?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Such as? List of these Universities and their worthless degrees? As a percentage of "worthwhile" degrees?


 
i'd like to know where he got the rent figures from - might be canny management


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I didnt saying anyone want to study was a sponger - you've got the wrong end of the stick.  What I do object to are the low rent colleges masquerading as unis that give degrees not worth the paper theyre written on.


 
as someone (kinda) went to Queens University, a smug member of the Russel Group who fancy themselves as the UK's Ivy League, I can say it's philosophy department was shit, at one stage the module on Marx and political philosophy was cancelled and replaced with some guff about St Aquinas, the fat fuck, taught by some Dub with a hard on for the middle ages.

one of those mickey mouse uni's might also have more of a focus on proper teaching rather than being driven by research and commercial concerns like Queens is.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 10, 2010)

great ....... and the outcome of this _success _, and more to come ...will be water cannon and gas back on our streets .....

out of interest should the cost of this extra policing be taken out of the education budget ?


----------



## xes (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> great ....... and the outcome of this _success _, and more to come ...will be water cannon and gas back on our streets .....
> 
> out of interest should the cost of this extra policing be taken out of the education budget ?


 
They can take it out of the war budget.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Such as? List of these Universities and their worthless degrees? As a percentage of "worthwhile" degrees?


 
no it's the low grade polys that give rubbish degrees that most HR depts just discard when they seem them on CVs.  If you dont know the difference between polys and unis, unis and red brick unis then look it up


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 10, 2010)

xes said:


> They can take it out of the war budget.



Zing!


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> as someone (kinda) went to Queens University, a smug member of the Russel Group who fancy themselves as the UK's Ivy League, I can say it's philosophy department was shit, at one stage the module on Marx and political philosophy was cancelled and replaced with some guff about St Aquinas, the fat fuck, taught by some Dub with a hard on for the middle ages.
> 
> one of those mickey mouse uni's might also have more of a focus on proper teaching rather than being driven by research and commercial concerns like Queens is.



Obviously how to form plurals was not an entrance requirement - I pity you.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> no it's the low grade polys that give rubbish degrees that most HR depts just discard when they seem them on CVs.  If you dont know the difference between polys and unis, unis and red brick unis then look it up



Don't patronise me, friend. Address my points or pipe down.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 10, 2010)

xes said:


> They can take it out of the war budget.



 Actually ....... thats a good idea ....bring the troops home ........Im sure some use will be be found for them


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> Actually ....... thats a good idea ....bring the troops home ........Im sure some use will be be found for them


 
or, at least, their guns


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> no it's the low grade polys that give rubbish degrees that most HR depts just discard when they seem them on CVs.  If you dont know the difference between polys and unis, unis and red brick unis then look it up


 
gunneradt's opinion on 'redbricks' and the worth of their degrees was brought to you by the daily express and the year 1982.


----------



## ymu (Dec 10, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> And a newspaper, so that if you have to drop a stool, you can wrap it and lob the warm package at a riot shield.


 
Over, not at.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> gunneradt's opinion on 'redbricks' and the worth of their degrees was brought to you by the daily express and the year 1982.


 
an errant '2' seems to gave crept into your post.


----------



## Spion (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> no it's the low grade polys that give rubbish degrees that most HR depts just discard when they seem them on CVs.  If you dont know the difference between polys and unis, unis and red brick unis then look it up


By christ, you're so full of shit it's laughable, like you really have experience of 'most HR depts'


----------



## Spion (Dec 10, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> gunneradt's opinion on 'redbricks' and the worth of their degrees was brought to you by the daily express and the year 1982.


like


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Obviously how to form plurals was not an entrance requirement - I pity you.


 
grammar pedantry on forums is the last refuge of the idiot.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

Spion said:


> By christ, you're so full of shit it's laughable, like you really have experience of 'most HR depts'


 
he probably does, i wouldn't be surprised if he'd received rejection letters from most of them


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> Who were the _right on_ Marxists trots and revolutionary's in their youth ........all it takes is one sniff


 
Peter Hitchens, for one.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> no it's the low grade polys that give rubbish degrees that most HR depts just discard when they seem them on CVs.  If you dont know the difference between polys and unis, unis and red brick unis then look it up


err, yeah, like you'd know about HR depts policies'! _sure_.....


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> err, yeah, like you'd know about HR depts policies'! _sure_.....


 
what is the difference between 'unis' and 'red brick unis'?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> he probably does, i wouldn't be surprised if he'd received rejection letters from most of them



v good!


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 10, 2010)

If you want to complain to the IPCC, the same muppets that looked after the death of Ian Tomlinson the fire away they are "sometimes staff by ex police constables." according to the Wiki page. 

To contact us by letter or fax our details are:
Independent Police Complaints Commission 
5th Floor
90 High Holborn
London 
WC1V 6BH 

Have fun! and have ago at the Police Chiefs yet again just like last year, yes you can complain about those comments made on T.V.!


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

i've been sorely disappointed by quite a few posters I quite like on the football forums, DRINK? and Agricola on this issue but not gunneradt, he's a fuckwit on the football forums too.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> no it's the low grade polys that give rubbish degrees that most HR depts just discard when they seem them on CVs.  If you dont know the difference between polys and unis, unis and red brick unis then look it up


actually, absolute bollocks. The polys were set up to specialise in technological, vocational and 'niche' modern-era subjects. As such, there are a huge range of both subjects where poly degrees are perceived, correctly, as being of a pretty high value. 
And I talk to HR people all day long - it's my job. So yes, I do know.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I only just remembered - didn't this all start because the protest deviated from the agreed route ?


What agreed route was that?


> I've been on two events in London over the years - most notably the Rock against Racism one in 1977 - I don't recall any problems at all.


Are you sure you were there?
I was, and there was the usual amount of aggro.


> And what of the police who were injured trying to prevent even more carnage. ?


You're making a bit of a value judgement there. At least one was injured because of his own equestrian ineptitude, and several seemed to get semi-stampeded by their own lines, too. Why are you assuming they were all hurt trying to "prevent carnage"?


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> The police were physically defending a decision by the lying dogs sitting in parliament to launch an attack on the poorest in society in order to pay for a crisis caused by the rich and powerful. That decision represents an act of violence against the working class and an assault on the dreams hopes and aspirations of a generation. By acting in defence of those making that decision the police become the enemy and therefore violence against them becomes legitimate and right. This is not a game and calls for the victims of those political attacks to peacefully accept them is a call for us to accept defeat.
> 
> 2. If the demonstrators had gained access to Parliament they would have physically assaulted those illegitimate MPs and attempted to disrupt the illegitimate decisions they were taking. Why not? They are making decisions about our lives and the future of our children and they have no democratic mandate to do so. In the face of their political unaccountability street violence is the only reply. Not only is it morally justified. It is the only possible response and the only thing that they take seriously.
> 
> ...



Yes. Thank you. And along similar lines: Police claim moral high ground


----------



## dylans (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Obviously how to form plurals was not an entrance requirement - I pity you.


 


> gunneradt; I *didn't saying* anyone *want* to study was a sponger



Obviously infinitive verbs, present simple, present continuous and third person singular wasn't an entry requirement for you.

If you are going to be a grammar pedant be sure your own house is in order.

(Pm  me if you want a grammar lesson. The benefits of a "mickey mouse" university)


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 10, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Are you sure you were there?



I seem to remember walking behind a communist party trad jazz float through Brixton, and various other traditional musical entertainments. I was mostly involved with RAR for the music. Was there some aggro near the US Embassy for some reson ?

When I got home, my Tory, slightly racist parents had helpfully drawn rings around some bedsits in the Evening Post. Best thing they ever did for me.

I always managed to stay clear of rentamob. I forget who caused embarassment in the Bristol march around the same time - ANL were a bit noisy - perhaps it was the SWP ...


----------



## ddraig (Dec 10, 2010)

our Brian (paddick) on ch4 now


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i pointed out the ignorance some time ago


 
Yes, but I've been working my way through the thread from about page 25-onward, so you'll have to forgive my tardiness.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

ddraig said:


> our Brian (paddick) on ch4 now


 
he's more dangerous than any old school zero tolerance pig.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 10, 2010)

heh, paddick the liberal democrat.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 10, 2010)

ddraig said:


> our Brian (paddick) on ch4 now



I thought he was dead and frooze himself on a hill in the Lake District becasue he cheated on his wife and some how that made him an icon among over Chief Boobies.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> And magistrates being almost exclusively whom ?


 
Depends. In the shires pre-police forces it was mostly the squirearchy, the churchmen and the occasional tavern-owner. In the cities it was just about anyone who had the voting franchise and was of "sound repute", not least because demand (as now) outstripped the supply of public-minded people.

All male, of course.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> or, at least, their guns


 
Give their arms to plod?  

Oops my mistake, plod already have them!


----------



## audiotech (Dec 10, 2010)

From the live Guardian feed:



> I just got home after attending the embers of the protest at the end of Victoria Street. While there I got chatting to a 17year-old girl. A while later a group of people who I believe to be neo-Nazis turned up and started causing trouble. They were trying to start on an old man of about 60. A policeman calmed him down. They then started picking on this girl. They all started to scream "Cunt!" at her and she called them this back. The group (about 12-15) walked up to her in a very menacing way. We backed off towards the police and then one of the group pushed the girl violently in the head, causing her to fall down on her back. I pulled her away to the police and asked for help. Two of them smirked at each other and one said: "You wanted free speech." They then continued to watch as the neo-Nazis caused trouble. This occurred at around 7pm.



If true, and they were "neo-Nazis", watch yer backs. If they weren't "neo-Nazis", watch yer backs. If you think the whole thing's bollocks watch yer backs anyway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I haven't got the faintest idea what he was doing.  But he is certainly capable of committing criminal offences just like anyone else.  And any use of force on him would have to be justified (or not) in exactly the same way as anyone else.
> 
> Are you implying that because he is dsiabled he _isn't_ capable of committing a criminal offence?    Not very "right on" that, eh?



I'm not a very "right on" person, and I wasn't implying anything of the sort. As a disabled person myself, I'm well aware that we're still able to commit criminal offences. 
I'm implying that you invariably find ways to excuse police actions.
I'll go further. You're often an apologist for police actions.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> actually, absolute bollocks. The polys were set up to specialise in technological, vocational and 'niche' modern-era subjects. As such, there are a huge range of both subjects where poly degrees are perceived, correctly, as being of a pretty high value.
> And I talk to HR people all day long - it's my job. So yes, I do know.


 
rubbish


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 10, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> Yes. Thank you. And along similar lines: Police claim moral high ground


 
I would like to see the "lying dogs" changed to "those" and speak to the media wearing a black balaklava


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> Obviously infinitive verbs, present simple, present continuous and third person singular wasn't an entry requirement for you.
> 
> If you are going to be a grammar pedant be sure your own house is in order.
> 
> (Pm  me if you want a grammar lesson. The benefits of a "mickey mouse" university)



you try it on a phone

but I sure as hell know you don't form plurals with an apostrophe


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 10, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not a very "right on" person, and I wasn't implying anything of the sort. As a disabled person myself, I'm well aware that we're still able to commit criminal offences.
> I'm implying that you invariably find ways to excuse police actions.
> I'll go further. You're often an apologist for police actions.



'Often' a pig apologist? You're too kind mate


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

audiotech said:


> From the live Guardian feed:
> 
> 
> 
> If true, and they were "neo-Nazis", watch yer backs. If they weren't "neo-Nazis", watch yer backs. If you think the whole thing's bollocks watch yer backs anyway.


gangs and counter-gangs


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> i've been sorely disappointed by quite a few posters I quite like on the football forums, DRINK? and Agricola on this issue but not gunneradt, he's a fuckwit on the football forums too.



says the litle boy with the sticky keyboard who's never attended a football match in his life.


----------



## treelover (Dec 10, 2010)

The old hierarchy of oppression still holds true though after the événements, still not much interest in the welfare day of action....


----------



## girasol (Dec 10, 2010)

Given the amount of witnessess to random acts of violence against the public, I wonder how many cases could be brought against the police?  Probably none, the bastards get away with murder, but I can dream...


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> you try it on a phone
> 
> but I sure as hell know you don't form plurals with an apostrophe


you do when there is a 'possessive' involved; eg "the XYZ boys' school"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

Tankus said:


> great ....... and the outcome of this _success _, and more to come ...will be water cannon and gas back on our streets .....


"Back"?


> out of interest should the cost of this extra policing be taken out of the education budget ?


No, it comes from the Individual Police Service's budgets, which are all being cut, btw, so each night of protest/disorder erodes the OB's ability to police the next one, and makes front-line cuts more of a possibility.
Of course, the Home Office could always give emergency funding to the OB, but I doubt that'd be very popular with the taxpayer.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

treelover said:


> The old hierarchy of oppression still hold true though, still not much interest in the welfare day of action,


 
that's just cos they are too lazy.... 

nah your point stands but I think the EMA stuff and it shouldn't be too hard to link up and in truth the trouble with actions amongst the unemployed is how atomised we are, I certainly don't think the students and people protesting fee's and the wider cuts can be blamed for the lack of activity around welfare, or for that matter public sector job cuts.

the pink elephant in the room is the labour movement


----------



## stupid kid (Dec 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> i've been sorely disappointed by quite a few posters I quite like on the football forums, DRINK? and Agricola on this issue but not gunneradt, he's a fuckwit on the football forums too.


 
"The football I believe in is like the socialism I believe in, everyone working for each other"


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> you try it on a phone
> 
> but I sure as hell know you don't form plurals with an apostrophe


 
thick as pigshit ^^


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> no it's the low grade polys that give rubbish degrees that most HR depts just discard when they seem them on CVs.  If you dont know the difference between polys and unis, unis and red brick unis then look it up


 
Did you ever used to look at the uni "league tables" (before they were government-mandated, but were compiled by the likes of the THES)?
There were plenty of polys that offered courses that had greater credibility than the red-bricks and the Russell Group unis. To simply ignore polys because of some snobbishness, whether you're an HR worker or an individual, is the act of an idiot.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 10, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, it comes from the Individual Police Service's budgets, which are all being cut, btw, so each night of protest/disorder erodes the OB's ability to police the next one, and makes front-line cuts more of a possibility.
> Of course, the Home Office could always give emergency funding to the OB, but I doubt that'd be very popular with the taxpayer.



One to keep an eye on this one, as the campaign gathers momentum. Frightened Tory/Lib Dem scum 'an all...& the precious state property that _always_ needs protection.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 10, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Did you ever used to look at the uni "league tables" (before they were government-mandated, but were compiled by the likes of the THES)?
> There were plenty of polys that offered courses that had greater credibility than the red-bricks and the Russell Group unis. To simply ignore polys because of some snobbishness, whether you're an HR worker or an individual, is the act of an idiot.


 
yeh, manchester poly had a good reputation for economics


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

ymu said:


> Over, not at.


 
Both work. "At" means they can't see where they're going, "over" means that some of them get splatted.
Of course, in the fine tradition of British infantry, you could volley them. One kneeling rank volleying at the shields, the second (standing) rank hoying them over the shields.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Did you ever used to look at the uni "league tables" (before they were government-mandated, but were compiled by the likes of the THES)?
> There were plenty of polys that offered courses that had greater credibility than the red-bricks and the Russell Group unis. To simply ignore polys because of some snobbishness, whether you're an HR worker or an individual, is the act of an idiot.


 
yep the University of Ulster is regarded as more relevant in regards to vocational matters than Queens.

not that I don't have a major problem with the total vocationalisation of learning and knowledge, simply pointing out that gunneradt is full of shit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> 'Often' a pig apologist? You're too kind mate


 
It's not kindness, Bish. It's me attempting to limit his excuses for going off on one.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Dec 10, 2010)




----------



## dylans (Dec 10, 2010)

double post


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

ExtraRefined said:


>


 
Oh look, the right-wing half-wit has found a graphic that voices his selfishness and misanthropy better than he ever could.

Bless.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> yep the University of Ulster is regarded as more relevant in regards to vocational matters than Queens.
> 
> not that I don't have a major problem with the total vocationalisation of learning and knowledge, simply pointing out that gunneradt is full of shit.


 
Hello yet again go back into your cave in Libcom . com you keep telling us how to behave and yet you never seem to be around when these things kick off )


----------



## dylans (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> you try it on a phone
> 
> but I sure as hell know you don't form plurals with an apostrophe


 
Actually you can. There are numerous examples where the plural is formed with an apostrophe. 

To pluralise single letters, for example, "be sure to dot your I's and cross your T's "

Following plurals of numbers. "1000's of years."

and in plurals that end in s. to indicate possession "both boys' toys were broken"


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Dec 10, 2010)

Pon de floor.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 10, 2010)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Hello yet again go back into your cave in Libcom . com you keep telling us how to behave and yet you never seem to be around when these things kick off )


 
Please take your beef elsewhere, rodent.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 10, 2010)

The christmas tree fire which i heard about and didn't see


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 10, 2010)

shaman75 said:


>


 Funny as fuck! One on One!


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Hello yet again go back into your cave in Libcom . com you keep telling us how to behave and yet you never seem to be around when these things kick off )


 
You're talking to a Genoa veteran, sunshine.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Funny as fuck! One on One!


 
see Debord's Society of the Spectacle does have uses beyond impressing middle class girls in coffee shops.


----------



## GuerillaPhoto (Dec 10, 2010)

Some of my images. Interesting watching media coverage, even heard that it was protesters that broke the officers leg.... erm no he fell off his horse and the horse trampled him.

[S3][/S3]

1




2




3




4




5






Full Blog post with text and photos here:

http://guerillaphotography.tumblr.com/


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)




----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> thick as pigshit ^^


 
^^ too old to make a difference and hates it


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> Actually you can. There are numerous examples where the plural is formed with an apostrophe.
> 
> To pluralise single letters, for example, "be sure to dot your I's and cross your T's "
> 
> ...


 
errr no, that is utterly wrong.

boys indicates possession not a plural

how can a plural be formed with an apostrophe - it indicates ownership


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Did you ever used to look at the uni "league tables" (before they were government-mandated, but were compiled by the likes of the THES)?
> There were plenty of polys that offered courses that had greater credibility than the red-bricks and the Russell Group unis. To simply ignore polys because of some snobbishness, whether you're an HR worker or an individual, is the act of an idiot.


 
I wasn't.  I was discrediting the latest wave of polys and their re-naming as universities.  We have a uni here and you wouldn't send a dog to it, let alone a student.  It ends up with failed middle agers attempting to scrape a gcse


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> errr no, that is utterly wrong.
> 
> boys indicates possession not a plural
> 
> how can a plural be formed with an apostrophe - it indicates ownership


 
LOL

I made a typo in a rushed post and you chastise my grammer, yet you are actually ignorant of the fact that you use an apostrophe after boys to indicate it was a plural of boys who had broken toys.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I wasn't.  I was discrediting the latest wave of polys and their re-naming as universities.  We have a uni here and you wouldn't send a dog to it, let alone a student.  It ends up with failed middle agers attempting to scrape a gcse


 
a uni that teaches gcse's? hmmmm


----------



## cantsin (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I seem to remember walking behind a communist party trad jazz float through Brixton, and various other traditional musical entertainments. I was mostly involved with RAR for the music. Was there some aggro near the US Embassy for some reson ?
> 
> When I got home, my Tory, slightly racist parents had helpfully drawn rings around some bedsits in the Evening Post. Best thing they ever did for me.
> 
> I always managed to stay clear of rentamob. I forget who caused embarassment in the Bristol march around the same time - ANL were a bit noisy - perhaps it was the SWP ...


 
why is anyone still engaging with this fucknugget ? did he say something even remotely relevant/sensible in the previous 10 pages after the initial drivel ?

right up there with Drink/Detective-Stoat Boy and Jer fucking wossisname on the rollcall of timewasting, ego-mad clowns imo. plse feel free to add your own contribs.


----------



## Dimitris (Dec 10, 2010)

Wow I just finished reading 61 pages non stop. What can I say good stuff guys 

Solidarity from Greece


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> you do when there is a 'possessive' involved; eg "the XYZ boys' school"


 
'boys IS plural - it is not formed by adding an apostrophe to the end of it - good grief.  The apostrophe represents the ownership of school by more than one boy.

as in 'the protesters' heads were beaten soundly by the nasty policeman'


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> a uni that teaches gcse's? hmmmm


 
gcses even

yes I'm afraid so


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> a uni that teaches gcse's? hmmmm


 
you'd almost think gunner didn't know what he was talking about, wouldn't you?


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> LOL
> 
> I made a typo in a rushed post and you chastise my grammer, yet you are actually ignorant of the fact that you use an apostrophe after boys to indicate it was a plural of boys who had broken toys.


 
err no, wrong again

back to poly for you


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

Dimitris said:


> Wow I just finished reading 61 pages non stop. What can I say good stuff guys
> 
> Solidarity from Greece


 
 

Solidarity from here to Greece too.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)

Blimey.  Police got kettled!


----------



## ymu (Dec 10, 2010)

belboid said:


> you'd almost think gunner didn't know what he was talking about, wouldn't you?


He's certainly not up on his grammar. An apostrophe to form a plural is fine when required for disambiguation. Commonly used for abbreviations.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> err no, wrong again
> 
> back to poly for you



yes the apostrophe is used to indicate it is plural ownership.

anyway I went to a Russell group Uni so any failings can be pinned on them.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> yes the apostrophe is used to indicate it is plural ownership.
> 
> anyway I went to a Russell group Uni so any failings can be pinned on them.



I was only jesting.  I think I'll leave the lefties alone for the evening now - must be time for a drink.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

ymu said:


> He's certainly not up on his grammar. An apostrophe to form a plural is fine when required for disambiguation. Commonly used for abbreviations.


 
no it isn't

the most common error and you see it all over the internet is FAQs with an apostrophe in it

A plural is never formed with an apostrophe - never ever ever


----------



## dylans (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> errr no, that is utterly wrong.
> 
> boys indicates possession not a plural
> 
> how can a plural be formed with an apostrophe - it indicates ownership



No, you are wrong. It indicates both. The toys belonging to more than one boy. *Both* boys' toys"

For simple possession the apostrophe is followed by an s "boy's toys."

To indicate plural possession the apostrophe follows the s.

The boy's toys were broken. (single boy)

The boys' toys were broken. (Multiple boys)

Keep making a fool of yourself if you wish but I promise you will lose (because you are wrong)


----------



## GuerillaPhoto (Dec 10, 2010)

Video shot by my friend


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> No, you are wrong. It indicates both. The toys belonging to more than one boy. *Both* boys' toys"
> 
> Keep making a fool of yourself if you wish but I promise you will lose (because you are wrong)



the plural is not formed with the apostrophe - just think about it.

its only purpose is to indicate that the toys belong to the boys (both of them) - see no apostrophes required now that I have moved the words around.  It is only there because the words are following each other.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> no it isn't
> 
> the most common error and you see it all oiver the internet is FAQs with an apostrophe in it
> 
> A plural is never formed with an apostrophe - never ever ever



Much as it pains me to agree with gunneradt about anything, I agree with him about this. Where you have abbreviations, the best solution is to use caps for the abbreviation with a lower-case s, as with FAQs above.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I wasn't.  I was discrediting the latest wave of polys and their re-naming as universities.  We have a uni here and you wouldn't send a dog to it, let alone a student.  It ends up with failed middle agers attempting to scrape a gcse



You mean FE access?  I sat in one class at a run-down college with a few 'failed' middle agers (sic), who went on to do well at university. 

This kind of provision for people needs to be improved, indeed you could say in some ways its failing those middle agers (sic) or younger folk who enroll on them.

Bit of a stuck-up prick really, aren't you.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

Tell you what, don't talk about this shit.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I was only jesting.  I think I'll leave the lefties alone for the evening now - must be time for a drink.


 
oh well when United thump your shower of bottleless posers on Monday I will have a drink to victory and the fact you will be just a little bit more dejected.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Much as it pains me to agree with gunneradt about anything, I agree with him about this. Where you have abbreviations, the best solution is to use caps for the abbreviation with a lower-case s, as with FAQs above.


 
ha ha - indeed you are right

I have spent many hours correcting copy on websites where dolts have put 'FAQ's'.  I've no idea why people think plurals are formed in this but it's blinking common in the UK


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

It really is the _only_ thing I agree with you about, though. And butchers is right. I'll stop talking about it now.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Tell you what, don't talk about this shit.


 
absolutely - back to protesters' heads and nasty policemen.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> ha ha - indeed you are right
> 
> I have spent many hours correcting copy on websites where dolts have put 'FAQ's'.  I've no idea why people think plurals are formed in this but it's blinking common in the UK


 
does it really matter when the same meaning is communicated?


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

and yes can we get back on track, apologies for my role in the derailment.

As my priest might say UP THE KIDS!


----------



## ymu (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> no it isn't
> 
> the most common error and you see it all over the internet is FAQs with an apostrophe in it
> 
> A plural is never formed with an apostrophe - never ever ever


You are an ill-educated oik.



> There are one or two cases in which it is acceptable to use an apostrophe to form a plural, purely for the sake of clarity:
> 
> o
> you can use an apostrophe to show the plurals of single letters:
> ...


----------



## ymu (Dec 10, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Much as it pains me to agree with gunneradt about anything, I agree with him about this. Where you have abbreviations, the best solution is to use caps for the abbreviation with a lower-case s, as with FAQs above.


 
And you!


----------



## ymu (Dec 10, 2010)

Sorry BA. I'll shut up too.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Dec 10, 2010)

GuerillaPhoto said:


> Video shot by my friend




Hey I'm in that.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

I believe ymu just brought the ruckus!


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

ymu said:


> You are an ill-educated oik.


 
maybe that edition was written by someone who felt the need to communicate with those addicted to FAQ's - utterly wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

Nice one, back to kevin webster getting caught out.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

ymu said:


> And you!


 
I disagree, though. I'd avoid it by saying 'p's and '7's. 

Sad to say, I have a professional opinion about this – lots of style guides would disagree with your source, Hart's rules, for one.  

But enough!


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)

GuerillaPhoto said:


> Video shot by my friend




good vid


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I disagree, though. I'd avoid it by saying 'p's and '7's.
> 
> Sad to say, I have a professional opinion about this – lots of style guides would disagree with your source, Hart's rules, for one.
> 
> But enough!



language is fluid, deal with it bitches!


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Nice one, back to kevin webster getting caught out.


 
that chubby lass had a lucky escape, between grumpy old Kevin and retard Tyrone I'd definitely choose eternal rest.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> language is fluid, deal with it bitches!


 
only amongst the uneducated


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> language is fluid, deal with it bitches!


 
It's all a matter of opinion, and usage changes, I agree.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)

think this is how the police got kettled


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> only amongst the uneducated


 
sorry are you for or against wider access to education?

twat.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> sorry are you for or against wider access to education?


 
Well worked back on topic.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 10, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> Blimey.  Police got kettled!




good audio 'you boys are SHOOK'


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

also did anyone see the channel four news tonight, the whitechapel anarchists had an incredibly named, very articulate and very photogenic spokesperson.


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> also did anyone see the channel four news tonight, the whitechapel anarchists had an incredibly named, very articulate and very photogenic spokesperson.


 
Proper tidy.


----------



## kropotkin (Dec 10, 2010)

Does spraypaint work on cop visors?


----------



## yardbird (Dec 10, 2010)

S75 -
In that vid, there's one copper so on the edge of losing it.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Dec 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> also did anyone see the channel four news tonight, the whitechapel anarchists had an incredibly named, very articulate and very photogenic spokesperson.


 
About 2mins 40 into this report. She was good. 

http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/101210/clipid/101210_KEME_C4N


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> sorry are you for or against wider access to education?
> 
> twat.


 
depends what you mean by wider

I'm not for the proliferation of unis pushing out poor students with poor degrees-  don't think it serves any purpose - if that's what you mean.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 10, 2010)

GuerillaPhoto said:


> Video shot by my friend




That's not bad - captures some of the spirit of it 

I'd forgotten the pink stormtrooper who did a striptease (of the body armour) to entertain the kettled


----------



## Psychonaut (Dec 10, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I saw a bloke shit in the street in a kettle. Alas he didn't fling it at the ob.


 
DNA


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 10, 2010)

Lol at police getting kettled

Somone should have shouted at them that they were being detained so as to prevent a breach of the peace and would be released in due course

Arresting pigs is


----------



## DRINK? (Dec 10, 2010)

Well done clegg and cable for producing and promoting a demonstrably fair, utterly pragmatic piece of legislation in the student funding fees and skilfully guiding it through the Commons against a background of ill-informed hysteria and for generating massive political capital as a result of appearing to pick a fight (and win) with a segment of society who, when all's said and done, are undertaking a lifestyle choice many will not empathise.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> ex-coppers have, i'd expect, a higher proportion of criminals among them than people confined to wheelchairs.


 
heh


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

DRINK? said:


> Well done clegg and cable for producing and promoting a demonstrably fair, utterly pragmatic piece of legislation in the student funding fees and skilfully guiding it through the Commons against a background of ill-informed hysteria and for generating massive political capital as a result of appearing to pick a fight (and win) with a segment of society who, when all's said and done, are undertaking a lifestyle choice many will not empathise.


 
fuck off you utter clown!


----------



## DRINK? (Dec 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> fuck off you utter clown!



May I commend the Right Honourable Member's comments to the House and in the spirit of this noble and historic establishment I warmly extend a raised middle finger to the opposition benches and an invitation to fuck off and come back when they have an idea that actually works and doesn't simply involve spunking money we don't have up the wall and hoping some of it sticks.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 10, 2010)

money who doesn't have? who is this 'we'? the sooner idiots like you realise that there is no 'we' the sooner we might start stopping the ruling class shafting us.
this is a massive step towards the total marketisation of university, only a fuckwit couldn't see this.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 10, 2010)




----------



## DRINK? (Dec 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> money who doesn't have? who is this 'we'? the sooner idiots like you realise that there is no 'we' the sooner we might start stopping the ruling class shafting us.
> this is a massive step towards the total marketisation of university, only a fuckwit couldn't see this.



who gives a fuck; this country ruled half the World when we didn't have schools, shut the fucking lot and kill the poor


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)

http://www.sumpter.org.uk/why-cant-we-trust-the-police/


----------



## audiotech (Dec 10, 2010)

Barnsley girl's account of violence at fees protest.



> We were right at the front. There was a huge crowd behind us so we were pushed forward. There was nothing we could do about it. They [the police] saw us coming towards them, these teenage girls who wanted to go home. They didn't show any mercy whatsoever. They threw around my friends who were just 17 year old slim girls. They were beating my friends with batons. They didn't show any sympathy in their voice and I didn't see anything in their eyes.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/sheffield/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9276000/9276699.stm


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 10, 2010)

Seeing the video of the chant going up, "Whose streets? OUR streets!" makes me prouder than any statue that might have got pissed on. Actions, see. Good on the protesters. Will be interesting to see what happens in the coming months, that's for sure.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 10, 2010)

DRINK? said:


> May I commend the Right Honourable Member's comments to the House and in the spirit of this noble and historic establishment I warmly extend a raised middle finger to the opposition benches and an invitation to fuck off and come back when they have an idea that actually works and doesn't simply involve spunking money we don't have up the wall and hoping some of it sticks.


 
What are you talking about? The same amount of money is spent. In fact, given that this is a complicated system of loans, more money is spent administering this than a simple grant system. 

This is about who pays for higher education, not whether or not it is paid for.


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 10, 2010)

Just got off the phone to my 82 year old great aunt.

Wasn't it dreadful she said, they put graffiti on the statue of Winston Churchill, it's those rent-a-mobs, the government should clamp down on them, they don't even have to pay anything back until they earn twenty-one thousand pounds!

Fucking Daily Mail, she only buys it for the woman bits.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 10, 2010)

You're the one who 'got it all wrong' - my description fits the events better... I actually tried it to 30 people in a meeting last nite (our local Left Unity is doing well thankyou) and there was only support for the line I was taking. There were several students there too... 

When you can get over the rejection of your narrative you will realise its not that important (your narrative that is, and my rejection of it). 




dennisr said:


> which reminds be of a petty incident last night. went for a drink after getting out the kettle. having a fag outside the pub and some folk got cheesed off with the doorwoman who didn't want to let them in. i was sympathetic and saying don't be daft to the lass, appealing to her better judgement - these folk arn't exactly gonna riot they just want a drink. In a friendly way like. Then quentin and co started: who do you think we are - we are lecturers - this is an outrage - we demand your names (getting notebook out) - i'm reporting you - etc etc etc. At that point I said on second thoughts - fuck em to the lass at the door and went back to finish my pint.
> 
> no, fuck your narrative you idiot


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> Just got off the phone to my 82 year old great aunt.
> 
> Wasn't it dreadful she said, they put graffiti on the statue of Winston Churchill, it's those rent-a-mobs, the government should clamp down on them, they don't even have to pay anything back until they earn twenty-one thousand pounds!
> 
> Fucking Daily Mail, she only buys it for the woman bits.


 
Daily Mail is owned by a tax dodger too apparently


----------



## cantsin (Dec 10, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> the plural is not formed with the apostrophe - just think about it.
> 
> its only purpose is to indicate that the toys belong to the boys (both of them) - see no apostrophes required now that I have moved the words around.  It is only there because the words are following each other.



ffs, where did this crispy sock merchant turn up from ?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 10, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Barnsley girl's account of violence at fees protest.
> 
> 
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/sheffield/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9276000/9276699.stm


 


> He was beaten on the floor by three police officers until he was throwing up blood and when that happened they just threw him aside and didn't give him any medical attention and went on to the next one.



I wonder how many nice middle class parents are hearing this stuff from their kids?


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 10, 2010)

killer b said:


> all your facebook friends seem to be tory nobheads. what's going on?


 
This has probably already been pointed out but I've got pages to read so sorry if it has.

But you don't have to be 'facebook friends' with folk in order to interact with and be called a terrorist/peadophile by them.

It's certainly to your credit that you may not know that.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 10, 2010)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I wonder how many nice middle class parents are hearing this stuff from their kids?



“Now you’ve met the MET!”


----------



## BigTom (Dec 10, 2010)

heh, just read 40 pages over an evening cos I missed all this whilst ill.
good on the students, both uni and schoolkids and especially to the workers who were out in solidarity.

Looking forward to March and to the Royal Wedding.  Lots of building, local actions and hopefully somewhere a national action (on a weekend) between now and then.

I hope (and think) that the students don't stop now.  I worry that many of them will feel like they fought and lost and that's it.  I think that they are linked to the wider anti-cuts movements sufficiently that that won't happen - certainly the HE cuts and EMA scrapping, and to a lesser extent the ending of the Schools Sports Partnerships are still live issues and these are a part of the movement intrinsically from what I can see.

One of the people from brum was right at the front of the treasury occupation attempt - he and maybe 6 others went in through the doors once they were breached and then came running back out about 2 seconds later (police baton charging them inside), police formed a line at the door and held it despite attempts to break through using herras fencing and throwing bits of the concrete blocks.  Then after a bit of time police moved in from the sides to retake the building completely.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)




----------



## ymu (Dec 10, 2010)

I don't think there's much chance of the student protests becoming about tuition fees and nothing else - they haven't focused on them exclusively, however much the media tries to ignore the EMA part, and every demo is just building more links.

Lots of schoolkids got kettled so late last night that they had to seek sanctuary with the London uni occupations before returning to their home cities today. That's the best possible way to forge links. Virtually all the students I've seen interviewed - including the random vox pops - have mentioned the cuts in general, the demo yesterday broke off to attack a UK uncut tax-dodging target, and various student groups are building for the UK uncut demos tomorrow.

And these protests are popular - even with people who can't bring themselves to get involved in a demo.

It's all looking very good indeed.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 10, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I only just remembered - didn't this all start because the protest deviated from the agreed route ?
> 
> I've been on two events in London over the years - most notably the Rock against Racism one in 1977 - I don't recall any problems at all.
> 
> And what of the police who were injured trying to prevent even more carnage. ?


 
Fuck off.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)

crane your neck a bit


----------



## PursuedByBears (Dec 10, 2010)

BigTom said:


> heh, just read 40 pages over an evening cos I missed all this whilst ill.
> good on the students, both uni and schoolkids and especially to the workers who were out in solidarity.
> 
> Looking forward to March and to the Royal Wedding.  Lots of building, local actions and hopefully somewhere a national action (on a weekend) between now and then.
> ...



Oh yes, the royal wedding has lots of possibilities.  Hopefully these protests will continue, and build and build...


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The fantastic thing is that the students are only the canaries.


 
Yep, the guinea pigs. The cuts haven't happened to the wider audience yet. And caps off to the students as they are they the examplers.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 10, 2010)

TruXta said:


> So dragging him along for fifteen feet is proportionate how? FFS all they needed to do was just push the bloody wheelchair, but hey, why do that when you can drag him along the ground.


The clue is in the first line of my post: "I haven't got the faintest idea what he was doing".  I could have added, and do now, "... and I haven't got the faintest idea why the officers used the force that they did".


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 10, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The clue is in the first line of my post: "I haven't got the faintest idea what he was doing".  I could have added, and do now, "... and I haven't got the faintest idea why the officers used the force that they did".


 
But there's probably a good reason for it, isn't there...


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/12/london_tuition_fee_protest.html


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 10, 2010)

Those boston.com pix are massively impressive aren't they? 


Have had no time whatseover today to keep up with this thread, but fair fucks to the boston photographer, and to the editor for his pix too ... 

Some pictures tell it all really don't they .....


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 10, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Before engaging further on this thread and dissecting the intricacies of the law, would you like to express your support for the demonstrators yesterday, detective-boy?


I entirely support their right to protest lawfully.  I believe that we, as a society, should tolerate some degree of unlawfulness (minor damage (especially to state buildings and property), pushing and shoving of police, hassling of public servants, obstruction of the highway, etc.) in the furtherance of protest.

I have some concern that they don't really understand what the proposed changes are and, thus, don't entirely support the protest itself.  (They go on about how it should be "the rich" who are taxed to pay for their university education rather than what is being proposed ... seemingly ignoring the fact that the proposal is that "the rich" _will_ be taxed to pay for their university education ... but only when / if _they_ become "the rich" ...)

I personally am more concerned about the removal of EMA.  Without it many 16-18 year olds simply will not be able to gain the _qualifications_ necessary to get to university (or on to other types of training / apprenticeship which I think we should be pushing as an alternative to ubiquitous degree type education).


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 10, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I entirely support their right to protest lawfully.



lol.


----------



## DRINK? (Dec 10, 2010)

Aye, anarchy, rioting, civil disobedience, open warfare on the authorities...bring it on I say ! Let the country descend into madness & chaos, let the purple haired, jewellery faced, angst-ridden pseudo-goths have their days. Let them burn the trappings of modern society to ground, destroy organised government and the capitalist state. Then as they wander around in the post-euphoric ashes of their revolution ask one of the stupid cunts "What now ?"......

I'm all for picking up our "leaders" when they go wrong but it seems that at the moment all people want to do is smash shit up and then set fire to it. Great, get your frustrations out but for fucks sake at least have an alternative suggestion as to how things should be done. Otherwise you end up looking like a bunch of angry teenagers trying to look hard and get back at daddy for not buying you a pony.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 10, 2010)

lopsidedbunny said:


> If you want to complain to the IPCC, the same muppets that looked after the death of Ian Tomlinson the fire away they are "sometimes staff by ex police constables." according to the Wiki page.


By law the Commissioners cannot be ex-police / law enforcement (and aren't)

From the outset they insisted that their investigators were not ex-police.  (This sadly has had the effect that they were shit investigators with no experience of reactive, police type investigation (which is required of them) and they are only just emerging from that having learned their experience by fucking up more than enough cases.

The _plan_ was that their _senior_ investigators were not to be ex-police either ... but fortunately someone realised that would be an _unmitigated_ disaster and so they started off with ex-police senior investigators and even some seconded police senior investigators (I know, I trained them in part).  They have now, to a large extent, developed their own senior investigators and their reliance on police and ex-police is diminishing.  

It would have been great if the organisation could have been entirely non-ex-police _and_ effective.  Sadly that was simply _not_ an option.  You can teach technical skill.  You _cannot_ teach experience.  And you cannot expect inexperienced investigators to effectively deal with a complex and serious investigation effectively.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 10, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I have some concern that they don't really understand what the proposed changes are and, thus, don't entirely support the protest itself.



Yeah. Thousands of people normally gather mid-week in central London and get kettled because they don't really understand why they're there. They just do it.


----------



## Santino (Dec 10, 2010)

DRINK? said:


> Aye, anarchy, rioting, civil disobedience, open warfare on the authorities...bring it on I say ! Let the country descend into madness & chaos, let the purple haired, jewellery faced, angst-ridden pseudo-goths have their days. Let them burn the trappings of modern society to ground, destroy organised government and the capitalist state. Then as they wander around in the post-euphoric ashes of their revolution ask one of the stupid cunts "What now ?"......
> 
> I'm all for picking up our "leaders" when they go wrong but it seems that at the moment all people want to do is smash shit up and then set fire to it. Great, get your frustrations out but for fucks sake at least have an alternative suggestion as to how things should be done. Otherwise you end up looking like a bunch of angry teenagers trying to look hard and get back at daddy for not buying you a pony.


 
Deep.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 10, 2010)

lopsidedbunny said:


> I thought he was dead and frooze himself on a hill in the Lake District becasue he cheated on his wife and some how that made him an icon among over Chief Boobies.


That was the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, Michael Todd.

And it was Snowden, not the Lake District.

And Brian is the gay one and doesn't have a wife, (so far as I know) ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 10, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm implying that you invariably find ways to excuse police actions.
> I'll go further. You're often an apologist for police actions.


Obviously being disabled also doesn't prevent one being stupid.

There is a difference between "finding an excuse for" and being an "apologist" for something and pointing out inconsistencies in allegations made, gaps in what is known and potential explanations for some of what has been observed.

I DO the latter.  I DON'T do the former.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 10, 2010)

Erm.  Ok.  12m 20s in a lad who looks about 10, in school uniform is blocked from leaving.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xg26u6_student-demonstration-london-09-12-2010_news


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 10, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> By law the Commissioners cannot be ex-police / law enforcement (and aren't)
> 
> From the outset they insisted that their investigators were not ex-police.  (This sadly has had the effect that they were shit investigators with no experience of reactive, police type investigation (which is required of them) and they are only just emerging from that having learned their experience by fucking up more than enough cases.
> 
> ...



There are plenty of non-police investigative professions. I would have thought corporate fraud investigators would be ideal for the IPCC.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 11, 2010)

from http://andyhaden.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/anarchy-in-the-uk-as-university-fees-vote-is-passed/


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2010)

Off to to bust a psychedelic squat party in disguise.


----------



## albionism (Dec 11, 2010)

legend


----------



## ymu (Dec 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I entirely support their right to protest lawfully.  I believe that we, as a society, should tolerate some degree of unlawfulness (minor damage (especially to state buildings and property), pushing and shoving of police, hassling of public servants, obstruction of the highway, etc.) in the furtherance of protest.
> 
> I have some concern that they don't really understand what the proposed changes are and, thus, don't entirely support the protest itself.  (They go on about how it should be "the rich" who are taxed to pay for their university education rather than what is being proposed ... seemingly ignoring the fact that *the proposal is that "the rich" will be taxed to pay for their university education ... but only when / if they become "the rich"* ...)
> 
> I personally am more concerned about the removal of EMA.  Without it many 16-18 year olds simply will not be able to gain the _qualifications_ necessary to get to university (or on to other types of training / apprenticeship which I think we should be pushing as an alternative to ubiquitous degree type education).


 
This is not true. 

It would be true of a graduate tax - where the amount you pay is proportional to the financial rewards you gain - but it's not true of a loan which accrues interest over a 30 year period.

It's not when you become 'rich', it's when you start earning >£21k at 2015/16 income levels. That's equivalent to about £18k now, approx 80% of current UK median income. 

The IFS estimate that around 50% of graduates will not have paid off the balance of their loans by the end of that 30 year period (48.7% for fees of £7,500, 54.8% for fees of £9,000).

The repayments will be 9% of income. That's equivalent to paying a second pension for 30 years, on a loan amount which will have approximately doubled due to the interest charged.

I think the government has just sold off the Student Loans Company, so that's an awful lot of interest that is being handed over to a private company - and an awful lot of government money being handed over to them in the 30 year write-offs.

It's a con. You might have fallen for it, but these kids ain't stupid.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Barnsley girl's account of violence at fees protest.
> 
> We were right at the front. There was a huge crowd behind us so we were pushed forward. There was nothing we could do about it. They [the police] saw us coming towards them, these teenage girls who wanted to go home. They didn't show any mercy whatsoever. They threw around my friends who were just 17 year old slim girls. They were beating my friends with batons. They didn't show any sympathy in their voice and I didn't see anything in their eyes.


That is an aspect of the control of crowds that the police still haven't got their heads around - there is _some_ strength in an argument that when it starts to kick off and it becomes apparent that more robust police tactics are likely, if you voluntarily remain then you take the risk of being stuck in her situation ... but it doesn't explain all such situations by all means.

There is also some strength in the argument that in dealing with a crowd the police _can_ only apply force to the bit of it they are in contact with ... but in relation to _what_ that force is, it can be justified in terms of pushing, or pulling out of the crowd or whatever ... but I have very serious doubts it can be used to justify batoning which is now regularly seen, or aggressive use of shield edges.

This is an issue for police training and command but is also an issue for individual officers using individual force against individual demonstrators.  Someone on Newsnight tonight asked "When did police baton charges become the norm?".  The answer is "recently" and it is linked to the use of new-style (last 15 years) officer safety tactics in public order situations.  They simply are not usually appropriate.


----------



## IC3D (Dec 11, 2010)

BigTom said:


> Ah an early Jackson Bollock if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## kenny g (Dec 11, 2010)

some familiar faces here!


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 11, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> But there's probably a good reason for it, isn't there...


If I haven't got the faintest idea what the guy was doing or why the officer used the force they did how can I possibly know?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Yeah. Thousands of people normally gather mid-week in central London and get kettled because they don't really understand why they're there. They just do it.


Well they should get some who do to engage as their spokespeople then ...


----------



## WWWeed (Dec 11, 2010)




----------



## detective-boy (Dec 11, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> There are plenty of non-police investigative professions. I would have thought corporate fraud investigators would be ideal for the IPCC.


You'd think wrong.

Fraud investigation is very different to reactive investigation of major crime.

They are better than someone with no reactive investigative experience at all but still way off the pace.  And why would they trade their multi £££ salaries, bonuses, etc. for the public sector salries paid by the IPCC?


----------



## IC3D (Dec 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Well they should get some who do to engage as their spokespeople then ...


 
Both sides should have mediators on megaphones saying 'he's not worth it' whenever it kicks orf.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Well they should get some who do to engage as their spokespeople then ...


 
who will promptly get nicked...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 11, 2010)

ymu said:


> It's a con. You might have fallen for it, but these kids ain't stupid.


My summary is precisely that - a summary.  And I don't pretend that the system is perfect or desirable.  But it is most definitely NOT as clearly understood by most of the protestors interviewed.


----------



## ymu (Dec 11, 2010)

They understand it a hell of a lot better than you do.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 11, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> who will promptly get nicked...


Yes, course they will ... cos all those people interviewed on the news and by the papers have been immediately nicked haven't they ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 11, 2010)

ymu said:


> They understand it a hell of a lot better than you do.


So when they say they / their family cannot afford to pay the fees up front you agree that is an accurate description of the proposed scheme then, yes?


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 11, 2010)

Quite a good video from the guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/video/2010/dec/10/student-fees-protest-london-video


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 11, 2010)

> Jenny Jones, the Green party member on the Metropolitan Police Authority who was on the march, said it was important to note that the force "can't win" in its approach to these demos. But the most significant issue, she argued, was a deep and growing lack of trust between the force and the student protesters, exacerbated by kettling on the 24 November protest.
> 
> "It is definitely not constructive for the police to stand in a large and intimidating line. It is a shame, because they have got better at this recently. I think the Millbank protest [in which windows were broken at Conservative HQ] was not actually policed too badly, in the sense that I would rather see a broken window in a building than a young person with brain injuries and a [badly injured] police officer."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/10/student-protests-tuition-fees-violence


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 11, 2010)

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/12/london_tuition_fee_protest.html

My pc wallpaper sorted for a moth or two.


----------



## revlon (Dec 11, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> Erm.  Ok.  12m 20s in a lad who looks about 10, in school uniform is blocked from leaving.
> 
> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xg26u6_student-demonstration-london-09-12-2010_news


 
see this stuff really disgusts me. The look on that kids face is not hatred or fear but utter confusion. 

The copper doesn't give a fuck. He's been given orders and he is following orders. This is not about law, implementing public order or indeed his duty of care.

Every piece of shit who wears (or has worn) a coppers uniform has little knowledge (and even less understanding) about the law in which they are supposedly enforcing. 

Keeping order is a political tactic. How it is done is an operational consideration. The law in which they should be acting under doesn't even come into it,  - the cps lawyers will see you right in court.


----------



## ymu (Dec 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So when they say they / their family cannot afford to pay the fees up front you agree that is an accurate description of the proposed scheme then, yes?


 
Link?

There is a tiny minority whose families can afford to pay their fees up-front. The rest will be saddled with £40-50k's worth of debt from the very start of their working lives. Most of them will never earn very much - hence the IFS estimate that around 50% will still owe money at the end of 30 years. They are saying that it is not possible for them to take on this kind of debt given their expected future earnings. And they're right. Those that sell themselves to the highest bidder by joining the City or the police force will be fine. The vast majority will not.


----------



## revlon (Dec 11, 2010)

Even brian paddick got it wrong about wearing masks on channel 4 news.

And he was a fucking _commander._

The clueless twat.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Dec 11, 2010)

revlon said:


> Even brian paddick got it wrong about wearing masks on channel 4 news.
> 
> And he was a fucking _commander._
> 
> The clueless twat.



What did he say?


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 11, 2010)

Threshers_Flail said:


> What did he say?


 
http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/101210/clipid/101210_PROTESTINT_C4N

great still of him on the video there


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Dec 11, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/display/playlistref/101210/clipid/101210_PROTESTINT_C4N
> 
> great still of him on the video there


 
Lol. Cheers.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 11, 2010)

from the boston photos




Look at the officers ankle 
military combat camo under the police uniform ...
might be the reason why some of them dont have numbers ...and how the met police can build up a big reserve ...quickley ..after getting caught out at milbank (Chelsea barracks ?)


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 11, 2010)

Tankus said:


> ...might be the reason why some of them dont have numbers ...and how the met police can build up a big reserve ...quickley ..after getting caught out at milbank (Chelsea barracks ?)


Yeah, cos that's be a really sensible thing to do: stick squaddies in police uniform over their combats and not give them numbers, just so as they'll blend in like ...

You're another paranoid fool who needs help mate ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 11, 2010)

Threshers_Flail said:


> What did he say?


I haven't managed to get audio on the clip but on Newsnight earlier he was saying there was a power to arrest protestors wearing masks.


----------



## revlon (Dec 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yeah, cos that's be a really sensible thing to do: stick squaddies in police uniform over their combats and not give them numbers, just so as they'll blend in like ...
> 
> You're another paranoid fool who needs help mate ...


 
especially if he'd spent all yesterday painting the skirting boards.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yeah, cos that's be a really sensible thing to do: stick squaddies in police uniform over their combats and not give them numbers, just so as they'll blend in like ...
> 
> You're another paranoid fool who needs help mate ...



for sure ...... actually its wine !

Squadies are cheaper than the police though ....'Tis the cuts


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I haven't managed to get audio on the clip but on Newsnight earlier he was saying there was a power to arrest protestors wearing masks.


 
Ah but it's winter, it's cold, we need to keep warm. That's why we need scarfs around our faces.


----------



## revlon (Dec 11, 2010)

Threshers_Flail said:


> What did he say?



_"under the public order act it's an offence to wear a mask if a police officer asks you to remove it"_


to be fair it looked (and sounded) like he'd two extra sherries in the green room


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 11, 2010)

revlon said:


> _"under the public order act it's an offence to wear a mask if a police officer asks you to remove it"_
> 
> 
> to be fair it looked (and sounded) like he'd two extra sherries in the green room


 

Would it be in poor taste to dress in burkhas?


----------



## moon23 (Dec 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yeah, cos that's be a really sensible thing to do: stick squaddies in police uniform over their combats and not give them numbers, just so as they'll blend in like ...
> 
> You're another paranoid fool who needs help mate ...



Why would they even do this before drafting in officers from other forces? Total nonsense. It was bloody cold, of course someone might wear another pair of trousers underneath. Camo trousers are hardly unique to the army either


----------



## moon23 (Dec 11, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/10/student-protests-tuition-fees-violence


 
Apart from the fact that someone could have been killed at the Millbank protest, and the building could have been set on fire. How can you possibly argue that there is no risk involved in allowing protestors to smash and burn property.


----------



## revlon (Dec 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Apart from the fact that someone could have been killed at the Millbank protest, and the building could have been set on fire. How can you possibly argue that there is no risk involved in allowing protestors to smash and burn property.


 
but someone _was_ killed at the g20 protest. How could the police let that happen? Oh hang on....


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 11, 2010)

Someone was nearly killed at the latest protest...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...og-to-investigate-truncheon-blow-2157416.html

Although nobody has mentioned 'attempted murder' in the media, that I'm aware of.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 11, 2010)

I'm amazed they can't find an alternative to hitting people with truncheons in this day and age - inevitably the odd blow is going to hit some innocent on the head.


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 11, 2010)

Wearing berkers is a great suggestion!


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 11, 2010)

What's a berker ?

I will definitely take my spare cycle helmet if I go on the TU march in the spring - just in case. Presumably the cops only aim for arms and legs.

Perhaps with my name on it so I don't get asked to remove it.

EDIT :-

Oh I see - one of those all over ethnic woman's things ..

There are rumours of water cannons for Monday - presumably because the temperature's above freezing.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Dec 11, 2010)

When's the next demo? I might come our of my three year retirement and go along to it. The mainstream media coverage over the last few days has been disgrace - thank god for the internet so that we can bypass these tools


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 11, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> When's the next demo? I might come our of my three year retirement and go along to it. The mainstream media coverage over the last few days has been disgrace - thank god for the internet so that we can bypass these tools


 
Oh come on, what was intended to be a carnival was hijacked by cynical rentamobsters who threaten the continued right to protest.

There is no possible excuse for violence - this was not Tienanmen.


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 11, 2010)

You know nothing about Tian an Men, green TORY.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 11, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> You know nothing about Tian an Men, green TORY.


 
Please define the principle tenets of Toryism so that I can check myself against them.

Tian an Men seemed to be entirely peaceful on the side of the protestors.


----------



## JimW (Dec 11, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Please define the principle tenets of Toryism so that I can check myself against them.
> 
> Tian an Men seemed to be entirely peaceful on the side of the protestors.


 
That's the bollocks liberal western version - since the PLA was indeed largely the people's army, initially Beijing people persuaded the locally-stationed troops to leave the students alone, necessitating bringing in divisions from the far north-east who could be told lies about what went on to clear the square. Once these troops moved in, working class Beijingers formed 'dare-to-die' squads (shitty translation of the Chinese 敢死队) and fought them tooth and nail, most famously hanging one armoured car commander off a footbridge.


----------



## revlon (Dec 11, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I'm amazed they can't find an alternative to hitting people with truncheons in this day and age - inevitably the odd blow is going to hit some innocent on the head.


 
you know the drill don't you? It's penning people in so there's no escape,  provoking them and then hitting anybody and everyone indiscriminately with the backing of the full force of the law. 

Hitting people with truncheons is prefered because that's precisely the purpose of the exercise - causing as much physical damage to as many people as possible.


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 11, 2010)

Most of the Tian an Men protestors were demanding a return to Maoism.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 11, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Most of the Tian an Men protestors were demanding a return to Maoism.


 
Blimey I had no idea.

Presumably too young to remember how well that worked the first time ?


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 11, 2010)

Patronising green slime.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 11, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Oh come on, what was intended to be a carnival was hijacked by cynical rentamobsters who threaten the continued right to protest.



You weren't there GG, don't swallow the media line. The students, both uni and schoolkids, are angry.  I'm sure there were non-students there looking to smash some glass but talking to the person I know who was at the treasury door breach and other people who were in parl. sq. the people they met and talked to and got baton/horse charged next to were students.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 11, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Patronising green slime.


 
I'm genuinely curious.

Over the years I've mused on what I would be asked to do in the event of a revolution - being neither a fighter or an intellectual - I would be good at growing food.


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 11, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Blimey I had no idea.


 
That's because he's talking shite.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 11, 2010)

BigTom said:


> You weren't there GG, don't swallow the media line. The students, both uni and schoolkids, are angry.  I'm sure there were non-students there looking to smash some glass but talking to the person I know who was at the treasury door breach and other people who were in parl. sq. the people they met and talked to and got baton/horse charged next to were students.


 
Sounds like crass incompetence by the police that will eventually bite them on the ass in a world where everyone has a camcorder in their pocket.


----------



## JimW (Dec 11, 2010)

Bit more complicated than most in the square being for a full-on return (though to best of my knowledge most wanted a reformed socialism rather than any kind of Western democracy); in the wider social movement that the square protests were one part of certainly lot of urban residents resented the impact of reform era on conditions and prices. Maoism did actually work OK-ish or better for most Chinese people. The persecuted were a tiny percentage of the very large population. Don't think many missed a lot of the bureaucratic interference that had declined a bit. Anyway, with heightened web censorship due to Nobel prize ceremony this thread is tripping the autoblocker so maybe I'd best stick to arguing about London


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 11, 2010)

That certainly puts the current UK situation in perspective.


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 11, 2010)

Lol @ bioboy, or should that be ciaboy?


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Well they should get some who do to engage as their spokespeople then ...


 
Oh yeah. Anyone offering themselves up as the media's sacrificial lamb? Takers?


----------



## revlon (Dec 11, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I'm genuinely curious.
> 
> Over the years I've mused on what I would be asked to do in the event of a revolution - being neither a fighter or an intellectual - I would be good at growing food.


 

Propaganda? You could repeat without question the ruling party's line that ultimately reinforces the legitimacy of their actions


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 11, 2010)

revlon said:


> Propaganda? You could repeat without question the ruling party's line that ultimately reinforces the legitimacy of their actions


 
I tend to show my workings - out.

I'm 50 years old, and my background is technological, not people-oriented - unlike the private school-educated history student who didn't recognise the Cenotaph ...

I'm mostly just cynical about rapid, radical change - though having found myself disenfranchised like everyone else, the current situation is forcing me to think about whether things are getting generally better - albeit slowly -  or whether there really is some truth in the ravings of the conspiranoids.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 11, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Sounds like crass incompetence by the police that will eventually bite them on the ass in a world where everyone has a camcorder in their pocket.


 
eh? my point was that this was not the "cynical rentamobs" you talked about, it was uni and schoolkid students.  The media wants to sell you a line, and you are buying it. I'm giving you another point of view, from people who were there on the ground.  I hope that you'll take that on board - obviously my friends did not talk to anyone, and I know that there were workers, parents and grandparents out on the demo, and I'm sure that there were political activists of many different stripes, and naturally this kind of things attracts the smashy smashy people, such as the EDL who turned up to attack demonstrators according to a guardian piece linked to earlier in this thread, but these demos are not being hijacked by the people you are talking about.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Obviously being disabled also doesn't prevent one being stupid.
> 
> There is a difference between "finding an excuse for" and being an "apologist" for something and pointing out inconsistencies in allegations made, gaps in what is known and potential explanations for some of what has been observed.
> 
> I DO the latter.  I DON'T do the former.



You're all heart, aren't you DB?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Dec 11, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Oh come on, what was intended to be a carnival was hijacked by cynical rentamobsters who threaten the continued right to protest.
> 
> There is no possible excuse for violence - this was not Tienanmen.



What are you talking about. I never said it was like Tienanmen Square. "hijacked by cynical rentamobsters" - is this a reference to the police?


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 11, 2010)

Anyone who takes paint to a demo should be arrested before they get into the crowd.


----------



## sherpa (Dec 11, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Anyone who takes paint to a demo should be arrested before they get into the crowd.



What about batons, cs gas and water cannons?


----------



## belboid (Dec 11, 2010)

revlon said:


> Even brian paddick got it wrong about wearing masks on channel 4 news.
> 
> And he was a fucking _commander._
> 
> The clueless twat.



sod the bit about masking, did you not see him say about rounding up the usual suspects _before_ any demo?

And this was the Liberal Scum candidate for London mayor


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 11, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Anyone who takes paint to a demo should be arrested before they get into the crowd.


 
wtf


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 11, 2010)

sherpa said:


> What about batons, cs gas and water cannons?


 
As Boris pointed out, as yet they haven't used CS gas or water cannons - and in the light of the paint, demands that the police remove their masks are mind-numbingly stupid.

Ken Livingstone just said they don't even have water cannons.


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 11, 2010)

Paddick is slime.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 11, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> wtf


 
Why one rule for football hooligans and another for demonstrators ?


----------



## xes (Dec 11, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Anyone who takes paint to a demo should be arrested before they get into the crowd.


 
so people shouldn't go prepared to protect themselves?

fuck that shit. People should bring more weapons, more shielding, and more ability to fight the cunts back.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 11, 2010)

xes said:


> People should bring more weapons



Can I repeatedly quote you on that ?


----------



## xes (Dec 11, 2010)

sure, why not, it's not like i'm going to change the stance. if you're going to be up against a load of tooled up thugs, it's wise to be prepared.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 11, 2010)

belboid said:


> sod the bit about masking, did you not see him say about rounding up the usual suspects _before_ any demo?
> 
> And this was the Liberal Scum candidate for London mayor


 
It never ceases to amaze me that the cops really do believe that there is a 'hard core intent on violence' responsible for sparking aggro at demos. They cant understand that crowds react spontaniously to events on the ground. Some people might be more 'up for it' then others, others will become radicalised by their experienced. A few will come prepared for what might happen - helmets, paint bombs etc. 

If you  could somehow arrest everyone who'd ever lobbed a brick at the cops prior to a partiucalr  demo, it would make absolutely no difference as to wether it was going to kick off or not. Thats down to the issue of the day, how it is policed and the nature of the demo - i.e a march or picket aimed at blocading a military base, occupying tory party hq,or stopping a place of work (like wapping) will inevetialby lead to confrontation. 

At my very first demo ( against cuts in student grants in 1984) i was not exepecting any trouble. Yet after a few hours of the MET being their usual cuntish selves I was more then ready to tear up paving stones and let rip.


----------



## kropotkin (Dec 11, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Anyone who takes paint to a demo should be arrested before they get into the crowd.


 

Fuck off.


----------



## peterkro (Dec 11, 2010)

Possibly posted before,but it's not possible to read through the comments and not throw up:

http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.co...al-tees-available-now-for-christmas/#comments


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

Would've been nice if this whore-cunt had fallen and broken her back. 

I'd have laughed.


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 11, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Anyone who takes paint to a demo should be arrested before they get into the crowd.


 
So you wouldn't mind being arrested for buying paint when there happened to be a demo you didn't know about around the corner? 

A new offence of going equipped to cause violent disorder would suffice, 2 years in jail sound good for you?


----------



## strung out (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Would've been nice if this whore-cunt had fallen and broken her back.
> 
> I'd have laughed.


 
it's a bloke


----------



## yardbird (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Would've been nice if this whore-cunt had fallen and broken her back.
> 
> I'd have laughed.



Yes, it's a bloke, but it's also Charlie Gilmore - Dave Gilmore's son!!


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Would've been nice if this whore-cunt had fallen and broken her back.
> 
> I'd have laughed.



Churchill was a nobhead though.


----------



## sherpa (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Would've been nice if this whore-cunt had fallen and broken her back.
> 
> I'd have laughed.



Speaks volumes about you.


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 11, 2010)

We all know Spymaster is a reactionary toryphile.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 11, 2010)

which, pretty much counts as stockholm syndrome


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 11, 2010)

Glorious dead my brown eye.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 11, 2010)

show your wife how you won medals down in flanders etc


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Churchill was a nobhead though.



Yes, but what does attacking the cenotaph have to do with Churchill? 

And moreover, what does the cenotaph have to do with student funding?

It's a bloke is it? Hope the effeminate cunt gets cancer.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 11, 2010)

brokeback cenotaph


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, but what does attacking the cenotaph have to do with Churchill?
> 
> And moreover, what does the cenotaph have to do with student funding?
> 
> It's a bloke is it? Hope the effeminate cunt gets cancer.


 
I bet all those dead soldiers would think you're a cunt.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> I bet all those dead soldiers would think you're a cunt.



I doubt it very much, but we'll never know.

What we can be absolutely sure of however, is that I think you're a cunt.


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 11, 2010)

to be fair, even I think that lad was a dozy twat


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 11, 2010)

Lol. Liberals havin a tiff.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, but what does attacking the cenotaph have to do with Churchill?
> 
> And moreover, what does the cenotaph have to do with student funding?
> 
> It's a bloke is it? Hope the effeminate cunt gets cancer.





Anyway, he has apologised and he did seem a bit pissed, or otherwise out of it, on the TV clip taken a little while later.



> Charlie Gilmour, the son of Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour, has apologised for climbing the Cenotaph during the student protest against tuition fees, admitting that he was 'mortified' by his actions.
> http://telegraph.tweetmeme.com/story/3351876675/tuition-fee-protests-charlie-gilmour-son-of-pink-floyd-guitarist-david-gilmour-apologises-for-climbing-cenotaph-telegraph


----------



## dylans (Dec 11, 2010)

> =Spymaster;11324571]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Pretty fucking stupid thing to do though. If only because a shot like that is the Daily Mail's wet dream.  A little bit of self discipline in choosing targets would be nice. Plenty of legitimate targets around to use your energy on (like Charles' car or top shop) without swinging from the Cenetaph To be fair to the guy however he has publicly apologised and said he is "ashamed of himself" so fair enough



> In a statement, he expressed his “deepest apologies for the terrible insult to the thousands of people who died bravely for our country. He said: "I feel nothing but shame. My intention was not to attack or defile the Cenotaph. Running along with a crowd of people who had just been violently repelled by the police, I got caught up in the spirit of the moment.


----------



## yardbird (Dec 11, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Anyway, he has apologised and he did seem a bit pissed, or otherwise out of it, on the TV clip taken a little while later.


 
See my post #1693


----------



## belboid (Dec 11, 2010)

yardbird said:


> Yes, it's a bloke, but it's also Charlie Gilmore - Dave Gilmore's son!!


 
[pedant]Heathcote Williams' son, Dave's adopted son[/pedant]


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 11, 2010)

dylans;11324632][QUOTE=Spymaster said:


> Would've been nice if this whore-cunt had fallen and broken her back.
> 
> I'd have laughed.[/QUOTE)
> 
> Pretty fucking stupid thing to do though. If only because a shot like that is the Daily Mail's wet dream.  A little bit of self discipline in choosing targets would be nice. Plenty of legitimate targets around to use your energy on (like Charles' car or top shop) without swinging from the Cenetaph To be fair to the guy however he has publicly apologised and said he is "ashamed of himself" so fair enough


 
One can only hope that every student who has acted in a violent or destructive manner is expelled from their university? Have the universities broken up for Christmas yet? If not, there is a strong case for expelling all of them. If they can take time out for rioting, they have obviously completed their education.

Those who desecrated the Cenotaph are prime candidates for a public birching as well as being expelled.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

dylans said:
			
		

> Plenty of legitimate targets around to use your energy on (like Charles' car or top shop) without swinging from the Cenetaph To be fair to the guy however he has publicly apologised and said he is "ashamed of himself" so fair enough



I couldn't give a fuck about Charlie's car, or Top Shop for that matter, but neither are particularly relevant or legitimate in the context of these protests. It's shit like this that loses public support. 

Regarding the apology, fair enough, but if you watch the clip on the news you'll see a big crowd cheering him on. Fucking scum to a man/woman. I broadly support the demonstrators but would've had that cunt off there in seconds if I were nearby.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 11, 2010)

too soft, we should deport them to a life of indentured servitude in the Colonies.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> I couldn't give a fuck about Charlie's car, or Top Shop for that matter, but neither are particularly relevant or legitimate in the context of these protests. It's shit like this that loses public support.



thank christ the students have a better idea than you do about the context of the education cuts and the class system.
(not talking about cenotaph btw, but about charlie's car and top shop - these are connected)


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 11, 2010)

dylans is on the money.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 11, 2010)

Fuck the cenotaph. It is a symbol of past wars waged by ungrateful governments. Those hard-won freedoms are being eroded, and these cuts are a huge step along that path of erosion. What exactly are the young expected to be grateful for?  

Fuck anyone who puts a slab of concrete with meaningless platitudes on it over and above the living here and now. Those same cunts in power lined up dutifully by the cenotaph just a few weeks ago. Fuck them and their faux fucking outrage.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 11, 2010)

*All in this together*


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fuck the cenotaph. It is a symbol of past wars waged by ungrateful governments. Those hard-won freedoms are being eroded, and these cuts are a huge step along that path of erosion. What exactly are the young expected to be grateful for?
> 
> Fuck anyone who puts a slab of concrete with meaningless platitudes on it over and above the living here and now. Those same cunts in power lined up dutifully by the cenotaph just a few weeks ago. Fuck them and their faux fucking outrage.



Go and fuck yourself, arsehole. 

Nobody is asking the young to be 'grateful'. 

Whether or not those freedoms are being eroded, the cenotaph means different things to a great number of people. A little respect for _those_ people isn't too much to ask. 

People died in order to enable that wanker to piss on their memories like that without being shot.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 11, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> too soft, we should deport them to a life of indentured servitude in the Colonies.


 
I would agrre, but I don't think we have any colonies any more. Can we send them to Albania instead?


----------



## sherpa (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> I couldn't give a fuck about Charlie's car, or Top Shop for that matter, but neither are particularly relevant or legitimate in the context of these protests.



Linear thinking.

Yes, it was a misguided, stupid, and probably impulsive thing to do, however, he's apologised and will hopefully choose better targets next time. I'm assuming you've never done anything, impulsive, misguided or stupid in your youth?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> People died in order to enable that wanker to piss on their memories like that without being shot.



 People like that 'wanker' are fighting so that future generations will have the right to go to university.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> I would agrre, but I don't think we have any colonies any more. Can we send them to Albania instead?



This is why we fought for the Falklands!


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 11, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> I would agrre, but I don't think we have any colonies any more. Can we send them to Albania instead?


 
One of the uninhabited Falkland Islands perhaps?


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> People like that 'wanker' are fighting so that future generations will have the right to go to university.


 
Is he fuck. 

He's out for a bit of aggro and so were the scum who cheered him on.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> One of the uninhabited Falkland Islands perhaps?



Beat you to it.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 11, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> People like that 'wanker' are fighting so that future generations will have the right to go to university.





Since when did making a dick of yourself by swinging from a flag become 'fighting'?


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Beat you to it.


 
Cunt.


----------



## rekil (Dec 11, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> Quite a good video from the guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/video/2010/dec/10/student-fees-protest-london-video


 
Twat at 9:10. One of 'ours' too I'm afraid, from one of the more salubrious parts of the Dublin judging by the accent, snobbery and unshakeable self confidence. 



gentlegreen said:


> I will definitely take my spare cycle helmet if I go on the TU march in the spring - just in case. Presumably the cops only aim for arms and legs.


Not sturdy enough probably. Cycle helmets don't stand up to determined batterings, this sunday times hack's one didn't at Genoa anyway.



> Well I'd, I'd sort of moved back from the violence to take some photos as a water cannon truck came down the street and so protestors were being blown into doorways and then suddenly I got this massive whack round the back of my head and sort of whited out, and it's a policeman who'd whacked me with a truncheon and the cycle helmet I was wearing completely disintegrated. Then they kind of dragged me across these railway lines and beat me up for about five minutes and then arrested me and took me to a police station.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> I couldn't give a fuck about Charlie's car, or Top Shop for that matter, but neither are particularly relevant or legitimate in the context of these protests. It's shit like this that loses public support.
> 
> Regarding the apology, fair enough, but if you watch the clip on the news you'll see a big crowd cheering him on. Fucking scum to a man/woman. I broadly support the demonstrators but would've had that cunt off there in seconds if I were nearby.


 
Do you think the people who fought in the war did it for a bit of cloth, or a bit of stone? It was an insensitive thing to do, but one thing I'm sure a soldier could tell you is that when in the middle of a conflict zone you're not always at your most sensitive.


----------



## editor (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> It's a bloke is it? Hope the effeminate cunt gets cancer.


For swinging on a flag? Is that the kind of justice you think those soldiers died for?

They died bravely fighting for their children's future, and the people at the demo on Thursday were fighting a similar cause.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 11, 2010)

BigTom said:


> thank christ the students have a better idea than you do about the context of the education cuts and the class system.
> (not talking about cenotaph btw, but about charlie's car and top shop - these are connected)


 
I take it from the lack of capitals, you did not attend university yourself? If you did, then the complaints about dropping standards would seem to be justified.

You are aware that in many countries university education is paid for at the time of attending? I really fail to see why people who are going to benefit greatly in terms of employment and income should not contribute towards the cost of their privilege. I am astounded that socialists are railing against the fees, which are payable after graduation. Do socialists really believe that university education should be funded by the taxes of those who did not have the academic ability to enable them to attend university? That the poorest in the land should pay for the privilege conferred on those who do attend university?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 11, 2010)

There is nothing glorious about being dead. There is nothing glorious about the way those men were killed. There was mostly absolutely nothing glorious about what they were fighting for. Britain needs to forget this nonsense about a glorious military past. It strangles the fucking life out of the place.


----------



## editor (Dec 11, 2010)

copliker said:


> Not sturdy enough probably. Cycle helmets don't stand up to determined batterings, this sunday times hack's one didn't at Genoa anyway.


I'm definitely wearing a helmet for photographing the next one. The matt black skater-look one seemed in vogue amongst some of the pros.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 11, 2010)

editor said:


> For swinging on a flag? Is that the kind of justice you think those soldiers died for?
> 
> They died bravely fighting for their children's future, and the people at the demo on Thursday were fighting a similar cause.


 
No. They are not. They are tying to avoid paying for the privilege gained by a degree. They want people in ' McJobs ' to pay for their step up the ladder.


----------



## little_legs (Dec 11, 2010)

jesus, littlebabyjesus, disrespecting those who died fighting to keep china/india british? that's real bad.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

editor said:


> For swinging on a flag?



No, for desecrating the memories of people far better than them.



> .... and the people at the demo on Thursday were fighting a similar cause.



By swinging on a flag?

What a load of wank.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Is he fuck.
> 
> He's out for a bit of aggro and so were the scum who cheered him on.


 
Quite. The usual malcontents.


----------



## belboid (Dec 11, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> I really fail to see why people who are going to benefit greatly in terms of employment and income should not contribute towards the cost of their privilege.


 
If they do so gain financially, they should pay. Through their normal income tax, same as any other high earner.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 11, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is nothing glorious about being dead. There is nothing glorious about the way those men were killed. There was mostly absolutely nothing glorious about what they were fighting for. Britain needs to forget this nonsense about a glorious military past. It strangles the fucking life out of the place.


 
I have read some shit on here, but that is perhaps the most ludicrous. Are you suggesting that Hitler should not have been opposed? What sort of world do you think it would be now if he had won?


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 11, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Presumably the cops only aim for arms and legs.


Are you fucking serious? I take it you've never seen the police in fighting mood and out for revenge. 'Justice' becomes a little indiscriminate, and there certainly isn't much discriminating about which body part they hit - in fact the head becomes target number one, because if you bring a club down on top of a crowd without caring where it lands, it tends to hit heads first.


----------



## editor (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> No, for desecrating the memories of people far better than them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you think the soldiers who died would view it that way? Who are you to say what the act meant to those dead soldiers?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 11, 2010)

belboid said:


> If they do so gain financially, they should pay. Through their normal income tax, same as any other high earner.


 
Meanwhile the shelf stackers and burger cooks pay for their passage through university? The poorest subsidise the potentially richest?


----------



## xes (Dec 11, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> I have read some shit on here, but that is perhaps the most ludicrous. Are you suggesting that Hitler should not have been opposed? What sort of world do you think it would be now if he had won?


 The kind of world we're marching head long, straight into.


----------



## belboid (Dec 11, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> I have read some shit on here, but that is perhaps the most ludicrous. Are you suggesting that Hitler should not have been opposed? What sort of world do you think it would be now if he had won?


 
blimey, this thick cunt doesn't even know what the Cenotaph is!

Lutyens was a clever chap but even he couldn't have predicted Hitler twenty years before WW2 started.  (and the tightarse British government couldn't even be bothered to pay for the thing to be finished.  Who's 'dishonouring' the 'glorious dead' now, eh?)


----------



## belboid (Dec 11, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> Meanwhile the shelf stackers and burger cooks pay for their passage through university? The poorest subsidise the potentially richest?


 
You dont understand how taxation works, do you?  Silly boy.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

editor said:


> Do you think the soldiers who died would view it that way?



I've no idea.



> Who are you to say what the act meant to those dead soldiers?



What the fuck are you talking about? Where exactly have I suggested that I'm speaking for anyone but myself?


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 11, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> No. They are not. They are tying to avoid paying for the privilege gained by a degree. They want people in ' McJobs ' to pay for their step up the ladder.


 
You don't understand what the protests are about at all then? You really have no idea? Oh dear. I'm not sure you should be on this thread.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 11, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> I take it from the lack of capitals, you did not attend university yourself? If you did, then the complaints about dropping standards would seem to be justified.
> 
> You are aware that in many countries university education is paid for at the time of attending? I really fail to see why people who are going to benefit greatly in terms of employment and income should not contribute towards the cost of their privilege. I am astounded that socialists are railing against the fees, which are payable after graduation. Do socialists really believe that university education should be funded by the taxes of those who did ot have the academic ability to enable them to attend university? That the poorest in the land should pay for the privilege conferred on those who do attend university?



Actually, I'm surprised myself about the lack of capitalisation in my previous post, I'm not sure what happened there.  I did attend uni btw, I've got an MA in political economy.

What does it matter that in many countries uni education is paid for at the time of attending? That doesn't make it right does it.  Just because they pay upwards of $20k in the states doesn't mean we should do the same here, it doesn't make the fees any less wrong.

I can't speak for all socialists obviously.  
A fees/loan system is inherently regressive - those who have rich enough parents will pay it upfront, and thus pay £27k + living expenses.  Those who take out loans but get into high paid jobs will pay their loans off more quickly, thus paying less in interest.  Those who get into average paid jobs will take more time to pay off their loans, thus accruing more in interest and paying more in total.  It's only if you earn significantly below the median wage that you won't pay anything, and even then you have to earn below that for 30 years iirc.

Thus socialists are railing against a regressive system - the richer you are, the less you pay.  Paid for by graduate tax or from general taxation it would be (more) progressive - the more you earn, the more you pay.

Is it that difficult to understand?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 11, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> Meanwhile the shelf stackers and burger cooks pay for their passage through university? The poorest subsidise the potentially richest?


 
You're embarrassing yourself old boy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2010)

BigTom said:


> What does it matter that in many countries uni education is paid for at the time of attending? That doesn't make it right does it.  Just because they pay upwards of $20k in the states doesn't mean we should do the same here, it doesn't make the fees any less wrong.


misery loves company


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> You're embarrassing yourself old boy.


 
nothing new there then


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 11, 2010)

Sas is probably the biggest recipient of our state benefits here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Cunt.


 
haha


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 11, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> Quite. The usual malcontents.


 
The usual twats sneering at protestors - there would have been plenty of people like you and spymaster sneering at the chartists, the suffergetes, the american civil rights movement and the those who brought down the regimes in eatern europe.

Still - they'res always some cunts who are the wrong side of history.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> I have read some shit on here, but that is perhaps the most ludicrous. Are you suggesting that Hitler should not have been opposed? What sort of world do you think it would be now if he had won?


 
one in which more people would agree with you


----------



## revlon (Dec 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> Pretty fucking stupid thing to do though. If only because a shot like that is the Daily Mail's wet dream.  A little bit of self discipline in choosing targets would be nice. Plenty of legitimate targets around to use your energy on (like Charles' car or top shop) without swinging from the Cenetaph To be fair to the guy however he has publicly apologised and said he is "ashamed of himself" so fair enough


 
there's something about war memorials that brings out the worst in posh lads 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220579/Carnage-Shame-drunken-student-caught-urinating-war-memorial-mass-pub-crawl.html

That said it's bit of a red herring. That kind of spluttering moral outrage doesn't wash when you witness crying school students, people in wheelchairs, young women being systematically battered by coked-up riot cops just for the hell of it.

Churchill would indeed be proud.

ps the weirdo jingoists TA faux moral outrage, not dylans


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 11, 2010)

tbf his penchant was for getting OB to batter workers, not students.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I wasn't.  I was discrediting the latest wave of polys and their re-naming as universities.  We have a uni here and you wouldn't send a dog to it, let alone a student.  It ends up with failed middle agers attempting to scrape a gcse


 
Hate to piss on your party, but the last wave of "new unis" were F.E. colleges. The polytechnics were all converted nearly 20 years ago. There's a big difference between the two.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> The usual twats sneering at protestors - there would have been plenty of people like you and spymaster sneering at the chartists, the suffergetes, the american civil rights movement and the those who brought down the regimes in eatern europe.
> 
> Still - they'res always some cunts who are the wrong side of history.



You're a fucking dickhead. 

I've sneered at nobody except the scum on and around the cenotaph, and have explicitly said that I support the students cause (if not some of the methods). 

Cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 11, 2010)

copliker said:


> Twat at 9:10. One of 'ours' too I'm afraid, from one of the more salubrious parts of the Dublin judging by the accent, snobbery and unshakeable self confidence.
> 
> 
> Not sturdy enough probably. Cycle helmets don't stand up to determined batterings, this sunday times hack's one didn't at Genoa anyway.


 
What a dick, sort of missed the point hasn't he? Spotted one of our posters a few minutes after that doing a lot better.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> You're a fucking dickhead.
> 
> I've sneered at nobody except the scum on and around the cenotaph, and have explicitly said that I support the students cause (if not some of the methods).
> 
> Cunt.


 i don't think 'the glorious dead' died for a country in which peaceful protesters were battered beyond endurance and then vilified when they fought back or for a country in which their name was invoked to maintain the status quo


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think 'the glorious dead' died for a country in which peaceful protesters were battered beyond endurance and then vilified when they fought back or for a country in which their name was invoked to maintain the status quo



Neither do I.

What's your point?


----------



## _angel_ (Dec 11, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> Meanwhile the shelf stackers and burger cooks pay for their passage through university? The poorest subsidise the potentially richest?


 
They might have had a chance of being paid to go to university themselves, once, but now there isn't much hope of that.

Also, were all the people fighting WW2 doing it to see their living conditions being assaulted etc?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 11, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> tbf his penchant was for getting OB to batter workers, not students.


 
No grants in his day, that's why. The hoi poloi were kept well away from the ivory towers.

WW2 was not just a defeat for Hitler. It was a defeat for the old order in Britain. As inequality returns to levels not seen since the 1920s, that old order seems to be reasserting itself. Those who died in WW2 really will have died for nothing if they succeed.


----------



## _angel_ (Dec 11, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No grants in his day, that's why. The hoi poloi were kept well away from the ivory towers.
> 
> WW2 was not just a defeat for Hitler. It was a defeat for the old order in Britain. As inequality returns to levels not seen since the 1920s, that old order seems to be reasserting itself. Those who died in WW2 really will have died for nothing if they succeed.



For a start off, they've lost the chance of a council house for life, it seems. Then free education.


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 11, 2010)

The WW2 lot fought for the welfare state, free education and the NHS. That's what the soldiers voted for in 45, not that fat drunk cunt Churchill.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Neither do I.
> 
> What's your point?


 
you'd like to see people who swing on the butcher's apron on the cenotaph as 'scum'. i think that monument represents all that is worst about the country, and most certainly not the memory of those slaughtered in the name of king and country. and of course there are some wars commemorated by the cenotaph which were considerably less than just.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> you'd like to see people who swing on the butcher's apron on the cenotaph as 'scum'. i think that monument represents all that is worst about the country, and most certainly not the memory of those slaughtered in the name of king and country. and of course there are some wars commemorated by the cenotaph which were considerably less than just.



Ok. I disagree with you.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> You're a fucking dickhead.
> 
> I've sneered at nobody except the scum on and around the cenotaph, and have explicitly said that I support the students cause (if not some of the methods).
> 
> Cunt.


 
All ive seen is you going purple faced about someone climbing on the cenotaph - and correct me i'm wrong  - but sneering at people seems to be a lot of what you do on urban.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Obviously being disabled also doesn't prevent one being stupid.


I didn't know you were disabled, d-b!


> There is a difference between "finding an excuse for" and being an "apologist" for something and pointing out inconsistencies in allegations made, gaps in what is known and potential explanations for some of what has been observed.
> 
> I DO the latter.  I DON'T do the former.


I'm sure that you believe that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Ok. I disagree with you.


 
you can't imo equate the sacrifice of someone who died fighting for gallant little belgium or against hitler with that of eg the spy nairac


----------



## dylans (Dec 11, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> They might have had a chance of being paid to go to university themselves, once, but now there isn't much hope of that.
> 
> Also, were all the people fighting WW2 doing it to see their living conditions being assaulted etc?


 
Indeed. We should remember that the post war welfare state was built in response to demands of a population who wanted to see some concrete benefits from their 5 years of suffering. More accurately it was a concession from a ruling class who feared a radicalised population and gave something to save them from losing everything. The very same welfare state that is being dismantled by Cameron and his "pig society" 

The demonstrators fighting back honour the dead of wars in a very real way. They are fighting to defend the gains won by that generation and it is sickening to see their tragedy being invoked by those who wish to spit on their sacrifice. Patriotism is indeed the last refuge of the scoundrel. 

It should also be remembered that the Churchill whose statue was damaged to the fake outrage of so many was a war mongering bastard and supporter of concentration camps for the unemployed and forced sterilisation of the poor as well as someone who used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Following the end of the war the British showed what they thought of him by kicking him out at the first opportunity. Fuck him and his statue.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 11, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think 'the glorious dead' died for a country in which peaceful protesters were battered beyond endurance and then vilified when they fought back or for a country in which their name was invoked to maintain the status quo


 
Well said


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2010)

perhaps there's something to be said for greater emphasis on history in the national curriculum


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> Indeed. We should remember that the post war welfare state was built in response to demands of a population who wanted to see some concrete benefits from their 5 years of suffering. More accurately it was a concession from a ruling class who feared a radicalised population and gave something to save them from losing everything. The very same welfare state that is being dismantled by Cameron and his "pig society"
> 
> The demonstrators fighting back honour the dead of wars in a very real way. They are fighting to defend the gains won by that generation and it is sickening to see their tragedy being invoked by those who wish to spit on their sacrifice. Patriotism is indeed the last refuge of the scoundrel.


 
Exactly dylans


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

Tankus said:


> from the boston photos
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Highly unlikely, given that CB aren't fully-manned atm.
Plus, the army brass aren't about to buttfuck 70-80 years of constitutional precedent by allowing their personnel to be deployed outside a state of emergency. Especially not with current low staffing levels.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yeah, cos that's be a really sensible thing to do: stick squaddies in police uniform over their combats and not give them numbers, just so as they'll blend in like ...
> 
> You're another paranoid fool who needs help mate ...



Any need for the insulting coda?

And you professedly the person who dislikes name-calling, too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Any need for the insulting coda?
> 
> And you professedly the person who dislikes name-calling, too.






			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> cunt


detective-boy dislikes insulting people? it's never stopped him before.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 11, 2010)

belboid said:


> You dont understand how taxation works, do you?  Silly boy.


 
I do indeed understand how taxation works, I collect taxes.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Dec 11, 2010)

Tankus said:


> from the boston photos
> 
> 
> 
> ...



IIRC Chelsea Barracks have been leveled for redevelopment. 

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


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 11, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Highly unlikely, given that CB aren't fully-manned atm.
> Plus, the army brass aren't about to buttfuck 70-80 years of constitutional precedent by allowing their personnel to be deployed outside a state of emergency. Especially not with current low staffing levels.


 
In your view then, wy the camo's? Just something else to wear under their garb?


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> you can't imo equate the sacrifice of someone who died fighting for gallant little belgium or against hitler with that of eg the spy nairac



Rob Nairac was an idiot, but that aside, no, you can't. 

That's what I meant when I said that the cenotaph represents different things to different people. 

To me it's about the lives of 8.5 million young men, mostly working class, who died in WW1 mostly without knowing why, but out of some misguided sense of loyalty to 'King/Kaiser and Country'. It's about those who opposed fascism in the 30s and 40s and enabled subsequent generations to live relatively freely and prosperously, and it's about those who gave their lives so that the people of the Falkland Islands could live the way they chose, in the face of an outrageous attempted land-grab of British sovereign territory by a fascist dictator.


----------



## ymu (Dec 11, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> I do indeed understand how taxation works, I collect taxes.


 
And yet you have consistently shown that you are clueless about how it actually works. Is wallowing in your ignorance just too comfortable compared to making the effort to educate yourself?


----------



## cantsin (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> I doubt it very much, but we'll never know.
> 
> What we can be absolutely sure of however, is that I think you're a cunt.


 
god you're dull


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 11, 2010)

If you think the Falklands war was fought over the rights of a couple of thousand sheep farmers, you're very naive. If the US had wanted to build a military base there, those sheep farmers would have been shunted off their land and carelessly thrown away. They weren't black. That helped save them. But they weren't 'saved' out of any sense of justice.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 11, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Highly unlikely, given that CB aren't fully-manned atm.
> Plus, *the army brass aren't about to buttfuck 70-80 years of constitutional precedent by allowing their personnel to be deployed outside a state of emergency. Especially not with current low staffing level*s.



um..... went to Iraq ?


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

cantsin said:


> god you're dull



Yawn. Hello Catshit, internet hard man .

They're putting computers onto segregated wings now are they?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 11, 2010)

vp's right. There's no way they will be calling the army in yet, even covertly.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 11, 2010)

Tankus said:


> um..... went to Iraq ?


 
deployed on british soil. It takes a massive hoo-hah to get that done, the Home Sec has to authorise it I think.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

Sasaferrato said:


> One can only hope that every student who has acted in a violent or destructive manner is expelled from their university? Have the universities broken up for Christmas yet? If not, there is a strong case for expelling all of them. If they can take time out for rioting, they have obviously completed their education.


You're not demonstrating an over-abundance of logic, or of honesty. They took "time out" to protest against something that will affect the next generation of undergraduates and, in some cases, the protesters were school-children protesting against the acing of EMA, so don't attend a university that they could be expelled from.


> Those who desecrated the Cenotaph are prime candidates for a public birching as well as being expelled.


The Cenotaph is a stone monument. It is meaningless in and of itself, as I suspect the pissing was.

If someone had, instead, pissed on a soldier's grave, you might have a point wrt birching, but as it is, unless you can prove intent, you're just gibbering impotently again.

On a personal note, I've always found the Cenotaph rather morbid, and the use to which it gets put once a year, by politicians to be nauseating. There's nothing glorious about death in battle, not that many of the current shower of cunts would know that.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If you think the Falklands war was fought over the rights of a couple of thousand sheep farmers, you're very naive. If the US had wanted to build a military base there, those sheep farmers would have been shunted off their land and carelessly thrown away. They weren't black. That helped save them. But they weren't 'saved' out of any sense of justice.



Certainly the fate of the Falklanders was a welcome but secondary by-product of the war. The fact remains that the Falklands conflict was probably the only justifiable war that the UK has fought since 1945.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 11, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> deployed on british soil. It takes a massive hoo-hah to get that done, the Home Sec has to authorise it I think.



NI then.............

Should use them anyway ......police shouldnt have their lives put at risk


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 11, 2010)

Tankus said:


> NI then.............
> 
> Should use them anyway ......police shouldnt have their lives put at risk


 
turning the army on your own people is a bad idea.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fuck the cenotaph. It is a symbol of past wars waged by ungrateful governments. Those hard-won freedoms are being eroded, and these cuts are a huge step along that path of erosion. What exactly are the young expected to be grateful for?


I disagree.
The Cenotaph isn't a symbol of those things, it's a memorial to the dead.
Unfortunately, it has almost constantly been used by the political elites to represent past and current power, rather than the past and current sacrifice of soldiers on the altar of state policy, and its' real meaning has been buried.


> Fuck anyone who puts a slab of concrete with meaningless platitudes on it over and above the living here and now. Those same cunts in power lined up dutifully by the cenotaph just a few weeks ago. Fuck them and their faux fucking outrage.


I agree with the platitudinous nature of "the glorious dead", if only because the idea of glory in death through war is grotesque.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 11, 2010)

Democracy must be protected.






Only a film and some would say not a good one, but for the lolz


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 11, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> turning the army on your own people is a bad idea.


 
When they do that, we'll know we're winning.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 11, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> turning the army on your own people is a bad idea.



same as using weapons against the police



> Democracy must be protected.



yes ...it must


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Go and fuck yourself, arsehole.
> 
> Nobody is asking the young to be 'grateful'.
> 
> ...


 
He pissed on a piece of stone, you armchair patriot. 
Birds shit on the Cenotaph all the time. How do you know there isn't a flock of anti-establishment pigeons who deliberately take dumps on it to "shit on the memories" of dead soldiers?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 11, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fair enough, rutita. I'm not suggesting it isn't really good for some kids, but I've been told by a friend who teaches at an FE college that it does lead to significant numbers of disruptive students who have no desire to learn anything – there need to be different, entirely non-academic alternatives too as some kids have just had enough of academic learning by age 16. It's a waste of their time being there, and it doesn't help other kids who want to be there.




A mate of mine does the IT stuff in a large FE college, and he'd confirm what you say. He does as much seperating fighting teenagers and chucking them out of the library for refusing to keep quiet as he does tech stuff. Having said that he's in favour of EMA. After all, as he says, it's the kids who don't want to be there who'd otherwise be disrupting their own neighbourhoods throughout the day, 'cos there's certainly no worthwhile, decently -paid jobs for 16 year-old kids anymore. 

the coalition doesn't seem to have thought about this. Or perhaps they have and believe that the UK can cope with a significantly worse, US-style teenage gang problem in our inner-cities.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> Do you think the people who fought in the war did it for a bit of cloth, or a bit of stone?



Quite.


----------



## revlon (Dec 11, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Democracy must be protected.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
ya think short-arse will get the shit ripped out of them for his/her shield.

"you spoilt the line. CUNT!"


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 11, 2010)

Tankus said:


> same as using weapons against the police


 
you aren't looking at this from outside of a very narrow sphere. Why do you think governments are reluctant to use the army on british soil? Go on, have a stab.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 11, 2010)

LLETSA said:


> the coalition doesn't seem to have thought about this. Or perhaps they have and believe that the UK can cope with a significantly worse, US-style teenage gang problem in our inner-cities.


The issue of whether they've thought about it or not seems an academic one. They don't care. That's what this entire regime of cuts says: we don't give a fuck about anyone but our rich friends.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 11, 2010)

"Churchill" and the Cenotaph are hugely flawed and distorted symbols, as is Westminster, but you disrespect them at your peril.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> He pissed on a piece of stone, you armchair patriot.
> Birds shit on the Cenotaph all the time. How do you know there isn't a flock of anti-establishment pigeons who deliberately take dumps on it to "shit on the memories" of dead soldiers?



What utter bollocks. 

Not worth considered comment.

ETA: And you can fuck off with your cheap insults too.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 11, 2010)

Tankus said:


> same as using weapons against the police
> 
> 
> 
> yes ...it must



Thank god we have some noble men at the wheel eh?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 11, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> The issue of whether they've thought about it or not seems an academic one. They don't care. That's what this entire regime of cuts says: we don't give a fuck about anyone but our rich friends.


 
Yep. I don't think the EMA is the right solution to the problem it is supposed to address, but I will defend it against this shower for the reason you give here.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> In your view then, wy the camo's? Just something else to wear under their garb?


 
Pretty much.
That and an inordinate number of OB I've had the misfortune to know have a bit of a hard-on for military gear (except the ones who *are* ex-military).
Bloke was probably giving himself a semi by imagining he was a soldier rather than a weeble.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

Tankus said:


> um..... went to Iraq ?


 
They wouldn't allow them to be deployed on active service in the UK. Fighting fires and providing flood relief is one thing, having them serve as police is quite another.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

Tankus said:


> NI then.............
> 
> Should use them anyway ......police shouldnt have their lives put at risk


 
Northern Ireland deployment was a state of emergency.


----------



## pk (Dec 11, 2010)

LOL, just read it was Dave Gilmour's boy swinging off the Cenotaph - says he was tripping on acid... multi-millionaire's son fucking it up for people genuinely unable to pay for Uni...


----------



## dylans (Dec 11, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> "Churchill" and the Cenotaph are hugely flawed and distorted symbols, as is Westminster, but you disrespect them at your peril.


 

Why should I respect Churchill?

On sterilising the mentally ill and disabled


> ''The unnatural and increasingly rapid rise of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate. I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed''.



On the  "international Jewish conspiracy"


> There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others.





> This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstituition of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.



On poison gas



> I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.
> 
> *I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. *The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.



Disrespect him? I wouldn't hesitate to piss on the bastards statue. In fact I would cheer if someone blew it up.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 11, 2010)

LLETSA said:


> A mate of mine does the IT stuff in a large FE college, and he'd confirm what you say. He does as much seperating fighting teenagers and chucking them out of the library for refusing to keep quiet as he does tech stuff. Having said that he's in favour of EMA. After all, as he says, it's the kids who don't want to be there who'd otherwise be disrupting their own neighbourhoods throughout the day, 'cos there's certainly no worthwhile, decently -paid jobs for 16 year-old kids anymore.
> 
> t*he coalition doesn't seem to have thought about thi*s. Or perhaps they have and believe that the UK can cope with a significantly worse, US-style teenage gang problem in our inner-cities.


 
They all have ...thats why further education has been so expanded .. delaying the school leaving age ...dumping the problem on each successive government (not my problem guv)
Continually spending future revenue to fund it (PFI) I_n an effort to hide the fact that career starter jobs normally taken by our school leavers have been taken by euroimmigrants_ (2. 2  million jobs)

.....and that the issue of *youth unemployment* is a _bomb swept under the carpet_.......... This has been building for over a decade .....thats why labour lied to in their manifesto and brought in tuition fees /graduate loans ...there was not as much trouble over this as the NUS is in the pocket of labour , and an accepted  career path for prospective labour mp's provided they toe the party line.

bulk not quantity

But the now they have run out of our money ...and the governments credit card is maxed out .......

If the coalition fails and labour gets back in tomorrow ....do you honestly expect them to fund them from the state ..?.... or come up with some other wheeze that lands the recipient student with a bill ..!.........

It is a cumulation of short term policies for short term political gain ............but they have now coalesced to a perfect storm with very few longterm options 

The tuition fees are just another fudge ontop of of the main underlying issue .......even if it gets eventually accepted .....it only delays the bomb ...this is a side show


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> Why should I respect Churchill?



There's no doubt that Churchill was an utter cunt, but he was the right man in the right place in 39/40.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

Tankus said:


> same as using weapons against the police


You mean the impromptu weapons used by the protesters *after* the police had kicked off the violence?
I hardly class a piece of paving stone, a plastic bottle or a balloon filled with paint as "weapons". Not when the police are wearing body armour and helmets, and have shields.




> yes ...it must


Except that our democracy is a sham.
Have a butchers at the dictionary definition of democracy, sometime. Not the different forms of democracy, but what the word actually means - what we have doesn't accord very well with the meaning of that word.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 11, 2010)

It may be an age thing, but surely there's been enough real witness accounts of WW2 - and especially how it directly affected London. ?


----------



## ymu (Dec 11, 2010)

Who is this fucking moron? 

[That'd be Tankus, for the avoidance of doubt]



> And I've tried many more arguments besides. And these arguments work - sometimes. A little discussion of why the great economists of our age think that George Osborne is either mad or bad or stupid often does leave people convinced.
> 
> But many turn off at the wiff of a discussion of economic theory. And you don't get the chance to have that little conversation with everyone in Britain.
> 
> ...



The whole thing is worth a read. No references, but they may be found at: http://falseeconomy.org.uk/cure/the-false-economy-guide-to-the-deficit (click through to the end, it's a few pages worth).


----------



## pk (Dec 11, 2010)

LOL, just read it was Dave Gilmour's boy swinging off the Cenotaph - says he was tripping on acid... multi-millionaire's son fucking it up for people genuinely unable to pay for Uni...


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 11, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You mean the impromptu weapons used by the protesters *after* the police had kicked off the violence?
> I hardly class a piece of paving stone, a plastic bottle or a balloon filled with paint as "weapons". Not when the police are wearing body armour and helmets, and have shields.



Were the paint and balloons found lying around ?


----------



## Tankus (Dec 11, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Thank god we have some noble men at the wheel eh?



and replace them with some of the bunch on here ? eh?


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 11, 2010)

pk said:


> LOL, just read it was Dave Gilmour's boy swinging off the Cenotaph - says he was tripping on acid... multi-millionaire's son fucking it up for people genuinely unable to pay for Uni...


 
So, he was on acid. 

He seemed well off his head on the TV clip they showed of him during the demo; slurring somewhat, but somehow ‘pissed’ didn’t seem to fit it. 

What sort of twat drops acid to go on a mass demo that is more than likely going to turn violent?


----------



## girasol (Dec 11, 2010)

pk said:


> LOL, just read it was Dave Gilmour's boy swinging off the Cenotaph - says he was tripping on acid... multi-millionaire's son fucking it up for people genuinely unable to pay for Uni...


 
To me the whole thing is really funny.  He'll never leave it down, to be off your head tripping in such a televised way is just... words escape me!  I find it odd and irresponsible how people trivialise protests by taking lots of drugs 

on the subject of EMA, Monday 13th is Save EMA day, you can sign the petition here: http://saveema.co.uk/save-ema-day


----------



## dylans (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> There's no doubt that Churchill was an utter cunt, but he was the right man in the right place in 39/40.


 
He was war time leader for 5 years but given his vile views and actions over nearly half a century (many of which resembled Hitlers) it's a bit sickening to insist we hold him up as some deified figure demanding our sanctified respect.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 11, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Birds shit on the Cenotaph all the time. How do you know there isn't a flock of anti-establishment pigeons who deliberately take dumps on it to "shit on the memories" of dead soldiers?


 
You do occasionally say the most silly things.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> What utter bollocks.
> 
> Not worth considered comment.


In other words, the truth hurt, and you've got fuck-all reply worthy of the name.
You're beginning to come across like a Sas mini-me.


> ETA: And you can fuck off with your cheap insults too.


"Armchair patriot" isn't a cheap insult, it's an observation of fact. You've never served your country, so your pontification on behalf of those who have, is informed from a different perspective - the view from your armchair.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Were the paint and balloons found lying around ?


 
No. The paint-balloons are "impromptu weapons" in the same way a Molotov cocktail is - everyday objects utilised for a novel purpose.


----------



## belboid (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> There's no doubt that Churchill was an utter cunt, but he was the right man in the right place in 39/40.


 
Atlee was more important.  Or even some Generals. Churchill just made some speeches.  Soldiers showed what they thought of him in the 1945 election. They told him to fuck off.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 11, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> you aren't looking at this from outside of a very narrow sphere. Why do you think governments are reluctant to use the army on british soil? Go on, have a stab.


 
Heh not a  new concept...the Romans wouldnt let the legions inside the city walls for the same reason 

But the using phalanxes , acid sprays , clubs,paint bombs , and soon to follow ...molotovs ' Ill......... bet....... will only result in a lot of people hurt , and turn our cities into third world war zones where poeple fear to tread

Scargill was the last one who thought that he could make a political change by a small minority on the back of an issue which gave him the opprtunity of manipulating a number of motivated people to violence against an elected state.

Isnt there now a right to recall your MP? ....not happy and theres enough of you ...change it at the ballot box .......


----------



## revlon (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> There's no doubt that Churchill was an utter cunt, but he was the right man in the right place in 39/40.


 
but he certainly wasn't in gallipoli, or indeed july 3 1940. For a aristocractic posh twat he was particularly shit at war. Or maybe he just didn't give a fuck about how many service men he killed, er 'sacrificed'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

Tankus said:


> and replace them with some of the bunch on here ? eh?


 
Yeah, because that's been the main thrust of this thread, hasn't it:
"Lets kick the pols out and take over from them in Parliament".


----------



## belboid (Dec 11, 2010)

Tankus said:


> Isnt there now a right to recall your MP?


 
No


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 11, 2010)

belboid said:


> Atlee was more important.  Or even some Generals. Churchill just made some speeches.  Soldiers showed what they thought of him in the 1945 election. They told him to fuck off.


 
They told the Tories to fuck off. There is no doubt that Churchill was extremeley popular with all, including the troops, throughout the War.


----------



## belboid (Dec 11, 2010)

Bullshit


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 11, 2010)

Phew. For a moment there I thought I might have posted bullshit. But then belboid pointed out that I hadn't.


----------



## belboid (Dec 11, 2010)

I gave exactly as much evidence for my post as you did for yours.

The fact that Churchill was thrown out when he expected to win is undeniable tho


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 11, 2010)

pk said:


> LOL, just read it was Dave Gilmour's boy swinging off the Cenotaph - says he was tripping on acid... multi-millionaire's son fucking it up for people genuinely unable to pay for Uni...


 
He was just rebelling against his old man. 'We all need free education'.


----------



## ymu (Dec 11, 2010)

Tankus said:


> Isnt there now a right to recall your MP? ....not happy and theres enough of you ...change it at the ballot box .......


Not yet, no - and when there is, it won't be allowed for what the electorate might define as gross misconduct.

What the fuck do you think these protests are about, if not bringing down the government? We can't afford to wait another 4.5 years to get these vandals out. The ballot box is what we want - just not when they tell us we can have it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 11, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> They told the Tories to fuck off. There is no doubt that Churchill was extremeley popular with all, including the troops, throughout the War.


 
You don't appear to have kept up with modern history at all - there's been a raft of studies suggesting precisely that Church ill was massively unpopular through all the armed forces, and was seen as an electoral liability for the tories for this reason.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 11, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yeah, because that's been the main thrust of this thread, hasn't it:
> "Lets kick the pols out and take over from them in Parliament".



Sounds like kinnock Prescott straw and darling in their youth ....wonder what happened to them ........duh


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

Tankus said:


> Heh not a  new concept...the Romans wouldnt let the legions inside the city walls for the same reason
> 
> But the using phalanxes , acid sprays , clubs,paint bombs , and soon to follow ...molotovs ' Ill......... bet....... will only result in a lot of people hurt , and turn our cities into third world war zones where poeple fear to tread


Anyone stupid enough to use a petrol bomb will find that they're all very well for a low-density protest, but that you're more likely to bomb yourself and your mates in a high-density protest such as has happened recently. The only reason the kiddies in Ulster could get at us with theirs was because they had enough room to take a good run-up before hoying their milk bottles, and even then you'd always get a couple setting fire to themselves.



> Scargill was the last one who thought that he could make a political change by a small minority on the back of an issue which gave him the opprtunity of manipulating a number of motivated people to violence against an elected state.


States aren't elected, governments are. His argument was against the government of the day.



> Isnt there now a right to recall your MP? ....not happy and theres enough of you ...change it at the ballot box .......


There's no right of recall.
Your only opportunity to change things at the ballot box comes once every 4-5 years, and your local candidate is pretty much free to bullshit you about what he'll do, and then do the exact opposite when he's in power.

You're naive.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> He was war time leader for 5 years but given his vile views and actions over nearly half a century (many of which resembled Hitlers) it's a bit sickening to insist we hold him up as some deified figure demanding our sanctified respect.


 
Agreed.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 11, 2010)

belboid said:


> The fact that Churchill was thrown out when he expected to win is undeniable tho


 
That's right. He confused his own popularlity with that of the Tories.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 11, 2010)

didn't we just have an election......? how many actually voted here ....? maybe we should have a poll ...arf


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

Tankus said:


> Sounds like kinnock Prescott straw and darling in their youth ....wonder what happened to them ........duh


 
You're talking shite again.
All four that you named were never anything but Labour party loyalists, which means that revolution was the furthest thing from their mind.

Duh indeed.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You don't appear to have kept up with modern history at all - there's been a raft of studies suggesting precisely that Church ill was massively unpopular through all the armed forces, and was seen as an electoral liability for the tories for this reason.


 
I can remember Churchill when his popularity was only a little dimmed. The day he died Britain came to a halt.


----------



## belboid (Dec 11, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> That's right. He confused his own popularlity with that of the Tories.


 
No, he was just wrong. Again, I note you offer nothing to back up your assertion.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 11, 2010)

girasol said:


> To me the whole thing is really funny.  He'll never leave it down, to be off your head tripping in such a televised way is just... words escape me!  I find it odd and irresponsible how people trivialise protests by taking lots of drugs
> 
> on the subject of EMA, Monday 13th is Save EMA day, you can sign the petition here: http://saveema.co.uk/save-ema-day



using E's / whizz etc  to liven up the odd " a to b - speeches - go home"  jobby is fair enough, but Gilmour Jnr's a game lad for doing  acid on what was always looking like being a lively affair. Should have swerved  the old abseiling under the circumstances though .


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 11, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> That's right. He confused his own popularlity with that of the Tories.


 
What does that even mean?


----------



## revlon (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Agreed.


----------



## revlon (Dec 11, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> I can remember Churchill when his popularity was only a little dimmed. The day he died Britain came to a halt.


 
but his memory lingers on


----------



## Tankus (Dec 11, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Anyone stupid enough to use a petrol bomb will find that they're all very well for a low-density protest, but that you're more likely to bomb yourself and your mates in a high-density protest such as has happened recently. The only reason the kiddies in Ulster could get at us with theirs was because they had enough room to take a good run-up before hoying their milk bottles, and even then you'd always get a couple setting fire to themselves.
> 
> 
> States aren't elected, governments are. His argument was against the government of the day.
> ...



quite possibly 

heh ...theres your problem


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> In other words, the truth hurt...



No, in other words you're talking shit. 

Your trite comparison of birds crapping on the cenotaph with someone (who's aware of what it is) pissing on it, is childish in the extreme.



> You've never served your country, so your pontification on behalf of those who have, is informed from a different perspective



I'm "pontificating" on behalf of no one. My views are my own and I've taken pains to make that clear.

Grow up.


----------



## belboid (Dec 11, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> I can remember Churchill when his popularity was only a little dimmed. The day he died Britain came to a halt.


 
Simply untrue.  Big crowds at his funeral (a few probably jsut making sure the old cunt was really dead) does not equal 'the whole country coming to a halt.'  Same as it didnt when that parasite princess got buried


----------



## Tankus (Dec 11, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're talking shite again.
> All four that you named were never anything but Labour party loyalists, which means that revolution was the furthest thing from their mind.
> 
> Duh indeed.


 
Im sure I could find a few choice utterances from _Lord_ kinnock and _Lord_ prescott , but do I really need to ?


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 11, 2010)

belboid said:


> Simply untrue.  Big crowds at his funeral (a few probably jsut making sure the old cunt was really dead) does not equal 'the whole country coming to a halt.'  Same as it didnt when that parasite princess got buried


 
How well can you remember that day, belboid?


----------



## belboid (Dec 11, 2010)

I have the ability to read English, something I know is beynd you.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

revlon said:


>



Funny as fuck.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 11, 2010)

belboid said:


> I have the ability to read English, something I know is beynd you.


 
Well I asked as you seem to be confusing the day he died with the day of his funeral.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 11, 2010)

Was this the first time kettling was used in the UK?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 11, 2010)

Tankus said:


> They all have ...thats why further education has been so expanded .. delaying the school leaving age ...dumping the problem on each successive government (not my problem guv)
> Continually spending future revenue to fund it (PFI) I_n an effort to hide the fact that career starter jobs normally taken by our school leavers have been taken by euroimmigrants_ (2. 2  million jobs)
> 
> .....and that the issue of *youth unemployment* is a _bomb swept under the carpet_.......... This has been building for over a decade .....thats why labour lied to in their manifesto and brought in tuition fees /graduate loans ...there was not as much trouble over this as the NUS is in the pocket of labour , and an accepted  career path for prospective labour mp's provided they toe the party line.
> ...





You'll see if you read my posts in other threads that I don't expect Labour to do anything. That's the big danger in all this-that it could end up being diverted into making sure Labour will get back into government-and then Labour will implement their own version of essentially the same set of policies as the coalition. 

I largely agree that higher education has been expanded out of all proportion. Personally, having been badly educated in inner-city schools myself, I'd prefer the education system to be completely reformed from top to bottom, so that thousands upon thousands of of kids don't reach school leaving age at a considerable disadvantage due to having had their talents neglected by sub-standard schooling with no classroom discipline and no personal attention given (all the things that make the difference between state and private schools). But that is never going to happen, and the current generation of students are protesting because, for good or ill, this is the system we have got, and they've grown up being told, with much justification, that you are nothing if you haven't been in higher education. Plus, however lacking in worth many of today's degrees may be, the chances of getting well-paid worthwhile work is significantly more difficult without one. As I said earlier, there is nothing much out there for those who'll drop out because of higher fees. You are right in that the issue has been swept under the carpet, but it wasn't done by New Labour; they just continued and developed what their predecessors started. The heart of the problem lies in the erosion of Britain's industrial base (we still have one but it doesn't employ many people)-the replacing of manufacturing with low wage, low-rights service sector jobs. And that is not going to change under any conceivable government. The pretence used to be that the expansion of hugher education was all about a high-tech, skilled economy. What it was really about was parking as many people as possible away from the jobs market for three years.


----------



## belboid (Dec 11, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Well I asked as you seem to be confusing the day he died with the day of his funeral.


 
Not at all. I forget joined up thinking is beyond you.   Your supposed memory is meaningless, life carried on as normal.


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 11, 2010)

They 'kettled' several thousand in Traf Sq after the big Iraq demo.


----------



## revlon (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Funny as fuck.


 
he was the cameron of his day; a clueless over privileged posh twat who didn't like or much care for the working class - hence happy to put them in uniforms and send them to their deaths, or indeed instigated their mass slaughter.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 11, 2010)

Tankus said:


> Scargill was the last one who thought that he could make a political change by a small minority on the back of an issue which gave him the opprtunity of manipulating a number of motivated people to violence against an elected state.




No he didn't-and anyway, we do not elect the state.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 11, 2010)

belboid said:


> Not at all. I forget joined up thinking is beyond you.   Your supposed memory is meaningless, life carried on as normal.


 
As I was in my late teens at the time, I have to accept that some of my memory cells may have grown a little retarded with time. And yet I remember the hushed tones in the shops, the blanket Radio & TV coverage, and the sadness in the eyes of very many, (though, of course, not all) people walking the streets.


----------



## belboid (Dec 11, 2010)

blanket radio & TV coverage means absolutely jack shit.  Of course _they_ did.  They weren't exactly working class mouthpieces were they?

You have offered not one iota of evidence Churchill himself was popular with soldiers.  Probably because he wasn't.  They admired Atlee.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 11, 2010)

LLETSA said:


> You'll see if you read my posts in other threads that I don't expect Labour to do anything. That's the big danger in all this-that it could end up being diverted into making sure Labour will get back into government-and then Labour will implement their own version of essentially the same set of policies as the coalition.
> 
> I largely agree that higher education has been expanded out of all proportion. Personally, having been badly educated in inner-city schools myself, I'd prefer the education system to be completely reformed from top to bottom, so that thousands upon thousands of of kids don't reach school leaving age at a considerable disadvantage due to having had their talents neglected by sub-standard schooling with no classroom discipline and no personal attention given (all the things that make the difference between state and private schools). But that is never going to happen, and the current generation of students are protesting because, for good or ill, this is the system we have got, and they've grown up being told, with much justification, that you are nothing if you haven't been in higher education. Plus, however lacking in worth many of today's degrees may be, the chances of getting well-paid worthwhile work is significantly more difficult without one. As I said earlier, there is nothing much out there for those who'll drop out because of higher fees. You are right in that the issue has been swept under the carpet, but it wasn't done by New Labour; they just continued and developed what their predecessors started. *The heart of the problem lies in the erosion of Britain's industrial base (we still have one but it doesn't employ many people)*-the replacing of manufacturing with low wage, low-rights service sector jobs. And that is not going to change under any conceivable government. The pretence used to be that the expansion of hugher education was all about a high-tech, skilled economy. What it was really about was parking as many people as possible away from the jobs market for three years.


 

on this- my concern here is that even with a newly increased industrial base how would we compete against the emerging industrial nations?


----------



## revol68 (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> There's no doubt that Churchill was an utter cunt, but he was the right man in the right place in 39/40.


 
and do you think the same of Stalin?

idiot.


----------



## where to (Dec 11, 2010)

pk said:


> LOL, just read it was Dave Gilmour's boy swinging off the Cenotaph - says he was tripping on acid... multi-millionaire's son fucking it up for people genuinely unable to pay for Uni...


 
you didn't see the "slums of london" kids doing that shit.  these fuckers need to be told where to fucking go.  self indulgent pricks.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 11, 2010)

revol68 said:


> and do you think the same of Stalin?
> 
> idiot.


 
heh, during ww2 he was 'good old joe' for a while.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 11, 2010)

LLETSA said:


> No he didn't-and anyway, we do not elect the state.


govermnent then ......... I guess I should just say what I ment ..eh ?  ..but the sentiment is the same ...seems like to me there are parallels


----------



## phildwyer (Dec 11, 2010)

belboid said:


> They admired Atlee.


 
Nobody admired Atlee.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 11, 2010)

where to said:


> you didn't see the "slums of london" kids doing that shit.  these fuckers need to be told where to fucking go.  self indulgent pricks.


 
apparently (according to one officer present posting on arrse) they were roaming in gangs robbing the genuine students. Presumably the dead were also going unburied and a three headed goat wandered the streets.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 11, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> on this- my concern here is that even with a newly increased industrial base how would we compete against the emerging industrial nations?




Quite. That's why no mainstream party claims it can be done. I'm convinced that this is why we are being 'managed down' to a Third World-style society. Assuming that the world economy doesn't implode altogether under the impact of more financial shennanigans or a resources crisis, that means a low wage, low skill population with few workplace rights and an immovable political system, without genuine choices and with oligarchs running the show.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 11, 2010)

belboid said:


> blanket radio & TV coverage means absolutely jack shit.  Of course _they_ did.  They weren't exactly working class mouthpieces were they?
> 
> You have offered not one iota of evidence Churchill himself was popular with soldiers.  Probably because he wasn't.  They admired Atlee.


 
Of course they admired Atlee. They voted for Atlee. But that doesn't mean they hated Churchill. They didn't.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 11, 2010)

LLETSA said:


> You'll see if you read my posts in other threads that I don't expect Labour to do anything. That's the big danger in all this-that it could end up being diverted into making sure Labour will get back into government-and then Labour will implement their own version of essentially the same set of policies as the coalition.
> 
> I largely agree that higher education has been expanded out of all proportion. Personally, having been badly educated in inner-city schools myself, I'd prefer the education system to be completely reformed from top to bottom, so that thousands upon thousands of of kids don't reach school leaving age at a considerable disadvantage due to having had their talents neglected by sub-standard schooling with no classroom discipline and no personal attention given (all the things that make the difference between state and private schools). But that is never going to happen, and the current generation of students are protesting because, for good or ill, this is the system we have got, and they've grown up being told, with much justification, that you are nothing if you haven't been in higher education. Plus, however lacking in worth many of today's degrees may be, the chances of getting well-paid worthwhile work is significantly more difficult without one. As I said earlier, there is nothing much out there for those who'll drop out because of higher fees. You are right in that the issue has been swept under the carpet, but it wasn't done by New Labour; they just continued and developed what their predecessors started. The heart of the problem lies in the erosion of Britain's industrial base (we still have one but it doesn't employ many people)-the replacing of manufacturing with low wage, low-rights service sector jobs. And that is not going to change under any conceivable government. The pretence used to be that the expansion of hugher education was all about a high-tech, skilled economy. What it was really about was parking as many people as possible away from the jobs market for three years.


 
totally agree

without acknowledging the underlying problem ...there is virtually no chance of resolving the issue


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 11, 2010)

I was 5 and distinctly remember the two minutes' silence - average, lower middle class suburban home.
Not something we ever did on 11/11


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

revol68 said:


> and do you think the same of Stalin?
> 
> idiot.



No. Had Churchill not opposed Halifax and the appeasers there's every chance that we'd have rolled over. Russia would've had to fight regardless of who led them.

Twat.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 11, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I was 5 and distinctly remember the two minutes' silence - average, lower middle class suburban home.
> Not something we ever did on 11/11


 
Belboid's read different, so your memory must be wrong, I'm afraid.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 11, 2010)

The facebook event to 'kettle scotland yard' today seems to have attracted 10-12 protesters, compared to at least 50 officers doing not a lot according to twitter.

Interestingly, the facebook event, which I guess hasn't been promoted enough, doesn't list who's coming/ invited etc... (you can select that option) which seems to have left the police with no idea of numbers...

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=156466817731842&index=1 (for those on facebook)


----------



## Tankus (Dec 11, 2010)

LLETSA said:


> Quite. That's why no mainstream party claims it can be done. I'm convinced that this is why we are being 'managed down' to a Third World-style society. Assuming that the world economy doesn't implode altogether under the impact of more financial shennanigans or a resources crisis, that means a low wage, low skill population with few workplace rights and an immovable political system, without genuine choices and with oligarchs running the show.



Tis a scary thought .......and an immigration policy geared towards people acclimatized  to this sort of society ............. or was that a bit too BNP


----------



## Clair De Lune (Dec 11, 2010)

Not read the whole thread but...

Has anyone in Bristol heard about the students who have been locked in the uni by police since Nov 22nd?


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 11, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> The facebook event to 'kettle scotland yard' today seems to have attracted 10-12 protesters, compared to at least 50 officers doing not a lot according to twitter.
> 
> Interestingly, the facebook event, which I guess hasn't been promoted enough, doesn't list who's coming/ invited etc... (you can select that option) which seems to have left the police with no idea of numbers...
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=156466817731842&index=1 (for those on facebook)



separate event being organised on tuesday at 1pm by 'friends of alfie meadows'

http://twitpic.com/3eykgw


----------



## where to (Dec 11, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> apparently (according to one officer present posting on arrse) they were roaming in gangs robbing the genuine students. Presumably the dead were also going unburied and a three headed goat wandered the streets.


 
this happened during one of the CPE protests in Paris in 2006, wouldn't discount the  possibility completely.  but would've thought we'd of heard more about it if true.  Paul Mason (i think) reported on a fight between teenagers in the kettle, and i did see footage of one scuffle between kids on the 24th November in the Whitehall kettle.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 11, 2010)

Clair De Lune said:


> Not read the whole thread but...
> 
> Has anyone in Bristol heard about the students who have been locked in the uni by police since Nov 22nd?


 They're not locked in - they're occupying! I was up there a few days ago - half of them went to london in the week and they had a big party last night to try and link up the various anti-cuts stuff locally.


----------



## Clair De Lune (Dec 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> They're not locked in - they're occupying! I was up there a few days ago - half of them went to london in the week and they had a big party last night to try and link up the various anti-cuts stuff locally.


 
Ah that's why I asked cos it sounded a bit weird like. I just heard people had been climbing buildings to get them food. Good on em


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 11, 2010)

Tankus said:


> govermnent then ......... I guess I should just say what I ment ..eh ?  ..but the sentiment is the same ...seems like to me there are parallels


 
The primary aim of the NUM was to stop the pit closure programme. They made no bones about the fact that they would be happy if a by-product of victory would be the fall of the Tory government and an election victory for Labour. This is hardly startling evidence of sinister political machinations, and they were a lot more open about it than the super-rich are about their methods of subverting governments of which they do not approve. 

Scargill did not have to manipulate anybody either-a majority of miners were ahead of the NUM leadership in their determination to stop the closures, and were fully behind the decision not to have a ballot, despite intense media pressure, as they had already voted with their feet.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 11, 2010)

Tankus said:


> Tis a scary thought .......and an immigration policy geared towards people acclimatized  to this sort of society ............. or was that a bit too BNP




As soon as I saw your posts yesterday, I thought you seemed familiar...


----------



## Zabo (Dec 11, 2010)

I heard this guy on the radio this morning. Sounds like a nice human being. His blog is below. I thought I'd share it with you.

"When we reached the front, the batons began to fly. One came landing straight onto my left shoulder, sending a sharp, shooting pain down my arm. Others were taking blows to the head. Children, women, men, all being brutalised by the police. Then the horses came, horses that could easily kill people, but we would not budge. We held our ground.

Suddenly, four policemen grabbed my shoulders and pulled me out of my wheelchair. My friends and younger brother struggled to pull me back, but were beaten away with batons. The police carried me away. Around five minutes later, my younger brother was also forced through, the wheelchair still in his hands."

Jody Mcintyre - Life On Wheels


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 11, 2010)

Zabo said:


> I heard this guy on the radio this morning. Sounds like a nice human being. His blog is below. I thought I'd share it with you.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/listen_again/newsid_9278000/9278239.stm


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> No, in other words you're talking shit.


What's next in your armoury, "I know I am but what are you?"?


> Your trite comparison of birds crapping on the cenotaph with someone (who's aware of what it is) pissing on it, is childish in the extreme.


You're making the assumption that you know the motivation of the pisser, and I didn't make a comparison, I was trying to point out that the person pissing may have had as little motivation as a bird shitting on the Cenotaph.




> I'm "pontificating" on behalf of no one. My views are my own and I've taken pains to make that clear.


And yet you pontificated on behalf of people who (your own words here) "...died in order to enable that wanker to piss on their memories like that without being shot". Your views may well be your own, but you attempted to speak for others who haven't asked you for your tuppence-worth.


> Grow up.


I already have, long ago. Try it yourself sometime. 
Who knows, you might get a clue.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

Tankus said:


> Im sure I could find a few choice utterances from _Lord_ kinnock and _Lord_ prescott , but do I really need to ?


 
You mean Kinnock the student union socialist, and Prescott the NUS shop steward? If you can dig up anything with either of them preaching revolution rather than electoral politics, I'd be pleased to see it, because you can bet that if they had, the Murdoch press would have unearthed it long ago. The worst thing you can accuse that pair of tossers of, is that they're reformist careerist wankers.


----------



## past caring (Dec 11, 2010)

LLETSA said:


> As soon as I saw your posts yesterday, I thought you seemed familiar...



The old RA boards?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 11, 2010)

past caring said:


> The old RA boards?





Seems to stir vague memories of some 'BNP fellow traveller' on there...


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 11, 2010)

Great picture of the bridge kettle - I think this must have been in the later stages cos there were more people detained to begin with:


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 11, 2010)

I reckon it was probably about 10 past 10.


----------



## belboid (Dec 11, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Of course they admired Atlee. They voted for Atlee. But that doesn't mean they hated Churchill. They didn't.


 
Still evidence free, I see. What a suprise.

Anthony Burgess wrote straight after the war how Churchill turned troops against _himself_, how they thoujght he was an upper class prick who understood jackshit.  Toss like chomping on his fat ciger in front of them while they had no fag rations.  Doesn't endear one. At best they thought he was a useful cunt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I reckon it was probably about 10 past 10.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I reckon it was probably about 10 past 10.


 
You could be right


----------



## Clair De Lune (Dec 11, 2010)

haha
amazing picture though.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 11, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> I'm amazed they can't find an alternative to hitting people with truncheons in this day and age - inevitably the odd blow is going to hit some innocent on the head.


Some of the footage shows blows _aimed_ at heads and shoulders.  There _may_ be circumstances in which this is justifable but I really don't think it can be when the use of force is _not_ justified by an immediate threat represented by that individual protestor but by the need for the police group as a whole to move the protestor group as a whole.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I reckon it was probably about 10 past 10.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 11, 2010)

belboid said:


> Still evidence free, I see. What a suprise.
> 
> Anthony Burgess wrote straight after the war how Churchill turned troops against _himself_, how they thoujght he was an upper class prick who understood jackshit.  Toss like chomping on his fat ciger in front of them while they had no fag rations.  Doesn't endear one. At best they thought he was a useful cunt.


 
I'm sure you could prove than there was a lot of dislike for Churchill's politics among the troops, but that would only affect his political popularity, (which proved non-existant in the election) not the popularity he had gained by the way he roused the country not to give in to the nazi bastards.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> you aren't looking at this from outside of a very narrow sphere. Why do you think governments are reluctant to use the army on british soil? Go on, have a stab.


 
which part of operation banner did you miss?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> They told the Tories to fuck off. There is no doubt that Churchill was extremeley popular with all, including the troops, throughout the War.


 
it's the way you tell them


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> I'm sure you could prove than there was a lot of dislike for Churchill's politics among the troops, but that would only affect his political popularity, (which proved non-existant in the election) not the popularity he had gained by the way he roused the country not to give in to the nazi bastards.


 
what, the popularity which saw him turfed out of downing street before the end of the second world war?


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 11, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> it's the way you tell them


 
How would you know? You never read.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2010)

claphamboy said:


>


 
little sir echo


----------



## revol68 (Dec 11, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> I'm sure you could prove than there was a lot of dislike for Churchill's politics among the troops, but that would only affect his political popularity, (which proved non-existant in the election) not the popularity he had gained by the way he roused the country not to give in to the nazi bastards.


 
jesus do you buy into all that shite about how he encapsulated the spirit of the people wah wah.

as for Nazi bastards, well he was a firm believer in eugenics, supported the gassing of 'uncivilised tribes' and sent troops to crush the miners, so all told he wasn't that ideologically different from them, he just happened to be batting for the British Empire against a wannabe German one.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> How would you know? You never read.


you really are as thick as pigshit.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 11, 2010)

revol68 said:


> jesus do you buy into all that shite about how he encapsulated the spirit of the people wah wah.
> 
> as for Nazi bastards, well he was a firm believer in eugenics, supported the gassing of 'uncivilised tribes' and sent troops to crush the miners, so all told he wasn't that ideologically different from them, he just happened to be batting for the British Empire against a wannabe German one.


 
My father and mother found themselves living under the nazi Occupation just as Churchill came to power. I have inherited a gratefulness for his war-time efforts, without liking anything much else about the man.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> My father and mother found themselves living under the nazi Occupation just as Churchill came to power. I have inherited a gratefulness for his war-time efforts, without liking anything much else about the man.


you're lying


----------



## revol68 (Dec 11, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> My father and mother found themselves living under the nazi Occupation just as Churchill came to power. I have inherited a gratefulness for his war-time efforts, without liking anything much else about the man.


 
and what of those living under the British jackboot, those that Churchill proposed gassing?

try taking a more universal position.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2010)

revol68 said:


> and what of those living under the British jackboot, those that Churchill proposed gassing?
> 
> try taking a more universal position.


 
preferably under a bus or train.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 11, 2010)

Kaka Tim said:


> It never ceases to amaze me that the cops really do believe that there is a 'hard core intent on violence' responsible for sparking aggro at demos.


Having actually met some of them over the years, it never ceases to amaze me that people like you continue to try and convince everyone that there are not ...

Their numbers and involvement in different protests varies considerably.  Often there is little or no involvement.  There has been _significant_ involvement in the G20 and other anti-globalism protests by those intent on violent and entirely _un_lawful protest, some from other countries.  

There are also random thugs intent on nothing more than having a pop at the police in circumstances less likely to lead to any response than their average Saturday night fight and / or to indulge in a spot of ligt looting.  These people tend to attach themselves to protests that are expected to lead to an opportunity for them to indulge or, as here, where there is a series of protests which all descend into violence.

As for the rest of the crowd, their mood varies too.  Sometimes large numbers need little encouragement to turn violent themselves.  Sometimes the vast majority will have nothing to do with any violence.  

As for the student protests, I do not think that there have been many intent on serious violence and I do not perceive the vast majority of the crowd as being particularly keen to engage in any significant violence.  Unfortunately th criticism of the police by politicians and the media after Millbank has ensured that the police are robustly reacting to even the slightest suggestion of violence or damage.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2010)

i don't know why people bother going out looking for a fight with the police when the police are so regularly out for one themselves.


----------



## editor (Dec 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> As for the rest of the crowd, their mood varies too.  Sometimes large numbers need little encouragement to turn violent themselves.


I often find a mounted police charge at young protesters backed by the liberal use of batons serves as ample encouragement for a crowd to defend themselves.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 11, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> you're lying


 
As foul-mouthed a measure of man
One’s mind is too narrow to span.
He’s broad as a lout
His whisper a shout,
But he can’t, while others all can.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> As foul-mouthed a measure of man
> One’s mind is too narrow to span.
> He’s broad as a lout
> His whisper a shout,
> But he can’t, while others all can.


once more, this time with meaning.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 11, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> which part of operation banner did you miss?


 
'reluctant' and as the whole NI shambles shows its a bad idea. Tankus referred to the legions in rome thing, but that wasn't quite what I was getting at either- army on the streets policing means you've lost all pretense at democracy and the populace will hate you for it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> 'reluctant' and as the whole NI shambles shows its a bad idea. Tankus referred to the legions in rome thing, but that wasn't quite what I was getting at either- army on the streets policing means you've lost all pretense at democracy and the populace will hate you for it.


 
they nearly did it in brixton in '81 and there were soldiers among the cops in the miners strike.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 11, 2010)

From a very good article posted to Libcom, "On violence against the police - The Commune".



> "Someone has to say it: mass violence against the police is necessary as part of any social struggle. We wish it wasn’t but it is. The reason is simple: the police defend the state unconditionally, the state defends capital unconditionally, and capital attacks us without remorse – or even a second thought. Reasonable liberals yearn for a compromise: but the state isn’t listening. Neither should protestors."


----------



## dylans (Dec 11, 2010)

revol68 said:


> and what of those living under the British jackboot, those that Churchill proposed gassing?
> 
> try taking a more universal position.


 
Not too popular in South Africa either



> When concentration camps were built in South Africa, for white Boers, he said they produced "the minimum of suffering". The death toll was almost 28,000, and when at least 115,000 black Africans were likewise swept into British camps, where 14,000 died, he wrote only of his "irritation that Kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men". Later, he boasted of his experiences there: "That was before war degenerated. It was great fun galloping about."



Or Ireland



> As Colonial Secretary in the 1920s, he unleashed the notorious Black and Tan thugs on Ireland's Catholic civilians



Or India



> When Mahatma Gandhi launched his campaign of peaceful resistance, Churchill raged that he "ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back." As the resistance swelled, he announced: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." This hatred killed. To give just one, major, example, in 1943 a famine broke out in Bengal, caused – as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has proved – by the imperial policies of the British. Up to 3 million people starved to death while British officials begged Churchill to direct food supplies to the region. He bluntly refused. He raged that it was their own fault for "breeding like rabbits". At other times, he said the plague was "merrily" culling the population.



Or Kenya


> Churchill believed that Kenya's fertile highlands should be the preserve of the white settlers, and approved the clearing out of the local "blackamoors". He saw the local Kikuyu as "brutish children". When they rebelled under Churchill's post-war premiership, some 150,000 of them were forced at gunpoint into detention camps – later dubbed "Britain's gulag" by Pulitzer-prize winning historian, Professor Caroline Elkins. She studied the detention camps for five years for her remarkable book Britain's Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya, explains the tactics adopted under Churchill to crush the local drive for independence. "Electric shock was widely used, as well as cigarettes and fire," she writes. "The screening teams whipped, shot, burned, and mutilated Mau Mau suspects."




As for the claim that Churchill was merely a man of his times. Not so he was a vile extremist racist even by the standards of his day




> Churchill was seen as at the most brutal and brutish end of the British imperialist spectrum. Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin was warned by Cabinet colleagues not to appoint him because his views were so antedeluvian. Even his startled doctor, Lord Moran, said of other races: "Winston thinks only of the colour of their skin."
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html


So for all these reasons you will excuse me if I am not shocked by someone pissing on his statue.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2010)

revol68 said:


> From a very good article posted to Libcom, "On violence against the police - The Commune".


 
the library's the only good bit of libcon


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 11, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> they nearly did it in brixton in '81 and *there were soldiers among the cops in the miners strike.*


 
Hotly denied by the est. though...


----------



## Clair De Lune (Dec 11, 2010)

revol68 said:


> and what of those living under the British jackboot, those that Churchill proposed gassing?
> 
> try taking a more universal position.


 
Not just that, but without the cover of war most of the atrocoties could not have taken place and many more people would have escape with their lives.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Hotly denied by the est. though...


 
they would, wouldn't they?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 11, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> Great picture of the bridge kettle - I think this must have been in the later stages cos there were more people detained to begin with:



You can _clearly_ see proof of the BBC's assertion that "the police are trying to move protesters off Westminster Bridge".

Of course, you have to be facing due Bullshit North.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Dec 11, 2010)

Tankus said:


> Isnt there now a right to recall your MP? ....not happy and theres enough of you ...change it at the ballot box .......



Yeah they should vote Liberal Democrat! fucking hell


----------



## audiotech (Dec 11, 2010)

LLETSA said:


> the coalition doesn't seem to have thought about this. Or perhaps they have and believe that the UK can cope with a significantly worse, US-style teenage gang problem in our inner-cities.



LLETSA, do you remember the 'Community Programme Scheme' in the 80's? I'm sure they will have thought about the introduction of a similar scheme for today. Although, this time, involving the voluntary and charitable sector, rather than, as then, local authorities. For those on the 'Community Programme Scheme', including myself (one year contract), we were at least, paid a comparatively, reasonable wage during it's implementation and duration. We also received free, steel, toe-capped wellies, a donkey jacket and more importantly, trade union involvement giving us some protection. Today?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 11, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> they would, wouldn't they?


 
yes they would. One of the advantages of mass photography and 'citizen journos' is that they have less of a hold on the media narrative these days.


----------



## belboid (Dec 11, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> I'm sure you could prove than there was a lot of dislike for Churchill's politics among the troops, but that would only affect his political popularity, (which proved non-existant in the election) not the popularity he had gained by the way he roused the country not to give in to the nazi bastards.


 
the cigar anecdote of Burgess' shows clearly it was not simply his politics.  It was him.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 11, 2010)

LLETSA said:


> Seems to stir vague memories of some 'BNP fellow traveller' on there...


 
heh ...nowhere near ............ I used hang out on geekish forums  ...PCA   PCpitstop  ...not particularly interested in BNP  or ever have been  ..RA boards I have no idea .....but ...whatever


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're making the assumption that you know the motivation of the pisser, and I didn't make a comparison, I was trying to point out that the person pissing may have had as little motivation as a bird shitting on the Cenotaph.



So the cunt swinging off the cenotaph didn't know what it was, ditto the scum that were urging him on?

Or alternatively, there exists an acceptable reason for such behaviour?

Bollocks. I'd have expected better from you, tbh.


----------



## belboid (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> So the cunt swinging off the cenotaph didn't know what it was, ditto the scum that were urging him on?
> 
> Or alternatively, there exists an acceptable reason for such behaviour?
> 
> Bollocks. I'd have expected better from you, tbh.


 
you didnt really know what it was either tho, you thought it had something to do with hitler despite it being built in 1920!


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> So the cunt swinging off the cenotaph didn't know what it was, ditto the scum that were urging him on?
> 
> Or alternatively, there exists an acceptable reason for such behaviour?
> 
> Bollocks. I'd have expected better from you, tbh.


 
Yep, sod thinking what effect these cuts will have on the living and instead be all outraged that somebody had a wee on a monument for those long dead.


----------



## past caring (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> So the cunt swinging off the cenotaph didn't know what it was, ditto the scum that were urging him on?
> 
> Or alternatively, there exists an acceptable reason for such behaviour?
> 
> Bollocks



I don't know why anyone engages with this cunt or claphamgrass or the rest. Some might think the past hositility from the likes of LiamO and myself was simply out of some kind of badness - but it was, on the contrary, because of a certainty that however pleasant or witty or urbane these fuckers might appear on a day to day basis, once an issue arose of real importance, once the gloves were off, there would be no doubt as what side they'd take. 

That being so, why one would want to accord them any semblance of civility or respect on a day to day basis, I don't know.

I've no time for this over-priveleged Gilmour fucker - the real issue with the student protest isn't about him or other students of his class - but let's be clear; the "outrage" of Spymaster and his ilk at Gilmour's behaviour is no more than a convenient get-up, something on which to hang his bigotry and hatred of anything progressive under a mask of "decency". 

Fuck 'em.


----------



## GuerillaPhoto (Dec 11, 2010)

OK, people who are complaining about people pissing up against statues etc.... 

There was no where to go... seriously there was no privacy, the police had every side surrounded, the only way to go to the toilet without waving your dick at underage girls was to piss up against objects so as to hide your man bits. I am not condoning it at all but I believe it was a necessity not an act against the statues and what they stood for.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

belboid said:


> you didnt really know what it was either tho, you thought it had something to do with hitler despite it being built in 1920!



What on earth are you on about?


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 11, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> You can _clearly_ see proof of the BBC's assertion that "the police are trying to move protesters off Westminster Bridge".
> 
> Of course, you have to be facing due Bullshit North.


 
Is that how the BBC described it? What utter shitheads the BBC have been throughout these demos. Unsurprising I know but I can still get annoyed about it. Yeah, the police were trying to move us off the bridge - in the sense that they were keeping us there for hours against our will. Still, same difference eh? War is peace etc etc


----------



## GuerillaPhoto (Dec 11, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> Great picture of the bridge kettle - I think this must have been in the later stages cos there were more people detained to begin with:


 

I can almost figure out which one of those people is me. Looking at the clock, this is about an hour before they finally let us leave the bridge. cold, hungry and some younger people were crying.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2010)

Fuck the living. They can suffer. But don't ever disrespect the dead or those who gave up their lives to perpetuate the suffering.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Yep, sod thinking what effect these cuts will have on the living and instead be all outraged that somebody had a wee on a monument for those long dead.





> Fuck the living. They can suffer. But don't ever disrespect the dead or those who gave up their lives to perpetuate the suffering.



Of course, because the two issues can't be considered seperately can they? Condemning the desecration of the cenotaph means condemning the protest in its entirety.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 11, 2010)

GuerillaPhoto said:


> I can almost figure out which one of those people is me. Looking at the clock, this is about an hour before they finally let us leave the bridge. cold, hungry and some younger people were crying.


You were there too?  I got out around 1030 so I'll also be in this picture somewhere. It was obviously mostly shit, but the mixture of anger and humour that kept people going actually kind of inspired me and made me feel almost proud to be there.

Edit to add: it was surprisingly tiring though. I had to get up 630 the next morning for work and I've rarely been so tired at the beginning of a day in all my life. Kettles are knackering.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Of course, because the two issues can't be considered seperately can they? Condemning the desecration of the cenotaph means condemning the protest in its entirety.


 
Well that's what you're choosing to focus on.


----------



## GuerillaPhoto (Dec 11, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> You were there too?  I got out around 1030 so I'll also be in this picture somewhere. It was obviously mostly shit, but the mixture of anger and humour that kept people going actually kind of inspired me and made me feel almost proud to be there.
> 
> Edit to add: it was surprisingly tiring though. I had to get up 630 the next morning for work and I've rarely been so tired at the beginning of a day in all my life. Kettles are knackering.


 

I was the last to leave, we were busy ruining the live sky news broadcast. and pointing out which officer had his shield upside down.  I have shots on my blog.


----------



## belboid (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Of course, because the two issues can't be considered seperately can they? Condemning the desecration of the cenotaph means condemning the protest in its entirety.


 
you utter hypocrite


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Well that's what you're choosing to focus on.



I've said all along that I support the protests.

The only reason we're arguing is because of fuckwits here defending the filthy behavior of Gilmour et al.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

belboid said:


> you didnt really know what it was either tho, you thought it had something to do with hitler despite it being built in 1920!


 


belboid said:


> you utter hypocrite



You utter liar.


----------



## ymu (Dec 11, 2010)

You support the protests but choose to spend your time condemning the actions of one of the protesters? You have some pretty fucked up priorities, right there.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> I've said all along that I support the protests.
> 
> The only reason we're arguing is because of fuckwits here defending the filthy behavior of Gilmour et al.


 
Well he's public school educated, what did you expect?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> So the cunt swinging off the cenotaph didn't know what it was, ditto the scum that were urging him on?


You were talking about pissing, why are you shifting your goalposts to monkey impersonations? 


> Or alternatively, there exists an acceptable reason for such behaviour?


You're making an automatic assumption that the behaviour is linked with a particular expression of sentiment, in this case pissing on the memories of the dead.
Me, being a rationalist, I prefer Occam's Razor until an alternative explanation is proven.


> Bollocks. I'd have expected better from you, tbh.


Your assumptions and expectations are your own, nothing to do with me.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Well he's public school educated ....



Really? 

If by "public school" you mean "state comprehensive" you're correct. But you should check out the accepted definitions of each.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 11, 2010)

past caring said:


> I don't know why anyone engages with this cunt or claphamgrass or the rest.
> <snip inane ramblings>
> but let's be clear; the "outrage" of Spymaster and his ilk at Gilmour's behaviour is no more than a convenient get-up.....


 
Excuse me, but WTF are you dribbling on about?

I've shown no "outrage" over Gilmour. I pointed out he had apologised, referred to him as a bit of a dick and laughed at the fact that he was tripping his nuts off - no "outrage" there, you dumb fuck.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Dec 11, 2010)

This thread is just like it was on here in the old days!


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You were talking about pissing, why are you shifting your goalposts to monkey impersonations?



No,_ you_ brought up the pissing, and from that I assumed that someone had pissed on the cenotaph (which _would_ annoy me). I've been referring to the action of Gilmour and those around him. The only pissing that I'm aware of was on Churchill's statue, which bothers me not one jot.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Really?
> 
> If by "public school" you mean "state comprehensive" you're correct. But you should check out the accepted definitions of each.


 
Since when did public school mean anything other than private education?

I might be wrong. I was sent to a state comprehensive after all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Yep, sod thinking what effect these cuts will have on the living and instead be all outraged that somebody had a wee on a monument for those long dead.


 
And *that* is all it is, a monument. A focal point for "remembrance": Occasionally used by soldiers and ex-soldiers to honour their fallen comrades the rest of the year, more publicly used by the leeches known as politicians on Remembrance day to allow them to present themselves as informed on the subject of, and grateful for the sacrifice of those who die in war.
Me, I prefer to remember my dead on the fields where they died, or in my head and heart. If having memorials means that politicians can make political capital from the war dead, then I'd prefer to see every last memorial pulled down.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Since when did public school mean anything other than private education?



Since you suggested that I've had one, by the looks of it.



> I was sent to a state comprehensive after all.



As was I.


----------



## belboid (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Really?
> 
> If by "public school" you mean "state comprehensive" you're correct. But you should check out the accepted definitions of each.


 
eh?  he was sent to private school, wtf are you on about?

(you do reralise he was talking about Gilmour, dont you?)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Of course, because the two issues can't be considered seperately can they? Condemning the desecration of the cenotaph means condemning the protest in its entirety.


 
Desecration? 
I wasn't aware that the Cenotaph had been consecrated.

Still, perhaps you're just indulging in hysterical hyperbole.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Since you suggested that I've had one, by the looks of it.
> 
> 
> 
> As was I.



I've suggested no such thing. You questioned my definition.

The point I was making was the millionaire press proprietors are getting in a tizzy about one of their own.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 11, 2010)

GuerillaPhoto said:


> OK, people who are complaining about people pissing up against statues etc....
> 
> There was no where to go... seriously there was no privacy, the police had every side surrounded, the only way to go to the toilet without waving your dick at underage girls was to piss up against objects so as to hide your man bits. I am not condoning it at all but I believe it was a necessity not an act against the statues and what they stood for.



Well put.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

belboid said:


> (you do reralise he was talking about Gilmour, dont you?)



My mistake.

My apologies C66. 

For some reason I thought you were suggesting that I was privately educated.


----------



## yield (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster is alright. He's just angry and likes a fight.

danny la rouge has vouch from him in the past.

Edit:Saying that where is danny la rouge?


----------



## revlon (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Really?
> 
> If by "public school" you mean "state comprehensive" you're correct. But you should check out the accepted definitions of each.


 
are you saying the gilmour kid went to a state comp? Given you know so little about churchill, can you be sure about another drunken over-privileged posh twat?


----------



## peterkro (Dec 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> Not too popular in South Africa either
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He's still loathed by many in Aus/NZ to this day for the gross fuck up in the  Dardanelles  (even though there were many more Brits involved and some French it was a much higher portion of the populations of  Aus/NZ.He's also loathed due to the cock up with the defence of Singapore.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2010)

No, the 'what did you expect?' relates to you being a Tory lackey and being all outraged with someone who has clearly grown up in well heeled company. The rich don't give a fuck about soldiers. They erect monuments to legitamise sending young men to their slaughter for their own ends. It's part of the pantomime.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 11, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> Great picture of the bridge kettle - I think this must have been in the later stages cos there were more people detained to begin with:


Increadible picture. Will make very compelling evidence in any subsiquent court case that the kettle was punative in intent. With any luck will make any appearances before inquiries rather uncomfortable for senior officers in charge of the day.


----------



## where to (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> I've said all along that I support the protests.
> 
> The only reason we're arguing is because of fuckwits here defending the filthy behavior of Gilmour et al.


 
who's defending him?  he's not even defending himself.

and reading the thread linked to it sounds like you're not in a position to criticise the actions of those high on drugs.


----------



## dylans (Dec 11, 2010)

peterkro said:


> He's still loathed by many in Aus/NZ to this day for the gross fuck up in the  Dardanelles  (even though there were many more Brits involved and some French it was a much higher portion of the populations of  Aus/NZ.He's also loathed due to the cock up with the defence of Singapmore.


 
The greatest irony of all is that some of the most powerful, stirring, poetic oratory for freedom and democracy ever written was penned by a man who, throughout his entire career, demonstrated his utter contempt for the concepts.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

revlon said:


> are you saying the gilmour kid went to a state comp?



Mistake acknowledged and apology made.


----------



## ymu (Dec 11, 2010)

Justice for Alfie Meadows

(Facebook, but viewable without an account.)


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Mistake acknowledged and apology made.


 
Apology accepted. Half my fault though as I was intentionally ambiguous. It reveals more.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 11, 2010)

> The police are reported to be in complete control of the moral high ground today after yesterday beating the shit out of anyone on the streets attempting to claim it for themselves. Politicians are reported to be flocking to the police-protected area of high ground, eager to point out that the protesters who were angry at the politicians have no moral high ground left.
> 
> The police attainment of the moral high ground was hard-fought, involving the detention of several thousand people without charge for some hours, and indiscriminate beatings of anyone who got in their way. Commentators have praised the police efforts but some have suggested that not enough blood was shed, and that policing should be firmer in the future in order to give the moral high ground greater security.
> 
> An anonymous protester, asked to comment on the police attainment of the moral high ground at first refused to comment, but when pressed said, "If you think about it, the police were protecting the politicians from their angry citizenry, and the police moral high ground - if we ignore breaches of fundamental rights and so on, which we seem to be - the police position, as I say, is is only actually a moral high ground if those they are defending are on the moral high ground themselves."



http://triflingoffence.blogspot.com/2010/12/police-forcefully-claim-moral-high.html


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

yield said:


> Edit:Saying that where is danny la rouge?



He had enough and jacked the boards in. Scrambled his password.

A big loss.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 11, 2010)

GuerillaPhoto said:


> I was the last to leave, we were busy ruining the live sky news broadcast. and pointing out which officer had his shield upside down.  I have shots on my blog.


 NIce pics and account on your blog. Should you maybe blur some of the faces in the pics? If you've got a caption on a photo saying 'protesters launching fence into police lines' and it shows the faces of the protesters - well, from the point of view of the police that's a criminal act and your photos might be used as evidence. I know they probably took all the photos they wanted themselves but still...


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't even recall him rucking with anyone. Ah, they come and go.


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 11, 2010)

peterkro said:


> He's still loathed by many in Aus/NZ to this day for the gross fuck up in the  Dardanelles  (even though there were many more Brits involved and some French it was a much higher portion of the populations of  Aus/NZ.He's also loathed due to the cock up with the defence of Singapore.


 
he was the chief sponsor both in financial and military terms of the white russian cause as it set about unleashing horrific anti semitic pogroms accross Russia with millions in british cash and british army bayonets and the RAF along with liberal amounts of air dropped Mustard gas to back them up . Purely his pet project . Throughout the 20s and 30s he was waxing lyrical about the merits of European fascism , praising them to the rooftops for their good works . Right up to 1939 .
A cunt in other words .

Still pissing myself laughing about Charles and Camilla and their encounter with the  hoi polloi though .


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2010)

I like how Camilla is now 'laughing about the incident' as the press are reporting rather than acknowledging that the aristocracy of which she is a part is the fucking problem.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 11, 2010)

2/3rds of people oppose tuition fees.. nearly 50% of people who voted for lib dems less likely to vote for them in the next election ..

http://www.google.com/hostednews/uk...BqXn3U5wSidQ5uq2w?docId=N0094891292095132993A

mori polls for NoTW tomorrow.. 
I doubt that 2/3rds of people opposed the fees before these demos ..


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I don't even recall him rucking with anyone. Ah, they come and go.


 
Think it was a combination of things rather than one specific ruck.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> Think it was a combination of things rather than one specific ruck.


 
Very clever and articulate poster as far as I'm concerned. A nice person too I imagine. One of life's good-uns, for sure.


----------



## past caring (Dec 11, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Excuse me, but WTF are you dribbling on about?
> 
> I've shown no "outrage" over Gilmour. I pointed out he had apologised, referred to him as a bit of a dick and laughed at the fact that he was tripping his nuts off - no "outrage" there, you dumb fuck.



Checking back, it's clear you're correct and that I was mistaken in lumping you in with the usual suspects. I apologise. I'm glad that you're supporting the protests.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> A nice person too I imagine. One of life's good-uns, for sure.


 
Totally.


----------



## ymu (Dec 11, 2010)

Anonymous thug at the protest.


----------



## ymu (Dec 11, 2010)

Bloody hell.



> It's shocking enough that a young protester, Alfie Meadows, had to undergo an operation to treat bleeding on the brain after being hit on the head by a police truncheon during Thursday's tuition fees demonstration. But this interview with his mother is really shocking: Chelsea & Westminster hospital tried to turn him away because it said it had been reserved for 'police only'.
> 
> It took the intervention of the understandably furious ambulance driver to ensure that Alfie received treatment for his serious injuries - based on clinical need, not whether he was wearing a uniform. The Independent Police Complaints Commission are apparently investigating, for all the difference that will make - but in the mean time, Professor Sir Christopher Edwards, the Chair of the Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, as well its Chief Executive Heather Lawrence, have some serious explaining to do.
> 
> http://www.blowe.org.uk/2010/12/police-only-hospital-tries-to-turn-away.html


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 11, 2010)

Did the Tahmeena Bax story get posted here?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

peterkro said:


> He's still loathed by many in Aus/NZ to this day for the gross fuck up in the  Dardanelles  (even though there were many more Brits involved and some French it was a much higher portion of the populations of  Aus/NZ.He's also loathed due to the cock up with *the defence of Singapore*.



Or rather, the lack of anything approaching one.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 11, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Or rather, the lack of anything approaching one.


Force Z was his zany idea of intimidating the 'wogs', yep they had the Yamato being comisioned and POW and Repluse are going to put the shits up them.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 11, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Did the Tahmeena Bax story get posted here?


 
Shit, hadn't seen that. This stuff needs to be circulated as widely as possible to combat the police story that they were simply defending themselves.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 11, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> Shit, hadn't seen that. This stuff needs to be circulated as widely as possible to combat the police story that they were simply defending themselves.


 
This was on the previous demo though.  Think I videoed them bringing her out.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 11, 2010)

ymu said:


> Anonymous thug at the protest.


Most likely she screwed up when changing into her PSU kit and forgot to put on her flashes but the atttitude really sucks and given the huge gulf of trust between the met and protesters a reall dumb thing to do. Given her number is known to the person making the youtube video I am guessing they caved in and gave her number after the video stops......

Inquiries coming, I reckon there is a lot of bad press coming the way of the police after all this. I dont think they are getting away from this mess with a clean pair of heals. Starting from the kettling on the 24th and the lies about that bloody van they are not going to look too clever when questions are being asked in a couple of months time.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Force Z was his zany idea of intimidating the 'wogs', yep they had the Yamato being comisioned and POW and Repluse are going to put the shits up them.


 
Both of which, IIRC, were sent to patrol the wrong sector, so that they were a good day and a half's steam from Singapore city.
And wasn't there some fuckwittery where the OIC had static artillery (former naval guns) re-mounted so that they faced away from the most likely route the Japanese would take?


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Did the Tahmeena Bax story get posted here?


 
You need to summarise the saucy bits as people are afflicted by link clicking laziness.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> You need to summarise the saucy bits as people are afflicted by link clicking laziness.


Lass claims she was hit on the head with a baton, police initially refuse to send in their first aider trained riot cops in full PSU kit then it takes 2 hours for an ambulance to reach her.

Given batton strikes to the head are unreasonable force in most scenarios, there seems a fair few of them doing the rounds.


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 11, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Both of which, IIRC, were sent to patrol the wrong sector, so that they were a good day and a half's steam from Singapore city.
> And wasn't there some fuckwittery where the OIC had static artillery (former naval guns) re-mounted so that they faced away from the most likely route the Japanese would take?



And let's not forget the inter-Allied debacle that was the Battle of the Java Sea, while we're considering ill-advised naval actions.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 11, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Lass claims she was hit on the head with a baton, police initially refuse to send in their first aider trained riot cops in full PSU kit then it takes 2 hours for an ambulance to reach her.
> 
> Given batton strikes to the head are unreasonable force in most scenarios, there seems a fair few of them doing the rounds.


 they're not supposed to hit anyone on the head in a baton charge are they? just arms and legs?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 11, 2010)

try not to link to my own blog these days  but this is really worthy of a wider audience - was written by an 18 year old college student who contacted me via facebook, first ever demo she'd been on was millbank

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/capitalism-is-dying-let-it-burn-report-from-the-front-line-of-the-london-mob/


----------



## OneStrike (Dec 11, 2010)

I was just about to post that ymu.  Disgusting to think that the hospital would turn away anyone with a brain injury, props to the Ambulance driver for kicking off and getting him treatment.  I wouldn't be as angry if it was just a broken wrist or other such none-life-threatening injury but that is obscene.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> they're not supposed to hit anyone on the head in a baton charge are they? just arms and legs?


 
They're not supposed to, but the poor dears are so badly coordinated, they often what people round the head or body.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 11, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> they're not supposed to hit anyone on the head in a baton charge are they? just arms and legs?


A blow to the head with that weapon by a civilian is pretty close to attempted murder and the police are only supposed to hit at the head in very extreme circumstances.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

Smurker said:


> I was just about to post that ymu.  Disgusting to think that the hospital would turn away anyone with a brain injury, props to the Ambulance driver for kicking off and getting him treatment.  I wouldn't be as angry if it was just a broken wrist or other such none-life-threatening injury but that is obscene.


 
One law for the boss class and their dogs, another for the oppressed majority.

So it goes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 11, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> A blow to the head with that weapon by a civilian is pretty close to attempted murder and the police are only supposed to hit at the head in very extreme circumstances.


 
They're obviously interpreting "extreme circumstances" somewhat more broadly than any rational person would.


----------



## ymu (Dec 11, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Most likely she screwed up when changing into her PSU kit and forgot to put on her flashes but the atttitude really sucks and given the huge gulf of trust between the met and protesters a reall dumb thing to do. Given her number is known to the person making the youtube video I am guessing they caved in and gave her number after the video stops......
> 
> Inquiries coming, I reckon there is a lot of bad press coming the way of the police after all this. I dont think they are getting away from this mess with a clean pair of heals. Starting from the kettling on the 24th and the lies about that bloody van they are not going to look too clever when questions are being asked in a couple of months time.


That's the number of the other officer thug, not the thug concealing their identity.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 11, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> They're obviously interpreting "extreme circumstances" somewhat more broadly than any rational person would.


Take the same person, take them out of the uniform and out of the circumstances and they would probibly give you a wonderful well reasoned explanation of extreme circumstances that none but the most hardline here would cast doubt on. They know right from wrong. 

 When they put on the uniform and get they swept away in the tribal tide of agro on a demonstration then the rationality leaves. Striking someone with blows to the head is just dumb, its career threatening and even jail threatening in the day of handset cameras and youtube. But still in the febrile heat of battle they do it. You can train people out of getting into that state, but it takes will from on high.


----------



## dylans (Dec 11, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Take the same person, take them out of the uniform and out of the circumstances and they would probibly give you a wonderful well reasoned explanation of extreme circumstances that none but the most hardline here would cast doubt on. They know right from wrong.
> 
> When they put on the uniform and get they swept away in the tribal tide of agro on a demonstration then the rationality leaves. Striking someone with blows to the head is just dumb, *its career threatening and even jail threatening in the day of handset cameras and youtube.* But still in the febrile heat of battle they do it. You can train people out of getting into that state, but it takes will from on high.


 But it's not though is it? Time and again, for fucking decades, we have seen cops get away with battering people with impunity. They know nothing will happen if they crack skulls, so .....they crack skulls.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 11, 2010)

> We have waited for weeks now to see if the TUC will adjust it’s position and call trade unions to support the students fight against the fees and cuts, the silence as predicted is deafening.
> 
> After the hideously inaccurate and biased media reporting of the December 9th student mobilisation in the capital, we feel moved to make a direct appeal to all trade union members in Norfolk and beyond.
> 
> ...



http://norfolknonaligned.wordpress....-youth-and-leave-the-tuc-behind-if-necessary/


----------



## BigTom (Dec 11, 2010)

Monday 20th? has something been called for then? schools in brum (and presumably elsewhere) break up on the 17th, so loads of school kids and teachers could be out on that day..


----------



## ymu (Dec 11, 2010)

From Fitwatch via Twitter:



> Inquiries into #dayx protests to be led by Detective Chief Superintendent Matthew Horne,with input from ACPO through Commander Allan Gibson.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Take the same person, take them out of the uniform and out of the circumstances and they would probibly give you a wonderful well reasoned explanation of extreme circumstances that none but the most hardline here would cast doubt on. They know right from wrong.
> 
> When they put on the uniform and get they swept away in the tribal tide of agro on a demonstration then the rationality leaves. Striking someone with blows to the head is just dumb, its career threatening and even jail threatening in the day of handset cameras and youtube. But still in the febrile heat of battle they do it. You can train people out of getting into that state, but it takes will from on high.



A respectful, if romantic, view of the kind of arseholes attracted to joining the police 'service'.


----------



## GuerillaPhoto (Dec 11, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> NIce pics and account on your blog. Should you maybe blur some of the faces in the pics? If you've got a caption on a photo saying 'protesters launching fence into police lines' and it shows the faces of the protesters - well, from the point of view of the police that's a criminal act and your photos might be used as evidence. I know they probably took all the photos they wanted themselves but still...



As I have said before, I was there to document, if the protester did not cover his face, that's his fault not mine, the police were filming the whole thing as well, if he is stupid enough to do it in the first place without covering his face, what does he expect?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 11, 2010)

GuerillaPhoto said:


> As I have said before, I was there to document, if the protester did not cover his face, that's his fault not mine, the police were filming the whole thing as well, if he is stupid enough to do it in the first place without covering his face, what does he expect?



any chance you could post up a picture of yourself then


----------



## audiotech (Dec 11, 2010)

This needs to be viewed.


----------



## steve0223 (Dec 11, 2010)

gphoto: great images. But 'documenting' isn't an apolitical act. Its potentially evidence gathering. i am surprised you don't realise that. You have added captions to the images which give context. That context could potentially be used against the people involved as evidence. You have published the photos on the internet. You have a direct responsibility to those in the photos. If you don't accept that then make it clear, and then put up your photo so people know that it is not acceptable for you to take photos of them.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 11, 2010)

GuerillaPhoto said:


> As I have said before, I was there to document, if the protester did not cover his face, that's his fault not mine, the police were filming the whole thing as well, if he is stupid enough to do it in the first place without covering his face, what does he expect?


 
so maybe you'll understand if someone neutralises your camera next time ?


----------



## dylans (Dec 11, 2010)

steve0223 said:


> gphoto: great images. But 'documenting' isn't an apolitical act. Its potentially evidence gathering. i am surprised you don't realise that. You have added captions to the images which give context. That context could potentially be used against the people involved as evidence. You have published the photos on the internet. You have a direct responsibility to those in the photos. If you don't accept that then make it clear, and then put up your photo so people know that it is not acceptable for you to take photos of them.


 
I'm a little concerned about these demands for GP to doctor his images. It amounts to a demand for censorship and that makes me uneasy. Every person who engages in confrontation of a nature that puts them at risk of arrest KNOWS that they are being filmed and photographed in an unprecidented manner by state and civilian alike. It is their responsibility to take precautions.  Be assured that if GP has a photo of someone breaking a window the cops do too. People have to take individual responsibility for their actions not act foolishly then bleat about the fact that they are recorded. Calling for GP to now censor his images is to demand that censorship replace common sense. I don't like that. I am opposed to censorship in all its forms and we do ourselves no favours by censoring ourselves because people are too foolish to THINK about their actions.


----------



## dylans (Dec 11, 2010)

cantsin said:


> so maybe you'll understand if someone neutralises your camera next time ?


 
and that is just fucking stupid.  You want to attack journalists instead of exercising some personal responsibility??

One of the justifications for supporting militant or violent confrontation is an understanding that peaceful protests are ignored. Now you are crying because they are NOT ignored.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> You want to attack journalists instead of exercising some personal responsibility??



Only online. 

Catshit's the _internet_ hardman, dontchaknow????


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> This needs to be viewed.


Catches the clautrophobia very well.


----------



## where to (Dec 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> and that is just fucking stupid.  You want to attack journalists instead of exercising some personal responsibility??
> 
> One of the justifications for supporting militant or violent confrontation is an understanding that peaceful protests are ignored. Now you are crying because they are NOT ignored.


 
ah, morality...  that gets a bit complicated though doesn't it?

lets keep it simple.  in his own words, "what does he expect".

(sorry GP but you've got to think this one through a bit more.)


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 11, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Did the Tahmeena Bax story get posted here?


 


> At Guy's and St Thomas' hospital, Bax said, the same officer debated with her over the merits of tuition fees, telling her she was "narrow minded" and should stop reading the Guardian and read the Telegraph and the Daily Mail more often.


That would be just what I needed to hear from a representative of the force that had just beaten me unconscious, while I was in hospital recovering from it.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> and that is just fucking stupid.  You want to attack journalists instead of exercising some personal responsibility??
> 
> One of the justifications for supporting militant or violent confrontation is an understanding that peaceful protests are ignored. Now you are crying because they are NOT ignored.



there''s a million camera's out there now, but if supposedly sympathetic people want to post up clips with people's faces visible in dodgy situations and then say "it's your responsibility to cover up " then they're no better than grasses / and  deserve treating as such - nothing "internet hardman" about it, you can't always be scarved up without attracting heat, anyone who's ever actually been in at the sharp end of  these situations ( ie: not you Spymaster you little creep ) knows the score.


----------



## steve0223 (Dec 11, 2010)

i'm sorry you feel 'uneasy'. I'm more concerned that kids don't get sent to prison. It's not about supporting 'militant violent protests' - i'm supporting comrades, showing solidarity. It's not neutral. And neither are you. 'Censorship is what the state does to supress freedom. What we are on about is making sure that we are not providing evidence to help send someone to prison. 

Oh, and neutralising a camera owned by someone who says they are happy for the images to be used by the state is not 'attacking a journalist' i.e windows don't have feelings.

Gphoto: how will you feel if someone goes down because of one of your photos corroberating evidence? What if its one of the people you eloquently write about on your blog as being a 'normal' person who was driven to doing whatever they had to do to help them and their friends be safe?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 11, 2010)

GuerillaPhoto said:


> As I have said before, I was there to document, if the protester did not cover his face, that's his fault not mine, the police were filming the whole thing as well, if he is stupid enough to do it in the first place without covering his face, what does he expect?


 
So you're not a supporter of the protesters, then. 

How disappointing.


----------



## steve0223 (Dec 11, 2010)

double post


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> I'm a little concerned about these demands for GP to doctor his images. It amounts to a demand for censorship and that makes me uneasy. Every person who engages in confrontation of a nature that puts them at risk of arrest KNOWS that they are being filmed and photographed in an unprecidented manner by state and civilian alike. It is their responsibility to take precautions.  Be assured that if GP has a photo of someone breaking a window the cops do too. People have to take individual responsibility for their actions not act foolishly then bleat about the fact that they are recorded. Calling for GP to now censor his images is to demand that censorship replace common sense. I don't like that. I am opposed to censorship in all its forms and we do ourselves no favours by censoring ourselves because people are too foolish to THINK about their actions.


 
I completely disagree with that. Of course protesters have to take responsibility upon themselves to protect their identities. That in no way takes away from the responsibility gp has not to expose their identities if he films them, if he is to present himself as a supporter of the protest. If he does not do that, he is not a supporter. He is a supporter of the state, in fact.

He should change his name, in fact. 'Guerrilla photo' is highly misleading.


----------



## dylans (Dec 11, 2010)

cantsin said:


> there''s a million camera's out there now, but if supposedly sympathetic people want to post up clips with people's faces visible in dodgy situations and then say "it's your responsibility to cover up " then they're no better than grasses / and  deserve treating as such - nothing "internet hardman" about it, anyone who's ever actually been in at the sharp end of  these situations ( ie: not you Spymaster you little creep ) knows the score.


 
Believe me, I have been in the "sharp end of these situations far far more than you. What you are calling for amounts to a demand for censorship nothing less. Fuck you. You don't get to tell me what I can see or photograph or record. If we follow your logic we would have no footage of the poll tax riots, miners strike, greece, italy, the list goes on. We would have only heavily edited and heavily censored images of blacked out faces. That's utterly self defeating. Here is an idea. Wear a fucking mask.


----------



## where to (Dec 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> I'm a little concerned about these demands for GP to doctor his images. It amounts to a demand for censorship and that makes me uneasy. Every person who engages in confrontation of a nature that puts them at risk of arrest KNOWS that they are being filmed and photographed in an unprecidented manner by state and civilian alike. It is their responsibility to take precautions.  Be assured that if GP has a photo of someone breaking a window the cops do too. People have to take individual responsibility for their actions not act foolishly then bleat about the fact that they are recorded. Calling for GP to now censor his images is to demand that censorship replace common sense. I don't like that. I am opposed to censorship in all its forms and we do ourselves no favours by censoring ourselves because people are too foolish to THINK about their actions.


 
who said solidarity was dead.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 11, 2010)

steve0223 said:


> Oh, and VANDALISING a camera owned by someone who says they are happy for the images to be used by the state is not 'attacking a journalist' i.e windows don't have feelings.



There, I've corrected that for you - after all, we can't possibly have folk wandering around free to take piccies of whatever they want - can we?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> Believe me, I have been in the "sharp end of these situations far far more than you. What you are calling for amounts to a demand for censorship nothing less. Fuck you. You don't get to tell me what I can see or photograph or record. If we follow your logic we would have no footage of the poll tax riots, miners strike, greece, italy, the list goes on. We would have only heavily edited and heavily censored images of blacked out faces. That's utterly self defeating. Here is an idea. Wear a fucking mask.


 
Utter rubbish. It is no different from changing a person's name if you're writing a report. If you are on the side of the protesters, you do not publicise film of them breaking any laws with their faces uncovered.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 11, 2010)

cantsin said:


> .... anyone who's ever actually been in at the sharp end of  these situations knows the score.



The only "sharp end" you've been in at is the sharp end of a dogs cock, you bullshitting wanker.

Still threatening people by PM, cunt?


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 11, 2010)

GuerillaPhoto said:


> As I have said before, I was there to document, if the protester did not cover his face, that's his fault not mine, the police were filming the whole thing as well, if he is stupid enough to do it in the first place without covering his face, what does he expect?


 
Any chance you might want to help the security services for nowt, mister 'guerilla' (lol) intelligence tool?


----------



## cantsin (Dec 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> Believe me, I have been in the "sharp end of these situations far far more than you. What you are calling for amounts to a demand for censorship nothing less. Fuck you. You don't get to tell me what I can see or photograph or record. If we follow your logic we would have no footage of the poll tax riots, miners strike, greece, italy, the list goes on. We would have only heavily edited and heavily censored images of blacked out faces. That's utterly self defeating. Here is an idea. Wear a fucking mask.



are you drunk or something ? Me personally,I'm not going to be on camera up to all sorts with my ugly mug on display to all and sundry, but if some enthusiastic kids are, then yes, GP and the like need to be thinking about blanking out faces etc afterwards. If not, then all active participants need to be thinking about preventing the likes of GP filming at the time, as they are a dangerous liability. And if this happens to mean your riot porn stash of the future suffers, tough shit sunshine - now how about you get a grip and drop this one, it's not constructive.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

steve0223 said:


> Censorship is what the state does to supress freedom. What we are on about is making sure that we are not providing evidence to help send someone to prison.?



This is the point. I'm surprised by you, dylans, shouting censorship.


----------



## where to (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Poll tax riots, miners strike...
> 
> Here is an idea. Wear a fucking mask.


 
20 yrs since poll tax and people still doing it.  most of them on thursday are kids who probably never thought they'd end the day defending themselves from/ fighting the police.  and you're basically saying, fuck them.  fuck their futures.

if you were simply against the rioters per se that would be a logical position and more stomach-able, but if you think you're on their side, well with that position, you're just not.


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

cantsin said:


> are you drunk or something ? Me personally,I'm not going to be on camera up to all sorts with my ugly mug on display to all and sundry, but if some enthusiastic kids are, then yes, GP and the like need to be thinking about blanking out faces etc afterwards. If not, then all active participants need to be thinking about preventing the likes of GP filming at the time, as they are a dangerous liability. And if this happens to mean your riot porn stash of the future suffers, tough shit sunshine - n*ow how about you get a grip and drop this one, it's not constructive.*



And threatening to attack journalists is constructive? Uncensored images by sympathetic journo's help our side. They tell our side of the story and (as the footage of the kettle above shows) go someway to rebalancing the bullshit in the mainstream media. Start demanding censorship and we lose that weapon. 

It is absurd to claim that images shot by sympathetic journo's will be used to prosecute rioters. As the press will no doubt demonstrate in the coming days. They have all the images they want. Better to emphasise a simple fact. Rioting without a mask will get you caught, end of.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Believe me, I have been in the "sharp end of these situations far far more than you.



Seems rather unlikely, given this bizarre stance you have about encouraging photographers to do the state's work for them. What is more probable is that you masturbate over such stuff and need to see their faces to bring you to a climax.


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is the point. I'm surprised by you, dylans, shouting censorship.


 
Read anything I have ever written. I am entirely consistent. I believe the truth is ALWAYS our ally.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> It is absurd to claim that images shot by sympathetic journo's will be used to prosecute rioters.


 
It is? You seem to think that the coppers will have caught every act on camera, every face clearly seen. You overestimate the competence of the police.


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Seems rather unlikely, given this bizarre stance you have about encouraging photographers to do the state's work for them. What is more probable is that you masturbate over such stuff and need to see their faces to bring you to a climax.



Poll Tax riot. Miners strike. Wapping. Bangkok. Phnom Penh. Gaza. West Bank. I have nothing to prove to you.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Read anything I have ever written. I am entirely consistent. I believe the truth is ALWAYS our ally.


 
If I've smashed windows in on a march, the truth is not my ally. The truth will land me with two years in prison. 

That's simplistic nonsense.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> They have all the images they want. Better to emphasise a simple fact. Rioting without a mask will get you caught, end of.



No. The images they have are at specific locations - the cenotaph, the 'discarded' police van etc etc. You want to provide them with further evidence of ehat they regard as a crime scene as that makes you radical or something.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 12, 2010)

I have shown up on a youtube video that got pulled and I did not cover up. Both sides have a point. I turned up not intending to get involved in anything that would attract attention but go sucked in by the need for bodies to 'defend protest space' so to speak. I am pretty happy the video with my mug got pulled but have to take responsiblity for my face appearing, whats more the police and the company involved probibly have some kind of footage of me. As I tend to be involved in non violent stuff I am more in favour of images appearing as they have a higher likelyhood of getting people off than implicating them in what the state considers criminality. Having literally had a couple of coppers pulling at me trying to get me out the crowd I feel that you have to take responsibility for covering your identity. Too many people with cameras and besides the coppers and companies have more than enough of their own.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Poll Tax riot. Miners strike. Wapping. Bangkok. Phnom Penh. Gaza. West Bank. I have nothing to prove to you.


 
I don't dispute you've 'been there'. But maybe as just an observer?

Why else would you place active participants' identities into the hands of the enemy? To be thanked?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> I have shown up on a youtube video that got pulled and I did not cover up. Both sides have a point. I turned up not intending to get involved in anything that would attract attention but go sucked in by the need for bodies to 'defend protest space' so to speak. I am pretty happy the video with my mug got pulled but have to take responsiblity for my face appearing, whats more the police and the company involved probibly have some kind of footage of me. As I tend to be involved in non violent stuff I am more in favour of images appearing as they have a higher likelyhood of getting people off than implicating them in what the state considers criminality. Having literally had a couple of coppers pulling at me trying to get me out the crowd I feel that you have to take responsibility for covering your identity. Too many people with cameras and besides the coppers and companies have more than enough of their own.


 
I can only really repeat what I said before. It is one thing for me to tell people to cover up so that the police cannot identify them. It is quite another thing for me to tell people to cover up so that I cannot identify them for the police.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Poll Tax riot. Miners strike. Wapping. Bangkok. Phnom Penh. Gaza. West Bank. I have nothing to prove to you.


 
I couldn't care less where you've been tbh, that doesn't make you any less wrong.


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I couldn't care less where you've been t
> bh, that doesn't make you any less wrong.


 
I have little interest in mentioning it either. It was in response to this offensive bollocks by c66. 



> What is more probable is that you masturbate over such stuff and need to see their faces to bring you to a climax.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> I have little interest in mentioning it either. It was in response to this offensive bollocks by c66.


 
I'm rarely offensive tbh. But I get riled when someone who is allegedly on my side defends themselves as being a useful idiot for the state. I want to slap your face to be honest mate. But I apologise for being rude.


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can only really repeat what I said before. It is one thing for me to tell people to cover up so that the police cannot identify them. It is quite another thing for me to tell people to cover up so that I cannot identify them for the police.


 
Ok. After thinking about it. You are right and I am wrong.  Even if the state has a million images we shouldn't make their job easier. I'm convinced. A journo who is on our side has a responsibilty over and above a journo who claims to be neutral. 

GP you should black out the faces.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Take the same person, take them out of the uniform and out of the circumstances and they would probibly give you a wonderful well reasoned explanation of extreme circumstances that none but the most hardline here would cast doubt on. They know right from wrong.
> 
> When they put on the uniform and get they swept away in the tribal tide of agro on a demonstration then the rationality leaves. Striking someone with blows to the head is just dumb, its career threatening and even jail threatening in the day of handset cameras and youtube. But still in the febrile heat of battle they do it. *You can train people out of getting into that state*, but it takes will from on high.


 
I've made exactly that point to a certain apologist on this forum a number of times over the years, but he just assumes I'm being anti-police and pro-military (because the military were/are trained not to let the red mist take over).


----------



## ymu (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Poll Tax riot. Miners strike. Wapping. Bangkok. Phnom Penh. Gaza. West Bank. I have nothing to prove to you.


 
If you've done stuff in Gaza and the West Bank, you'll know how important it is to check with Palestinians before using their name or image in any kind of report. Or did you just ignore all that stuff because you know better?

E2A: sorry, missed that last page. Kudos for backing down.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

@ Dylans


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> But it's not though is it? Time and again, for fucking decades, we have seen cops get away with battering people with impunity. They know nothing will happen if they crack skulls, so .....they crack skulls.


 
Although I'm not convinced that better coverage/footage/evidence of police misdeeds will result in any greater degree of disciplinary/criminal action against them, what it will and *does* do is make it clear to an ever-wider proportion of the public that the police can and do get away with violence up to and including murder.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 12, 2010)

belboid said:


> the cigar anecdote of Burgess' shows clearly it was not simply his politics.  It was him.


 
I see that you think you're too clever for everyday folks.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Ok. After thinking about it. You are right and I am wrong.  Even if the state has a million images we shouldn't make their job easier. I'm convinced. A journo who is on our side has a responsibilty over and above a journo who claims to be neutral.
> 
> GP you should black out the faces.


 
I seldom see people back down anywhere. I take my hat off to you (if I was wearing one).


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> A journo who is on our side has a responsibilty over and above a journo who claims to be neutral.


 
A journo on anyone's side, is not a genuine journo.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Believe me, I have been in the "sharp end of these situations far far more than you. What you are calling for amounts to a demand for censorship nothing less. Fuck you. You don't get to tell me what I can see or photograph or record. If we follow your logic we would have no footage of the poll tax riots, miners strike, greece, italy, the list goes on. We would have only heavily edited and heavily censored images of blacked out faces. That's utterly self defeating. Here is an idea. Wear a fucking mask.


 
To be fair, you're talking about kids with fuck-all experience of the kind of shit-rain that can be brought down on their heads, so they don't know to carry a scarf or similar, same as they don't know to pad over their kidneys. They don't know any better, and perhaps "old hands", rather than having a rant because they didn't mask up, could do something constructive, like putting the word out that carrying an oversized hankie can be good for your health.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> A journo on anyone's side, is not a genuine journo.


 
All journalists take sides. The only ones worth shit are the ones who know which side they have taken.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 12, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> A journo on anyone's side, is not a genuine journo.


 
Then a 'genuine journo' is an oxymoron.

Everyone has a side. Whether they are documenting things from their view or paid to represent other people's views.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> And threatening to attack journalists is constructive? Uncensored images by sympathetic journo's help our side. They tell our side of the story and (as the footage of the kettle above shows) go someway to rebalancing the bullshit in the mainstream media. Start demanding censorship and we lose that weapon.
> 
> It is absurd to claim that images shot by sympathetic journo's will be used to prosecute rioters. As the press will no doubt demonstrate in the coming days. They have all the images they want. Better to emphasise a simple fact. Rioting without a mask will get you caught, end of.


 
You're kind of missing the point of confirmatory evidence. Having someone on one camera, from one perspective,  doing something naughty, can be argued, along the lines of "that's not my client, it's someone who just happens to look like him from that angle/perspective". Add various other photographic perspectives of the event to that and it helps *them* build a stronger case.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> All journalists take sides. The only ones worth shit are the ones who know which side they have taken.


 
Then he/she becomes a commentator. Not a journalist.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 12, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Then a 'genuine journo' is an oxymoron.


 
As are all arbitrators.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 12, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Then he/she becomes a commentator. Not a journalist.


 
They take their megaphone to the races?


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 12, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> As are all arbitrators.


 
Show me a 'genuine journalist' and then I'll provide evidence of God. You first.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 12, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> They take their megaphone to the races?


 
And genuine journalists don't automtically believe that man has ever walked on the moon.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 12, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> And genuine journalists don't automtically believe that man has ever walked on the moon.


 
The cameraman was the first man on the moon. I told you years ago.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Then he/she becomes a commentator. Not a journalist.


 
you clearly haven't understood my point. There is no such thing as a neutral report. The reporter may not realise this, and may not realise which side he or she is taking in filing the report. That reporter is the one that is not worth shit.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> you clearly haven't understood my point. There is no such thing as a neutral report. The reporter may not realise this, and may not realise which side he or she is taking in filing the report. That reporter is the one that is not worth shit.


 
Perfectly displayed by the BBC whom the right accuse of having a 'left bias' and the (genuine) left counter accuse.


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> you clearly haven't understood my point. There is no such thing as a neutral report. The reporter may not realise this, and may not realise which side he or she is taking in filing the report. That reporter is the one that is not worth shit.


 
A reporter is not a journalist.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Ok. After thinking about it. You are right and I am wrong.  Even if the state has a million images we shouldn't make their job easier. I'm convinced. A journo who is on our side has a responsibilty over and above a journo who claims to be neutral.
> 
> GP you should black out the faces.



respect


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 12, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> A reporter is not a journalist.


 
Yes they are in one definition of the word. The definition we happen to be discussing, as it happens.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> A reporter is not a journalist.



For someone who takes others to task for what you perceive to be pedantry, you're being rather pedantic.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 12, 2010)

And also incorrect in that pedantry.


----------



## Weller (Dec 12, 2010)

GuerillaPhoto said:


> As I have said before, I was there to document, if the protester did not cover his face, that's his fault not mine, the police were filming the whole thing as well, if he is stupid enough to do it in the first place without covering his face, what does he expect?


 
Then why do you see that its any different for the Urban Explorers that you have blanked out some of  the faces of in your Catacombs Urban Exploration pictures etc , or is that because its you ? 
Surely the same applies to you or them  or do you make a choice of who you want to black out ?

Surely theres enough corruption going on in these demos without making it easier for those that wish to build up anger and then photograph it for the front pages , the kids new to the demos that dont understand the implications of photos being displayed all over the net deserve better imo







If you can show respect for the Urban Explorers who wish to remain anon then why the difference here , the "explorers"  at least know that you are going to put them all over the net and seem to have a choice , the demonstrators you are walking amongst do not


----------



## ymu (Dec 12, 2010)




----------



## revol68 (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Believe me, I have been in the "sharp end of these situations far far more than you. What you are calling for amounts to a demand for censorship nothing less. Fuck you. You don't get to tell me what I can see or photograph or record. If we follow your logic we would have no footage of the poll tax riots, miners strike, greece, italy, the list goes on. We would have only heavily edited and heavily censored images of blacked out faces. That's utterly self defeating. Here is an idea. Wear a fucking mask.


 
what a load of liberal shit.

if you are supposed to be supporting the protesters and you want to publish photos of people engaging in illegal activity you should blur their faces if they aren't masked and even if they are masked maybe think about blurring other tell tale signs, if you don't do that because of some wanky notion of "THE TRUTH" or some other myth of freedom of speech you are a cunt who puts their shitty little fucking photos above solidarity and support for those taking risks in opposing these cuts.

if people are going to use their apparent support for the protesters to move freely amongst them then they need to show real support by protecting these protesters from the police by not providing usable evidence to the cops. if they don't have the decency or solidarity to do that then they should expect to have their camera's smashed if they try and move freely through such demonstrators taking photos that help the police.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 12, 2010)

He changed stance btw.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 12, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I seldom see people back down anywhere. I take my hat off to you (if I was wearing one).


 
aye fair play dylans.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 12, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> He changed stance btw.


 
oh did he? fair fucks then.


----------



## editor (Dec 12, 2010)

Everywhere I've been since the demo, every single person I've spoken to - and that's including people from a fairly wide range of ages and backgrounds - has had nothing but total support and admiration for the students' protest.

*loving it


----------



## revol68 (Dec 12, 2010)




----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Dec 12, 2010)

Lambeth UNISON was there with Lambeth SOS and our banners. The protestors, especially as so many were so young, were brave and determined.

The police brutality was there to cow people and turn them off demos, it did nothing of the sort. People defended themselves, and even kettled a section of the police at one time. I'm glad that nearly everyone I have spoken to has supported the students. It should be said again and again the real violence is the government hammering the public sector and welfare benefits, a result that will kill 10,000s and ruin millions of lives. That's violence, real violence.

The police once again show they will do anything they are told, no matter how injust or brutal. They were battering people as young as 14 and 15 and pulled one bloke out of his wheelchair. Well done to those who defended themselves and this is only the beginning.

Also Cameron makes me sick, talking about "ferrel" trouble makers. The public school, fucking toff, his class prejudices couldn't be any more sickening. I can't wait until the smug look is wiped off the face of Cameron and Clegg and they have the look of Charles and Camilla in that car.


----------



## where to (Dec 12, 2010)

Cameron on student rioting:

"Things got out of hand..we smashed the place up & Boris set fire to the toilets”

http://is.gd/iA8W0


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I seldom see people back down anywhere. I take my hat off to you (if I was wearing one).


 
It doesn't happen very often 

But perhaps I should explain why I had to reconsider. 

I do believe that the truth is our ally and I don't want to see a situation where demonstrators see all journos as the enemy or where people are afraid to take pics etc. I am proud of the images that are being shown around the globe. I am proud that at last people are seen to fight back. I just love the images of people shouting "off with their heads" at Charles. As someone said at last we can hold our heads up in front of the Greeks and Italians. These images are precious and liberating and have made my Christmas. This was the best thing to happen since the Poll Tax riots.

Images and footage are also vital in telling the real truth of what happened.As they were when Ian Tomlinson was murdered. The footage of the police kettle on the Bridge is really chilling. As some may remember I posted about the terrible Bridge crush in Cambodia that killed 500 people. Watching the police continually push people into the centre of the Bridge reminded me of that and people can be heard shouting you are going to kill people."  Those images and images like them are coming out and they are a greatest weapons to counter the lies of the mainstream press.

However

We know that those same images are being scanned right now in order to launch a witch hunt (and I fear it is going to be a big one) The cops are going to try and stamp resistance out right now, to break its back. The mugshots of demonstrators are going to be paraded in the newspapers along calls to shop people. Its becoming a predictable post demo ritual.That puts journalists in a difficult situation and NUJ members should be raising this within their unions. Don't act as the eyes of a witch hunt and be surprised when you are not welcome at demos. 

Now I don't want a situation where we are attacking journos and breaking cameras. I think the mainstream press is a mixed blessing and there isn't much we can do on the ground except cover up etc. But when demonstrators or people who claim sympathy for the demonstrations publish the images they take on blogs etc the situation is different. You can not be on the side of the demonstrators and then claim to be simply observing and recording. There is no neutrality. not when those images will be used to hunt down those you claim to support. If you take sides (and GP does) then you have a responsibility to those whose lives and liberty may be at risk from your images.


For these reasons I was convinced and said so. So the question is now whether GP is going to blur the faces on his photos?


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 12, 2010)

Fair play to you Dylan for seeing the other side and backing down. People should be following the filth around and plastering their mugshots everywhere so even off duty they get the cold shoulder.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> http://i.imgur.com/xFQY8.jpg



Could do with a cleaned-up version of that for my office wall ..


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 12, 2010)

Good post (# 2084) there from dylans, totally agree with that, and fair play for the change in mind.



past caring said:


> Checking back, it's clear you're correct and that I was mistaken in lumping you in with the usual suspects. I apologise. I'm glad that you're supporting the protests.



Apology accepted and fair play to you too.

I can also echo a couple of other posts above, everyone I've spoken to over the last few days have broadly been in support of the students over the actual demo, even though some actually support the government's policy, and have taken positions between questioning and totally condemning the police operation.

It seems a massive home goal for the met; sadly I am not convinced it will lead to changes in tactics.


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 12, 2010)

'home goal'? What's that?


----------



## BigTom (Dec 12, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> I can also echo a couple of other posts above, everyone I've spoken to over the last few days have broadly been in support of the students over the actual demo, even though some actually support the government's policy, and have taken positions between questioning and totally condemning the police operation.



I'm afraid I have to disagree with this, there's been a mixture, those who are already broadly supportive of demos etc. or have been on ones where they've faced police violence would agree, but I've had just as many people bemoaning the attack on charles and camilla ("no love for the royals but they are just an old couple, if it were my parents/grandparents they would have been terrified, it's not nice" kind of line, not a "but it's the royal family gaw'd bless 'em" kind of thing) or the treasury window smashing.  
wrt to the violence on the police side, they think it's not right, but don't want to blame the police solely, see it as a bit on both sides.  Plenty of talk of dangerous anarchists causing trouble and out for a fight, not real students.. Agreement that if someone has been seriously hospitalised, then the police have done something wrong, but no recognition of that being an endemic or structural wrongness in the police, more blame on the dangerous anarchists out for a ruck than the dangerous police out for a ruck.

They need to get on a demo and face the riot police, then they will understand.

It is a mix though - just as many saying good on the students and that the policing was wrong, esp. wrt the kettling on westminster bridge and kettling of young teenagers, even the odd who fucking cares about some windows type thing, I'm the only one actively supporting the attacks on charles and camilla though (or openly anyway).

Having said that, I can't think of anyone who actually supports the fees/ema/education funding cuts either.. some who think that it's necessary/unavoidable etc. but none who actually support them.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 12, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> A journo on anyone's side, is not a genuine journo.



What utter rubbish. What side do you think the _Daily Telegraph's_ journos are on? Are you really that naive that you think news comes to us without any connection to ideology?


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 12, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> 'home goal'? What's that?


 
In your living room rather than on the pitch.


----------



## revlon (Dec 12, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> 'home goal'? What's that?


----------



## editor (Dec 12, 2010)

The Met release 'most wanted' mugshots...






http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11977634

Anyone seen any of these 'snooker balls', btw?


----------



## creak (Dec 12, 2010)

Is there a Met snitch email address we can fill with goatse?


----------



## audiotech (Dec 12, 2010)

Initially, Alfie refused to be admitted for treatment at first hospital. Decision had been taken the hospital to be for injured police only! Ambulance workers became so angry at this and demanded that he be admitted, which he was eventually. 



http://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Alfie-Meadows/137723072947484


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Now I don't want a situation where we are attacking journos and breaking cameras.



Why not - that sort of unjustifiable random violence/vandalism is less llikely to increase the disgust that is has built up amongst the great British public as opposed to vandalising public property/monuments and attacking pensioners.

If it means that a few photographers get "Newt-walised" (hospitalised with vandalised property), then so be it - they "deserved" it as enemies of the wevolution woop-woop (high fives and a bottle of cheapo cider all round).


----------



## audiotech (Dec 12, 2010)

It's good you've not been voted by the great British public to speak on their behalf Cobbles.


----------



## GuerillaPhoto (Dec 12, 2010)

OK just a quick response to this shitstorm which seems to have occurred because I posted some pics.


OK I am not a grass, what I am is photographing a situation which was photographed by thousands of people (seriously) and also the FIT Police photographer was stood photographing said man throwing the fence at the officers, I even told him he needed to cover up his face as I did to many others, his response was to basically say "I dont fucking care".

Everyone in that square was being photographed by FIT, Journalists, random people with cameras. Maybe he should have covered his face maybe he did not care. This is what journalism is, its documenting a situation in front of you without any censorship, you may notice I dont blur police officers faces either even when they are laughing and hitting protesters etc....

As for the Urban Exploration side of things, there are plenty of images of me online, I dont blur my face anymore. As for the people who are with me, thats their choice, we are in a space which does not have hundreds of photographers, CCTV, FIT etc... and not a public space. Therefore to preserve their jobs etc... they blur faces.

Yes some of you may disagree, but are you contacting newspapers as well? 

I support the students but disagree with the violent attacks by both Police and Protesters on each other.

As for attacking my camera, I am sure you are aware the biased that has been put on this story only to be exposed by Independent photographers and videographers, without us the police would have been a LOT worse.


----------



## past caring (Dec 12, 2010)

Thatcher's fucking children.....


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Dec 12, 2010)

> as opposed to vandalising public property/monuments and attacking pensioners.



Do you mean the government attacks on public services and attempt to decimate them and the police attacks on young and old?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> Was this the first time kettling was used in the UK?


No.  Containment has been a standard part of public order policing since forever.  It was _absolutely_ routine at the time of major football related disorder in the 80s.

Just because you have now invented a "cool" new name for it doesn't mean it's anything new.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 12, 2010)

past caring said:


> Thatcher's fucking children.....



Not all are as you suggest.....


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 12, 2010)

@ BigTom, that’s why I said ‘broadly’ in support. 

I’ve had conversations where there’s outrage about the attack on the royals, and about that dickhead Gilmore, but I tend to steer the conversation away from these sideshows and focus more on the main demo. Same applies to those bringing-up the subject of those ‘intent on trouble’, normally easily dealt with by asking if they believe a small minority should prevent the massive majority who want to peacefully protest.

Once you cut through that crap and focus on horse charges against innocent kids, the kettles, the beatings especially on people’s heads, dragging that guy out of the wheelchair, etc., etc., it becomes impossible for reasonable people not to be broadly in support of the students. 

Personally I didn’t think the attack on the royals was a very bright idea, although somewhat amusing, because it was clear that would be the main photo on the front page of every newspaper and the main item on the broadcast news. 

Had that not happened, the focus would still have been on the demo and the main photos would have been those of the treasury window smashing, which would have avoided the ‘extra outrage’ caused by the royals & Gilmore photos that distracted from the real issues and debate.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

Zabo said:


> I heard this guy on the radio this morning.


Me too.  Hearing his account of the two occasions on which he was pulled from his chair, the first sounds like it might be justifiable (he was with a group and the police were clearing them / pushing them back) but the second doeasn't (he says he was just on the sidelines and an officer from the first incident recognised him, ran over and dragged him out of his chair and across the pavement for 15yds before just being left there).  If he wants to hold the officers to account I hope he Or anyone else who witnessed it) is complaining.

What was especially bizarre was that he says he was struck with a baton during the first incident ... but he didn't seem to have any issue with that at all.  Assuming he didn't have any weapon, I find it very difficult to see how a baton strike on someone in a wheelchair can ever be justified.


----------



## revlon (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  Containment has been a standard part of public order policing since forever.  It was _absolutely_ routine at the time of major football related disorder in the 80s.
> 
> Just because you have now invented a "cool" new name for it doesn't mean it's anything new.


 
no, 'kettling' a very specific logistical operation. Containment is containment, a cordon is a cordon, kettling requires the application of a pre-planned strategy of containment involving police cordons, resulting in a mass of peole being held unlawfully and against their will in an ever tighter pen for a long period of time before being released individually to be photographed and have their details taken.

All this was explained in the judical review of the mayday 2001 kettle by the various gold and silver commanders. 

Desk jockeys may be able to deal with drunken assaults and minor staurday night skirmishes but don't pretend you know the workings of your superiors.


----------



## revlon (Dec 12, 2010)

revlon said:


> no, 'kettling' a very specific logistical operation. Containment is containment, a cordon is a cordon, kettling requires the application of a pre-planned strategy of containment involving police cordons, resulting in a mass of peole being held unlawfully and against their will in an ever tighter pen for a long period of time before being released individually to be photographed and have their details taken.
> 
> All this was explained in the judical review of the mayday 2001 kettle by the various gold and silver commanders.
> 
> Desk jockeys may be able to deal with drunken assaults and minor staurday night skirmishes but don't pretend you know the workings of your superiors.


 
also it's decidely _not _about public order it's used for a very specific ideological purpose -  stopping protestors coming back to the next demo (this was at a time when summit protests were all the rage). 

Despite the obvious crossover kettling footie fans just doesn't serve the same purpose.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> From a very good article posted to Libcom, "On violence against the police - The Commune".


Articles such as that absolutely justify very robust and restrictive policing tactics from the outset of every protest which could be considered as being against the State.  If you subscribe to that view then I look forward to you explaining that "Someone has to say it: mass violence against the police inevitably means that the police will use restrictive and robust policing tactics from an early stage, to defend themselves let alone the interests they are defending.  We wish it wasn't but it is.  The reason is simple: the protestors are intent on attacking the State unconditionally and the police are the only part of the State actually available for physical attack so they attacked without remorse - or even a second thought.  Reasonable police officers yearn for a compromise, whereby they facilitate peaceful and lawful protest: but the extremist protestors aren't listening.  Neither should the rest.".


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Hotly denied by the est. though...


Mainly because there weren't ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

GuerillaPhoto said:


> I support the students but disagree with the violent attacks by both Police and Protesters on each other.



So basically you wash your hands of responsibility for the consequences of what you do. 

Your whole post is a feeble self-justification, but this bit is particularly feeble. Who started the violent attacks? Who is in hospital with brain damage after a violent attack? Who has the full protection of the law to stop them from ever being prosecuted for their violent attacks? 

Charging a crowd on horseback is a violent attack. Kettling is a violent attack. Yet you say that you 'disagree' with any protesters fighting back after being attacked? 

That's a pathetic excuse to try to make yourself feel better. I doubt you really believe it yourself, and I'm certainly not going to accept any of what you've said in this post as justification for what you are doing.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 12, 2010)

revlon said:


> in an ever tighter pen for a long period of time



These two things, combined with the beatings & use of horses, are what I can’t get my head around.

I can see some logic in containment, but to keep pushing the crowd and shouting ‘go back’ when they know there’s nowhere for them to go because the other end is another load of coppers doing the same. To then start attacking people and moving horses in to achieve something that is clearly impossible just beggars belief.

To quote Shami Chakrabarti, it seems a kettle is just designed to bring the crowd to boiling point. 

Whoever thinks that is a good idea is a complete twat IMO.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

Spymaster said:


> For some reason I thought you were suggesting that I was privately educated.


The context of the post, in a series of posts, gave that impression.  I had to read it twice to work out it wasn't you that was the alleged posh twat ...


----------



## revlon (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Articles such as that absolutely justify very robust and restrictive policing tactics from the outset of every protest which could be considered as being against the State.  If you subscribe to that view then I look forward to you explaining that "Someone has to say it: mass violence against the police inevitably means that the police will use restrictive and robust policing tactics from an early stage, to defend themselves let alone the interests they are defending.  We wish it wasn't but it is.  The reason is simple: the protestors are intent on attacking the State unconditionally and the police are the only part of the State actually available for physical attack so they attacked without remorse - or even a second thought.  Reasonable police officers yearn for a compromise, whereby they facilitate peaceful and lawful protest: but the extremist protestors aren't listening.  Neither should the rest.".


 
 



> Someone has to say it: mass violence against the police is necessary as part of any social struggle. We wish it wasn’t but it is. The reason is simple: the police defend the state unconditionally, the state defends capital unconditionally, and capital attacks us without remorse – or even a second thought. Reasonable liberals yearn for a compromise: but the state isn’t listening. Neither should protestors.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Will make very compelling evidence in any subsiquent court case that the kettle was punative in intent.


No.  It won't.  It will make very compelling evidence of the fact that there was a containment in place, involving the number of people shown, at the location shown, at about twelve minutes past ten.

It will not be _any evidence at all_, let alone "compelling evidence" of the purpose for which it was put in place ...


----------



## audiotech (Dec 12, 2010)

London Student Assembly Press Conference in three parts:


----------



## revlon (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  It won't.  It will make very compelling evidence of the fact that there was a containment in place, involving the number of people shown, at the location shown, at about twelve minutes past ten.
> 
> It will not be _any evidence at all_, let alone "compelling evidence" of the purpose for which it was put in place ...


 
 

At the judical review at the high court for mayday 2001 the reason the police gave for containing people for such a long period was that there were crowds of protestors outside the kettle who they couldn't get into the kettle therefore were unwilling to let people go home until everybody was kettled.

The mind of police tacticians is is a strange sometimes frightening place.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> NIce pics and account on your blog. Should you maybe blur some of the faces in the pics? If you've got a caption on a photo saying 'protesters launching fence into police lines' and it shows the faces of the protesters - well, from the point of view of the police that's a criminal act and your photos might be used as evidence. I know they probably took all the photos they wanted themselves but still...


Conflating two debates raging on the boards at the moment:

This would be an excellent example of the clash between (a) the right of all to freedom of expression and the "right", suggested to exist under that principle, of photographers to take any picture they like and publish it in any way that they like, without _any_ consideration of _any_ rights of the subject and, if the subject happened to know of the existence of the picture, without any consideration at all of the specific requests of the subject and (b) the right of an individual to privacy and their "right", suggested under that principle by me, of an individual to determine what happens to their image.

As it happens, this incident would fall under a number of exceptions to the general rule I would propose whereby the individual, if they became aware of the picture being taken would by default have the right to request that it be destroyed and / or not published in a particular way ... but it is an interesting example of the clash of the principles and rights / "rights" involved.

(Further discussion on the "What should you do if someone takes your photograph" thread in General to avoid derailing this one)


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

ymu said:


> Anonymous thug at the protest.


I trust you have made a complaint, with that footage as the evidence.


----------



## revlon (Dec 12, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> These two things, combined with the beatings & use of horses, are what I can’t get my head around.
> 
> I can see some logic in containment, but to keep pushing the crowd and shouting ‘go back’ when they know there’s nowhere for them to go because the other end is another load of coppers doing the same. To then start attacking people and moving horses in to achieve something that is clearly impossible just beggars belief.
> 
> ...


 
plus they do it in rotation. The frontline of riot police get replaced by fresh legs every hour or so, meaning they can hold people indefinitely. 

It is the perfect police tactic, it's just a shame they have to let people out at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2010)

What further info do we have about this London Student Assembly? I see a group of counter-fire COR people and they've already set up a praesidium...if anyone goes to the meeting this afternoon can they let us know their impressions please...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> Shit, hadn't seen that. This stuff needs to be circulated as widely as possible to combat the police story that they were simply defending themselves.


You are confusing two aspects: 

(1) : the police (as an organisation) are invariably correct when they say that they (as an organisation) are not the first to act violently and that their use of force (in the form of tactics used by them as an organisation) is invariably in an attempt to prevent disorder, violence and crime and / or to protect themselves (as an organisation).

(2) : it is patently obvious from many of the pieces of footage from any number of disturbances for many years, that an _individual_ police officer, using force as part of the police (as an organisation) deploying a particular tactic, of which they are but one officer, is frequently _not_ defending themselves (as an individual) from the particular individual protestor to whom they individually apply force whilst they _are_ defending themselves (or attempting to prevent disorder, violence and crime) from the protestors (as a crowd).

The law is clear on the use of force at the individual level: an officer using force must be able to justify it's use as against the _person_ to whom it is applied.  

It is less clear on the use of force, justifable at the higher level of police (organisation) v protestors (crowd), by an individual officer on an individual protestor.  I am not aware of an particular case in which the precise point has been considered by the appeal courts.  I have seen lots of lower level cases - magistrates / Crown Court - where the higher level justification appears to have been accepted by the magistrates / jury as making the individual use of force lawful ... but I am not at all sure that that would be the judgment of the appeal courts (where I would expect them to draw some sort of distinction between the inevitable need for the police (as an organisation) to apply force to the protest (as a crowd) as part of their fulfilling their duty to prevent crime and maintain the peace and the level of _individual_ force by an individual officer on an individual protestor which would be permissible simply on that basis (probably restricted to common assault level, and probably based on the principle that by participating in a demonstration you consent to the possibility of that level of force possibly being applied to you by the police (and by other protestors, pushing you around, etc.) in the same way that you consent to common assault as part of any contact sport).

The "debate" being had at the moment about "who started it" and "we only became violent because the police kettled us" is overly simplistic and will get nowhere.  The complexities of the situation, and the question of how the group level justifications for the use of force translate into the individual _actual_ uses of force by one member of one group on one member of another need to be acknowledged, considered and, ultimately, tested properly in the higher Courts.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> ... and the lies about that bloody van ...


Your evidence that they are "lies" being ...


----------



## audiotech (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  Containment has been a standard part of public order policing since forever.  It was _absolutely_ routine at the time of major football related disorder in the 80s.
> 
> Just because you have now invented a "cool" new name for it doesn't mean it's anything new.


 
Thousands of people being 'corralled' by the police, not being able to leave, having to stand in a line for hours and having their faces photographed is.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> they're not supposed to hit anyone on the head in a baton charge are they? just arms and legs?


Arms and legs are meant to be the principal target area.  The head is not supposed to be a target unless (a) there is no alternative target available AND (b) the use of fatal force can be justified.

The use of shields to push people back should also avoid using chops with the edge of the shield being applied to heads (for the same reasons and subject to the same exception).


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You are confusing two aspects:
> 
> (1) : the police (as an organisation) are invariably correct when they say that they (as an organisation) are not the first to act violently and that their use of force (in the form of tactics used by them as an organisation) is invariably in an attempt to prevent disorder, violence and crime and / or to protect themselves (as an organisation).
> 
> ...


 
What codswallop dressed up as logic - follow point 1 through and there can never be decisions taken above the level of the individual to be violent (of course, you don't extand this same logic to protesters do you?) when i think most of us know full well by know about, or have been involved in situations where violence has been used by the police as an organisation as part of an operation planned out well in advance. 

This is fantasy island stuff, it really is.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> What was especially bizarre was that he says he was struck with a baton during the first incident ... but he didn't seem to have any issue with that at all.  Assuming he didn't have any weapon, *I find it very difficult to see how a baton strike on someone in a wheelchair can ever be justified*.


I am sure this won't stump you for long...


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Assuming he didn't have any weapon, I find it very difficult to see how a baton strike on someone in a wheelchair can ever be justified.


 
just what he was guilty of not one of them can say
but they'll think of something in time


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You are confusing two aspects:
> 
> (1) : the police (as an organisation) are invariably correct when they say that they (as an organisation) are not the first to act violently and that their use of force (in the form of tactics used by them as an organisation) is invariably in an attempt to prevent disorder, violence and crime and / or to protect themselves (as an organisation).
> 
> (2) : it is patently obvious from many of the pieces of footage from any number of disturbances for many years, that an _individual_ police officer, using force as part of the police (as an organisation) deploying a particular tactic, of which they are but one officer, is frequently _not_ defending themselves (as an individual) from the particular individual protestor to whom they individually apply force whilst they _are_ defending themselves (or attempting to prevent disorder, violence and crime) from the protestors (as a crowd).


you fucking pedant


----------



## suburbia (Dec 12, 2010)

Hi - not posted here in ages (well except for couple of minutes ago on the car thread) but I was there in Parliament Square and at the front of the breakway group all the way - anyone else? Going to read as much of this thread today as my eyes can cope with as I'm still pretty knackered from it all.

Don't know if BristleKRS is still on here but saw him on Twitter. I'd not even been using it that much before Thursday but it was thanks to him I was in exactly the right places at the right time and didn't end up on Westminster Bridge! so much respect


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

Smurker said:


> I was just about to post that ymu.  Disgusting to think that the hospital would turn away anyone with a brain injury, props to the Ambulance driver for kicking off and getting him treatment.  I wouldn't be as angry if it was just a broken wrist or other such none-life-threatening injury but that is obscene.


It is absolutely standard practice for different hospitals to be allocated for casualties from different groups.  Usually it would be the two groups involved in protest and counterprotest (e.g. ADL and anti-fascists) or different football supporters but where it is likely to be protestors v police then that would be the categorisation.  The idea is that it reduces the potential for things to kick off again in the hospital (between those in the waiting area usually, not the actual patients (though that has happened!))  

This should be communicated to all ambulance staff involved in the operation prior to the event at briefings ... but sometimes ambulances from elsewhere get involved by mistake (which may be the case here, where it seems to have been stationary some distance away and, thus, may not have been part of the planned operation and, thus, not aware of the plan).

In such a situation it is absolutely understandable that if a "wrong" casualty turns up at a particular hospital then they should be redirected to the "right" one ... but that if there is a critical medical need then that should be addressed immediately (as seems to have happened here).  What you need to know before condemning the action of the hospital is _exactly_ what happened at Chelsea and Westminster and what the person knew about the situation when suggesting they go elsewhere.  From what Alfie's mother has said when interviewed on the news, it doesn't sound like it was more than an initial suggestion they were at the wrong place followed by the ambulance crew (robustly!) explaining there was a critical medical need and the hospital then dealing with it.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

ymu said:


> That's the number of the other officer thug, not the thug concealing their identity.


Sorry ... the evidence of _either_ of these officers actually using _any_ force has totally escaped me.  Could you remind us of the grounds for your confident statements that they are "thugs"?

Or can I assume that the people doing the filming and questioning are "violent protestors"?


----------



## Lock&Light (Dec 12, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> For someone who takes others to task for what you perceive to be pedantry, you're being rather pedantic.


 
I must be picking it up from you.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> When they put on the uniform and get they swept away in the tribal tide of agro on a demonstration then the rationality leaves. Striking someone with blows to the head is just dumb, its career threatening and even jail threatening in the day of handset cameras and youtube. But still in the febrile heat of battle they do it. You can train people out of getting into that state, but it takes will from on high.


A psychologist would undoubtedly agree that there is an aspect of group think that takes over in such situations (and, having experienced it, I know that it does and that it is difficult to maintain individual perspective) but the vast majority of officers are able to maintain an appropriate attitude and act perfectly properly.  In fact, just like there are examples of soldiers being reluctant to kill the enemy on an individual level, even when participating in an attack on a particular objective, I have observed officers reluctant to use significant force during a public order operation even when it is perfectly justifiable on an individual level (on one occasion resulting in a person lawfully arrested for a serious offence being freed and one of the arresting officers significantly injured).  

In terms of the use of force, there is a distinct difference between using force as an individual, on your individual decision and using force as a part of a team deploying a particular tactic, that _tactic_ (and inevitably the use of _some_ force) being decided by an operational commander.  That whole question has not been properly understood by senior police officers in terms of their modern equipment and tactics (it wasn't a particular issue when police officers only had trucheons and large scale tactics were difficult due to poor communication) and it has certainly not been built into training (though Denis O'Connor's report after G20 mentioned on it if I remember rightly)


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Time and again, for fucking decades, we have seen cops get away with battering people with impunity.


I'm not sure we have, certainly not on the same scale / with the same level of injury anyway.  The type of baton now available is very different from the old truncheon ... and we are seeing _far_ more "baton charges" than used to be the case as tactics have changed too.


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It is absolutely standard practice for different hospitals to be allocated for casualties from different groups.  Usually it would be the two groups involved in protest and counterprotest (e.g. ADL and anti-fascists) or different football supporters but where it is likely to be protestors v police then that would be the categorisation.  The idea is that it reduces the potential for things to kick off again in the hospital (between those in the waiting area usually, not the actual patients (though that has happened!))


 
I wish someone had told that to the cops who threw me in a cell with a BNP skinhead for 6 hours following a troops out march in the 1980s. Ever spend 6 hours in a tiny cell without speaking to the guy growling at you in the corner.? By unspoken agreement we would swap an hour at a time staring out of the gap in the door. Longest 6 hours I ever spent.


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 12, 2010)

Did he try to bum you?


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'm not sure we have, certainly not on the same scale / with the same level of injury anyway.  The type of baton now available is very different from the old truncheon ... and we are seeing _far_ more "baton charges" than used to be the case as tactics have changed too.


 
Since Thatchers days at least. I remember the battle for Orgreave  (when several miners recieved serious debilitating head injuries) when the officers in charge were shouting "bodies not heads at their troops" and were entirely ignored. In several reported cases beating miners so badly that their (admittedly old style) truncheons broke.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

audiotech said:


> This needs to be viewed.


Not if you've got some recently painted woodwork you could observe instead it doesn't ...


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Did he try to bum you?


 
He seemed as uneasy about the situation as me. As I said we kind of shared shifts staring out the peep hole. At one point they threw a drunk in with us who proceeded to piss himself and we both looked at each other and shared a smile/grimace. (I felt like a traitor for sharing a smile with him for years afterwards.)


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Be assured that if GP has a photo of someone breaking a window the cops do too.


Absolute bollocks.  Strangely enough the handful of police photograhers present, even with todays level of evidence gathering teams, capture but a fraction of the specific crimes (particularly as they tend not to be in the places where non-police photgraphers are).  Very large numbers of people have been, and will continue to be, convicted of serious crimes on the basis, often partially and sometimes entirely, of images taken by non-police photographers and in the public domain.


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Not if you've got some recently painted woodwork you could observe instead it doesn't ...


 
Don't be so fucking flippant. That footage is terrifying and quite disgraceful. 500 people recently died in a crowded bridge in Cambodia in a crush like that. The actions of the police in that footage could have led to deaths.


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Absolute bollocks.  Strangely enough the handful of police photograhers present, even with todays level of evidence gathering teams, capture but a fraction of the specific crimes (particularly as they tend not to be in the places where non-police photgraphers are).  Very large numbers of people have been, and will continue to be, convicted of serious crimes on the basis, often partially and sometimes entirely, of images taken by non-police photographers and in the public domain.


 
well with the tabloid press baying for blood the cops have a ready made supply of eager assistants to help them out


----------



## discokermit (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Since Thatchers days at least. I remember the battle for Orgreave  (when several miners recieved serious debilitating head injuries) when the officers in charge were shouting "bodies not heads at their troops" and were entirely ignored. In several reported cases beating miners so badly that their (admittedly old style) truncheons broke.


orgreave, wapping, the beanfield, poll tax. db is just a fucking liar.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> In fact, just like there are examples of soldiers being reluctant to kill the enemy on an individual level, even when participating in an attack on a particular objective



Have you got any examples of this psychological 'reluctance' in a soldier? How do you know what's going on in the mind of anyone, let alone a soldier in battle? 

The whole point of intensive military training is taking away that doubt - any soldier who shows reluctance will not a soldier make.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Have you got any examples of this psychological 'reluctance' in a soldier? How do you know what's going on in the mind of anyone, let alone a soldier in battle?



1st world war, 2nd world war. Soldiers shooting to miss, thousands and thousands of them.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 1st world war, 2nd world war. Soldiers shooting to miss, thousands and thousands of them.


 
Thousands who received very little military training, if any at all.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> (because the military were/are trained not to let the red mist take over).


Yes.  Of course they are.



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)





I take no issue with the fact that red mists exists.  I take no issue with the fact that soldiers are trained not to let it take them over.  And that for the most part their training works, the more so the more highly trained the particular unit and their supervisors. 

But I also claim that the police are trained not to let it take them over too.  And that for the most part their training works, the more so the more highly trained the particular unit and their supervisors.  And that sometimes both soldiers and police succumb to it.

It is your absolute failure to acknowledge that soldiers _ever_ fuck up and you constant comparison of their 100% reliability with the police who you plainly consider a bunch of amateur fuckwits that leads to me concluding that you are (a) pro-military and (b) anti-police.  Not any "assumption" on my part - the _fact_ of what you write.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It is absolutely standard practice for different hospitals to be allocated for casualties from different groups.  Usually it would be the two groups involved in protest and counterprotest (e.g. ADL and anti-fascists) or different football supporters but where it is likely to be protestors v police then that would be the categorisation.  The idea is that it reduces the potential for things to kick off again in the hospital (between those in the waiting area usually, not the actual patients (though that has happened!))
> 
> This should be communicated to all ambulance staff involved in the operation prior to the event at briefings ... but sometimes ambulances from elsewhere get involved by mistake (which may be the case here, where it seems to have been stationary some distance away and, thus, may not have been part of the planned operation and, thus, not aware of the plan).
> 
> In such a situation it is absolutely understandable that if a "wrong" casualty turns up at a particular hospital then they should be redirected to the "right" one ... but that if there is a critical medical need then that should be addressed immediately (as seems to have happened here).  What you need to know before condemning the action of the hospital is _exactly_ what happened at Chelsea and Westminster and what the person knew about the situation when suggesting they go elsewhere.  From what Alfie's mother has said when interviewed on the news, it doesn't sound like it was more than an initial suggestion they were at the wrong place followed by the ambulance crew (robustly!) explaining there was a critical medical need and the hospital then dealing with it.



I was outraged by that report about the hospital, but now it makes sense, thanks for enlightening us on this particular point.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> I wish someone had told that to the cops who threw me in a cell with a BNP skinhead for 6 hours following a troops out march in the 1980s. Ever spend 6 hours in a tiny cell without speaking to the guy growling at you in the corner.? By unspoken agreement we would swap an hour at a time staring out of the gap in the door. Longest 6 hours I ever spent.



Fucking hell that sounds like a nightmare.  /


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

editor said:


> Anyone seen any of these 'snooker balls', btw?


There's a pink at the feet of one of a horse in one of the pictures of the mounted police advancing.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

revlon said:


> no, 'kettling' a very specific logistical operation. Containment is containment, a cordon is a cordon, kettling requires the application of a pre-planned strategy of containment involving police cordons, resulting in a mass of peole being held unlawfully and against their will in an ever tighter pen for a long period of time before being released individually to be photographed and have their details taken.


Er .. yes.  That has been done for many years in particular situations.

Please don't think that you have identified anything new.  You have simply invented a pathetic new "street" word for it and, by doing so, you are confusing the (perfectly reasonable and necessary) debate about it's use. 



> All this was explained in the judical review of the mayday 2001 kettle by the various gold and silver commanders.


Which "Judicial Review" was this.  Please link to their report.  (ETA: Cancel that - having read one of your later posts I think I have worked out what you are talking about) 





> Desk jockeys may be able to deal with drunken assaults and minor staurday night skirmishes but don't pretend you know the workings of your superiors.


Mate, your ignorance of police public order tactics is patently obvious.  I suggest you wind your neck in now before you become even more of a laughing stock ...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> There's a pink at the feet of one of a horse in one of the pictures of the mounted police advancing.


 
Nah, you're seeing the things you want to see - it's not the whole story.


----------



## discokermit (Dec 12, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> I was outraged by that report about the hospital, but now it makes sense, thanks for enlightening us on this particular point.


 
it makes sense to route different factions to different hospitals, what is completely cunty is to stand there arguing an unconscious teenager with brain injuries should get back in the ambulance and go somewhere else.

and here's the reason he was at that hospital, according to the bbc, "A spokesman for Chelsea and Westminster Hospital confirmed a decision had been taken to treat officers there and civilians in other hospitals.

But he said because so many protesters ended up being injured some were treated at the hospital"

so, the only hospital not overrun was the one treating the police.

cunts.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Kettling is a violent attack.


How so?

It is a _restrictive_ tactic, and clearly force is used _if people attempt to leave it_ ... but in and off itself it is no more "violent" than, say, clearing an area around a suspect package, including keeping people inside buildings in "safe haven" or many other similar situations.


----------



## revlon (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> How so?
> 
> It is a _restrictive_ tactic, and clearly force is used _if people attempt to leave it_ ... but in and off itself it is no more "violent" than, say, clearing an area around a suspect package, including keeping people inside buildings in "safe haven" or many other similar situations.


 
well it's legally recognised as _detention short of arrest._ So your other comparisons are bullshit.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> I can see some logic in containment, but to keep pushing the crowd and shouting ‘go back’ when they know there’s nowhere for them to go because the other end is another load of coppers doing the same.


That assumes that the unit moving the crowd back on one side actually _know_ that.  It is an issue for commanders but it is absolutely not beyond belief that the actual unit concerned have no better idea of what is going on at the back of the crowd than the protestors directly in front of them do.  (In the tedious 7 minute clip posted a couple of pages ago you see the Inspector (orange tabs) climb on to the wall when it became apparent that the crowd were no longer moving back and were saying there was nowhere to go).  You can clearly see him looking what is happening at the back and, so far as can be seen from the footage after that, his unit stop pushing the crowd back at that point.

It is also worthy of note that despite shouts of "There is nowhere to go" from the very start, the crowd _do_ somehow manage to move back some considerable distance ... so there clearly _was_ somewhere to go.



> Whoever thinks that is a good idea is a complete twat IMO.


I'm not sure _anyone_ thinks what you describe is a good idea.

But I'm not sure that what you describe is what happens in the majority of cases.


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> How so?
> 
> It is a _restrictive_ tactic, and clearly force is used _if people attempt to leave it_ ... but in and off itself it is no more "violent" than, say, clearing an area around a suspect package, including keeping people inside buildings in "safe haven" or many other similar situations.


 
Oh come on. Did you watch the footage that you so glibly dismissed as "watching paint dry"? the cops continuing to push a crowd with nowhere to go, from both sides, the crowd getting more and more panicked and terrified,  the use of horses in that dense space. .Pure intimidation and demoralisation nothing less. Absolutely disgraceful behaviour  and it is only by luck that people weren't suffocated to death.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Not if you've got some recently painted woodwork you could observe instead it doesn't ...



My comment wasn't addressed to a plank of one.


----------



## revlon (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It is also worthy of note that despite shouts of "There is nowhere to go" from the very start, the crowd _do_ somehow manage to move back some considerable distance ... so there clearly _was_ somewhere to go.


 
yes into a tighter and tighter kettle. _They cannot go anywhere else. _


----------



## discokermit (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> and it is only by luck that people weren't suffocated to death.


they don't care. remember hillsborough?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

revlon said:


> At the judical review at the high court for mayday 2001 the reason the police gave for containing people for such a long period was that there were crowds of protestors outside the kettle who they couldn't get into the kettle therefore were unwilling to let people go home until everybody was kettled.


I'm not sure that is an accurate summary of their position.  Perhaps you could link to the actual part of the evidence that you are referring to.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Thousands of people being 'corralled' by the police, not being able to leave, having to stand in a line for hours and having their faces photographed is.


It isn't though.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What codswallop dressed up as logic - follow point 1 through and there can never be decisions taken above the level of the individual to be violent (of course, you don't extand this same logic to protesters do you?) when i think most of us know full well by know about, or have been involved in situations where violence has been used by the police as an organisation as part of an operation planned out well in advance.


It is a well known legal position that an individual police officer CANNOT be ordered to use force by a senior officer and that ANY use of force by an individual officer MUST be justified by THEM.  In the case of the deployment of a group of officers acting together in a situation where _some_ level of force is used (pushing, shoving) then I think it has never been particularly controversial that the individual officers doing the pushing and shoving are entitled to justify _that_ level of force by reference to the wider deployment of the tactic by the senior officers to prevent crime / disorder, etc.  

The point I am making is that we are now seeing, as a matter of almost routine, officers using _far_ more force on that basis and _that_ is what I am not at all sure the law permits. 



> This is fantasy island stuff, it really is.


Instead of glibly dismissing the issue, I suggest you take the time to think it through more carefully.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It isn't though.



That response took some time and I see not much in the way of informed comment to back it up.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> you fucking pedant


It's not fucking pedantry you moron.  It's an attempt to actually analyse the situation in detail instead of shouting slogans at each other.

But of course you are neither capable of sensible debate, or minded to engage in it.  

So fuck off with your tedious, obsessive shite.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> I wish someone had told that to the cops who threw me in a cell with a BNP skinhead for 6 hours following a troops out march in the 1980s. Ever spend 6 hours in a tiny cell without speaking to the guy growling at you in the corner.? By unspoken agreement we would swap an hour at a time staring out of the gap in the door. Longest 6 hours I ever spent.


It's from learning from those days that the practice arose ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> In several reported cases beating miners so badly that their (admittedly old style) truncheons broke.


Having witnessed exactly that on a number of occasions I can testify that it was usually due to the pathetically inadequate quality of the truncheons than any excess of force of use ... (the older ones were heavy wood / ebony ... but in the 70s and 80s, probably due to a desire to save money as much as reduce injuries caused, they swopped to a much lighter, red-coloured wood which was, frankly, absolutely useless in most situations when you needed it - cops referred to it as "balsa" - it wasn't ... but it wasn't far off!!)


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 12, 2010)

There's a truncheon in the Museum of Welsh Life that's made from a bull's "organ".


----------



## belboid (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Having witnessed exactly that on a number of occasions I can testify that it was usually due to the pathetically inadequate quality of the truncheons than any excess of force of use


 
the fucking cheek of it.  i bet you took evey opportunity to prove just how 'easily' they broke


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Don't be so fucking flippant. That footage is terrifying and quite disgraceful. 500 people recently died in a crowded bridge in Cambodia in a crush like that. The actions of the police in that footage could have led to deaths.


Don't be so fucking hysterical.  It's footage of a police line moving forward in a very slow and controlled way, with the crowd (despite their protestations) finding somewhere to go and then the line stopping (when it becomes apparent that the crowd have now been pushed back as far as they can go (no doubt confirmed by the unit inspector climbing on to the wall to get a look at what is happening at the back).  There is no specific force used against any particular individual protestor.  There is no inappropraite statements made.  There is _nothing_ that makes it particularly "worth watching".


----------



## revlon (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'm not sure that is an accurate summary of their position.  Perhaps you could link to the actual part of the evidence that you are referring to.


 
i'll dig out the papers. But this was in court, which i sat through for several days to listen to no amount of bullshit from the top boys in blue, all of whom passed on responsibility for forming a kettle before their was any evidence of violence by protestors. In fact they presented no evidence of any form of violence being committed before the kettle and justified the kettle for the violence that happened after people were penned in against their will and battered indiscrimately by riot police.


----------



## revlon (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Er .. yes.  That has been done for many years in particular situations.
> 
> Please don't think that you have identified anything new.  You have simply invented a pathetic new "street" word for it and, by doing so, you are confusing the (perfectly reasonable and necessary) debate about it's use.
> 
> ...


 
just as i thought long term desk jockey - you were the reason the cps took over the charging process because you could never get the fucking charge right.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

discokermit said:


> db is just a fucking liar.


About what?  

(Before answering this, I suggest you actually _read_ what I have posted before claiming that I have said something I actually haven't but which, based entirely on your prejudices, you _think_ I have ...)


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Have you got any examples of this psychological 'reluctance' in a soldier? How do you know what's going on in the mind of anyone, let alone a soldier in battle?


I have heard it referred to in _many_ documentary programmes and seen it discussed in _many_ scholarly and serious articles over the years.

Here's an on-line reference to it:  http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm.  I have just found this and It is not something I have seen before, but it refers to the phenomenon I am referring to in some detail.

I am surprised that such an expert on matters miltary as you profess to be has never heard of it.


----------



## editor (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> ....fucking....you moron.....fuck off ...tedious, obsessive shite


Any chance of you (and others) keeping this civil please? It would be a shame to see this important thread being trashed by another name-calling, expletive-fest.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> I was outraged by that report about the hospital, but now it makes sense, thanks for enlightening us on this particular point.


I _finally_ succeed in achieving what I came here for ... providing information which helps people make sense of what happens and to establish what is and what is not a major issue ...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 12, 2010)

This is assertion dressed up as fact from DB:

(1) : the police (as an organisation) are invariably correct when they say that they (as an organisation) are not the first to act violently and that their use of force (in the form of tactics used by them as an organisation) is invariably in an attempt to prevent disorder, violence and crime and / or to protect themselves (as an organisation).​
Holding this sort of position, whether honestly or not, DB finds it very easy to dismiss:

threats by a police inspector against a 12 year old boy;

the inherent potential for violence in 'kettling';

the enduring political character of the police as a force.​
This doesn’t mean that he is always wrong. However, it does mean that all his claims of informed objectivity should be put to one side, and everything he posts read in the context of his, at times thoroughly fanciful, underpinning ideas and assumptions.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Nah, you're seeing the things you want to see - it's not the whole story.


No, I'm just pointing out something I noticed in one of the pictures.

I have made no claim whatsoever about it being "the whole story".  In fact, I have made no comment at all about it, beyond simply noting that it is visible.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

discokermit said:


> it makes sense to route different factions to different hospitals, what is completely cunty is to stand there arguing an unconscious teenager with brain injuries should get back in the ambulance and go somewhere else.


Yes, it would be ... _if_ that is what happened.  As I made clear in my post.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

revlon said:


> well it's legally recognised as _detention short of arrest._ So your other comparisons are bullshit.


Yes, I know that.  But the other police tactics amount to detention short of arrest too, in fact even if never established in law.  

And, as I acknowledged, a very low level of force is obviously inherent in any detention ... but I asked for evidence that it was "violent" in the usually understood meaning of the word (you don't, for instance, automatically describe every arrest as "violent" even though a low level of force is always used.  It is not helpful to describe containment as a "violent" tactic - it is plainly nothing of the sort when compared with tactics such as baton charges, mounted police charges, snatch squads, etc.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 12, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> There's a truncheon in the Museum of Welsh Life that's made from a bull's "organ".


 
Prepare to be fucked by the long dick of the law...


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Don't be so fucking hysterical.  It's footage of a police line moving forward in a very slow and controlled way, with the crowd (despite their protestations) finding somewhere to go and then the line stopping (when it becomes apparent that the crowd have now been pushed back as far as they can go (no doubt confirmed by the unit inspector climbing on to the wall to get a look at what is happening at the back).  There is no specific force used against any particular individual protestor.  There is no inappropraite statements made.  *There is nothing that makes it particularly "worth watching".*


 
I think it's the most chilling thing I have seen in a long time and more importantly so do those who experienced it. The cops have succeeded in educating a large section of young demonstrators about the actions and intentions of the police. So shrug it off if you wish but don't be surprised if on the next demonstration the cops get a fucking good hiding from demonstrators who won't accept this again.  I for one hope so.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> This is assertion dressed up as fact from DB:
> 
> (1) : the police (as an organisation) are invariably correct when they say that they (as an organisation) are not the first to act violently and that their use of force (in the form of tactics used by them as an organisation) is invariably in an attempt to prevent disorder, violence and crime and / or to protect themselves (as an organisation).​
> Holding this sort of position, whether honestly or not, DB finds it very easy to dismiss:
> ...



He also fatally undermines his own position at the same time. If the police, as he claims, as an organisation are _never_ the first to use force then why does he go onto to say then when they _do_ use force first it's as part of a plan to prevent disorder. There's a claim that something _never_ happens followed by a (feeble) explanation of why it _does_ happen.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Oh come on. Did you watch the footage that you so glibly dismissed as "watching paint dry"?


Yes, I did.  And as anyone who watches it and puts it in perspective will agree, it was footage of absolutely routine policing with nothing particularly inappropriate done (by either "side").  

When described as you do it obviously sounds like it was a stupid / dangerous thing to do.  As, in fact, no-one was injured and no excessive violence was used by either "side", it is apparent that your fears were unfounded.  And that there is no _evidence_ that the tactic was carried out in a careless, negligent or reckless manner.

The footage seen last week of horses charging at speed into a clearly unresisting and retreating crowd could properly be described as "disgraceful", the subjects as "terrified" and the absence of serious injury as being "only by luck".

The footage seen of individiual officers plainly intentionally striking non-violent (on an individual level) protestors on the head with batons and shield edges could properly be described as "disgraceful", the subjects as "terrified" and the absence of fatal injury as being only by "luck".

To use those descriptions for the absolutely routine, tedious footage in the clip referred to is inaccurate and it _totally_ devalues your argument, particularly amongst ordinary people who maybe _haven't_ seen the other footage and will watch that and go "Fucking hell, that doesn't look all that bad.  Is that all they are whinging about?".


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

Sooner or later, someone will die in a kettle, d-b. And those that organised and carried out the kettle will be to blame.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> He also fatally undermines his own position at the same time. If the police, as he claims, as an organisation are _never_ the first to use force then why does he go onto to say then when they _do_ use force first it's as part of a plan to prevent disorder. There's a claim that something _never_ happens followed by a (feeble) explanation of why it _does_ happen.


 
It seemed pretty simple to me.  The police are never the first to use force, but they may use force in order to stop something that is _about _to happen.  Have you not seen _Minority Report_?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

revlon said:


> yes into a tighter and tighter kettle. _They cannot go anywhere else. _


 


discokermit said:


> they don't care. remember hillsborough?


The containment was tight - it is actually part of the tactic to make sure that it is (otherwise the contained group can move around and get momentum, etc. allowing them to make more effective attempts to break through a line and defeat the purpose of the tactic) and uncomfortable ... but there is no indication that it was _so_ tight that it was damgerously so.  Officers using the tactic (at both command and tactical level) are _more than_ well aware of Hillsborough and the dangers of crushes and other crowd dynamics.

(Personally I think it unwise to use the tactic on a bridge over the Thames - not because it is likely to _actually_ become necessary for people to jump, or be forced, over the sides but because some people may panic and _believe_ that they have to.)


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Here's an on-line reference to it:  http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm.  I have just found this and It is not something I have seen before, but it refers to the phenomenon I am referring to in some detail.



It's mostly referring to WW2, Vietnam, Korea etc. It does say this though; "Superior training *currently* used by military organizations helps make the decision for the individual." There certainly wasn't any 'superior training' given to soldiers of those said wars, unlike today where there is superior & intensive training.



> I am surprised that such an expert on matters miltary as you profess to be has never heard of it.



Where did you pluck that one from? I've never professed to any such thing.


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sooner or later, someone will die in a kettle, d-b. And those that organised and carried out the kettle will be to blame.


 
yes


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

audiotech said:


> That response took some time and I see not much in the way of informed comment to back it up.


What a totally fuckwitted thing to suggest - that the time taken for a fucking response is in _any_ way associated with it's reliability ... 

In terms of informed comment, it has been done routinely since at least the early 90s, when police photographers began to be deployed as part of public order operations and photographs became a practical option (taking names _had_ been done previously but was not really particularly effective for obvious reasons ...).  It became even more commonplace as digital cameras made it practically more do-able (and affordable).


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No, I'm just pointing out something I noticed in one of the pictures.
> 
> I have made no claim whatsoever about it being "the whole story".  In fact, I have made no comment at all about it, beyond simply noting that it is visible.


 
So from a picture, you know for definite that it's a snooker ball? 

And as to whether it was actually thrown by someone is pure speculation. Though if plod say it was thrown, then it has to be true


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> He also fatally undermines his own position at the same time. If the police, as he claims, as an organisation are _never_ the first to use force then why does he go onto to say then when they _do_ use force first it's as part of a plan to prevent disorder. There's a claim that something _never_ happens followed by a (feeble) explanation of why it _does_ happen.


 
His claim of police infallibility (they are 'invariably correct') re. the instigation of violence, is so at odds with many many people's firsthand experience, that he leaves himself and the positions he tries so very hard to defend, open to ridicule. So for all his attempts to explain and defend the police force, his tunnel vision and hyperbole actually undermine those explanations and defences.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> don't be surprised if on the next demonstration the cops get a fucking good hiding from demonstrators who won't accept this again.  I for one hope so.


 
And that's the crux - a large proportion of those kettled on the bridge were youngsters - next time it won't be kids, & plod will have to face the consequences.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

belboid said:


> the fucking cheek of it.  i bet you took evey opportunity to prove just how 'easily' they broke


Even as recently as the mid 80s, using your truncheon was not something you did lightly and it (rightly) always resulted in lots of hard questions by supervisors.  _Many_ officers simply did not take them on patrol with them.  It was not at all unusual for an officer to go through their entire service and never have to even _draw_ their truncheon, let alone use it in any significant way.

The change in officer safety tactics - in which the racking and brandishing of a baton became a very low-level intervention, intended to deter further attack - changed the situation beyond recognition.  If you could do it, I would think that the number of uses of batons in a single month now would more than exceed the number of uses in an entire year twenty five years ago.  

The impact of this change of tactics has definitely not been recognised and has therefore not been addressed in training.  As I am arguing here, it has also not been considered in relation to public order tactics where the individual officer is acting as part of a unit or team and thus the use of _individual_ officer safety tactics is often inappropriate.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 12, 2010)

8ball said:


> It seemed pretty simple to me.  The police are never the first to use force, but they may use force in order to stop something that is _about _to happen.  Have you not seen _Minority Report_?


 
DB is able to supprt this Minority Report approach because he knows as an article of faith that 'the police (as an organisation) are invariably correct'; if you start from such a premise, re. the intigation of violence, the it almost becomes the police's duty to act as they do (but only almost).

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> (Personally I think it unwise to use the tactic on a bridge over the Thames - not because it is likely to _actually_ become necessary for people to jump, or be forced, over the sides but because some people may panic and _believe_ that they have to.)



Nice to hear that from you, but plod clearly didn't give a fuck in this case.

Though saying that (EDO demo May last year) plod tried to kettle on Brighton seafront - the consequence of that was protesters started to climb over the railings to drop 20ft onto the steps below. We promptly got in their faces to say that this was an inappropriate & dangerous kettle & that someone was about to get seriously hurt, so they then broke the kettle.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

revlon said:


> i'll dig out the papers. But this was in court, which i sat through for several days to listen to no amount of bullshit from the top boys in blue, all of whom passed on responsibility for forming a kettle before their was any evidence of violence by protestors. In fact they presented no evidence of any form of violence being committed before the kettle and justified the kettle for the violence that happened after people were penned in against their will and battered indiscrimately by riot police.


Containment is a tactic which is intended to _prevent_ violence and disorder.  There is no requirement for any previous violence before it can be used.  The Courts acknowledged that it could be used as a preventative measure (though they suggested there should be sound grounds for doing so).  Violent resistance against the tactic cannot be justifed on the basis of the containment being "violent" any more than an attack on a simple police line across a particular street could be justified on the basis of that line being "violent".  

The fact that being contained for a significant amount of time is _likely_ the result in understandable (if not justifiable) frustration and violence needs to be properly understood by commanders using the tactic (and I am not sure it is).  

As I have said since the issue first came to prominence after G20 (and as the Courts and HIMIC have repeated in various ways), the containment should be for the minimum period possible, arrangements for the provision of water, toilet facilities, etc. for contained crowds musy be considered over any minimum period (maybe a couple of hours) and there must be practicable means for people with genuine reason to be allowed out of the containment.  Although there has been some evidence of these things happening (the police now even have portable toilet facilities built into their operational planning when they anticipate long term containment may be necessary) I am not at all sure that enough has been done (and the length of the containment on Westminster Bridge the other night seems particular excessive.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

revlon said:


> just as i thought long term desk jockey - you were the reason the cps took over the charging process because you could never get the fucking charge right.


It was your apparent reference to a Judicial Review into overall tactics by gold and silver commanders which confused me.  You mixed up three different details (what it was, what it was about and by whom it was done) into an unintelligble whole.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

editor said:


> Any chance of you (and others) keeping this civil please? It would be a shame to see this important thread being trashed by another name-calling, expletive-fest.


Any chance of you dealing with their obsessive posting of frequently content-free rubbish, aimed only at having a pop at me, and stalking me from thread to thread to do so?

And any chance of you counting up the number of such posts and comparing it to the number of responses I eventually feel moved to make?  (which I will _guarantee_ is _at least_ ten to one)?

(Funny how I am _always_ the first to be pulled about this, isn't it ... )


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

That's disingenuous in the extreme. The police lines are _on both sides_ in a kettle. That is entirely different from a 'simple police line' – it is the opposite, in fact: one police line across a street is an attempt to stop a crowd from moving into an area; two police lines on either side of a crowd is an attempt to stop a crowd from moving _out of_ an area. I can see no justification for this, none whatever. How is it not unlawful detention without charge of people exercising their democratic right to walk the streets?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> And that's the crux - a large proportion of those kettled on the bridge were youngsters - next time it won't be kids, & plod will have to face the consequences.


 

I've moaned about apolitical british students before- not anymore. And the thought does strike me that if this is how a seemingly docile group react to the swingeing cuts then is this going to be repeated by other sectors when the pinch really kicks in. I hope so.


----------



## revlon (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes, I know that.  But the other police tactics amount to detention short of arrest too, in fact even if never established in law.
> 
> And, as I acknowledged, a very low level of force is obviously inherent in any detention ... but I asked for evidence that it was "violent" in the usually understood meaning of the word (you don't, for instance, automatically describe every arrest as "violent" even though a low level of force is always used.  It is not helpful to describe containment as a "violent" tactic - it is plainly nothing of the sort when compared with tactics such as baton charges, mounted police charges, snatch squads, etc.


 
the term violence is not defined in law, which has always been a problem given the four main public order laws use it as their foundation. 

Detention short of arrest involves by its nature coercion and compulsion, and the use of force as a necessary requirement. 

Baton charges, mounted police charges, snatch squads etc are all part of the kettling process.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> If the police, as he claims, as an organisation are _never_ the first to use force then why does he go onto to say then when they _do_ use force first it's as part of a plan to prevent disorder.


I draw a distinction between using some level of force and using "violence".

Using some level of force is absolutely commonplace in _all_ policing.  When the police have said "no" for some reason, and people insist of attempting to ignore that direction, then force immediately becomes necessary to prevent them doing so.  There is no reason why it should be otherwise in public order policing.

That is not being "violent".  And if the crowd resistance was restricted to pushing and shoving (i.e. the same level of force being used) then no-one would be complaining and no-one would be describing it as "violence".

It is utterly fuckwitted to describe the use of restrictive tactics, such as cordons and containment, by the police as "violent" and to compare them with the throwing of fireworks, bricks, bottles, etc.; the use of poles as weapons, etc. which are _plainly_ the first "violence" which happens in the vast majority of cases.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Any chance of you dealing with their obsessive posting of frequently content-free rubbish, aimed only at having a pop at me, and stalking me from thread to thread to do so?
> 
> And any chance of you counting up the number of such posts and comparing it to the number of responses I eventually feel moved to make?  (which I will _guarantee_ is _at least_ ten to one)?
> 
> (Funny how I am _always_ the first to be pulled about this, isn't it ... )


 
Because you, taking the lead form 'the police as an organisation', would never instigate such behaviour?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

If you arrest someone or detain them, that is in itself an act of violence, even if they come quietly. Last time I was arrested, I decided not to resist, even though the arrest was entirely unjustified. Had I resisted, I would have been dealt with violently – I knew this, so I decided not to resist. Using the threat of violence to make a person do something is itself an act of violence.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sooner or later, someone will die in a kettle, d-b. And those that organised and carried out the kettle will be to blame.


Sooner or later someone (police or protestor or even innocent passer-by) will die in a violent protest.  And those who encouraged it will be to blame.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I draw a distinction between using some level of force and using "violence".
> 
> Using some level of force is absolutely commonplace in _all_ policing.  When the police have said "no" for some reason, and people insist of attempting to ignore that direction, then force immediately becomes necessary to prevent them doing so.  There is no reason why it should be otherwise in public order policing.
> 
> ...


 
Surely you mean all cases?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Containment is a tactic which is intended to _prevent_ violence and disorder.



Containment is a tactic which is intended to _prevent_ the right to protest.

Containment is a tactic which is intended to provoke an aggressive reaction.

Brighton EDO May 2009 & October 2010.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Sooner or later someone (police or protestor or even innocent passer-by) will die in a violent protest.  *And those who encouraged it will be to blame*.


 
In part at least, as will those who actually meted out the violence.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It is utterly fuckwitted to describe the use of restrictive tactics, such as cordons and containment, by the police as "violent" and to compare them with the throwing of fireworks, bricks, bottles, etc.; the use of poles as weapons, etc. which are _plainly_ the first "violence" which happens in the vast majority of cases.


 
Fuck off. The first act in those 'restrictive tactics', the charging of a crowd on horseback, is as clear an act of violence as you could hope to imagine. The police assume that they have the right to tell people where to go, and that they have the right to hit anyone who refuses to go. All else follows from there.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> It's mostly referring to WW2, Vietnam, Korea etc. It does say this though; "Superior training *currently* used by military organizations helps make the decision for the individual." There certainly wasn't any 'superior training' given to soldiers of those said wars, unlike today where there is superior & intensive training.


So, by noting that superior training *"helps"* make the decision for the individual, you acknowledge that there will still be instances where, no matter how good the training, an individual may get carried away ... which is what we have been observing time and again in the footage of the polciing of the demonstrations.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Containment is a tactic which is intended to _prevent_ the right to protest.
> 
> Containment is a tactic which is intended to provoke an aggressive reaction.
> 
> .


 
Yep. And it was ever thus. In that sense, kettling is merely the development of a policy that has always been in place.


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Sooner or later someone (police or protestor or even innocent passer-by) will die in a violent protest.  And those who encouraged it will be to blame.


 
I agree. Nick Clegg and David Cameron have a lot to answer for


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> So from a picture, you know for definite that it's a snooker ball?


No, but it looked entirely consistent with being one (I specifically noticed because I had personally never previously encoutnered, or even heard of, snooker balls being thrown at demonstrations and when I read the reports of that I was surprised).

And I made no comment whatsoever about how it got there - I simply answered editor's question "Has anyone seen these snooker balls?" or whatever it was.  Why imply that I did?


----------



## revlon (Dec 12, 2010)

actually dug out this gem from the court ruling about Mayday 2001 kettle.

*"The facts of this case are quite exceptional. Never before, or since, May 1, 2001 have the police in England formed cordons enclosing a crowd of thousands before a substantial breakdown of law and order has occurred, with the result that the crowd were prevented from leaving for many hours".*
That was said in 2005.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> His claim of police infallibility (they are 'invariably correct') re. the instigation of violence, is so at odds with many many people's firsthand experience ...


Please provide ANY example of a situation (a situation as a whole, not on a one-to-one basis) in which there is evidence of the use of violence by the police happening before any use of violence by any of the protestors ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> We promptly got in their faces to say that this was an inappropriate & dangerous kettle & that someone was about to get seriously hurt, so they then broke the kettle.


Which is exactly as it should be.  There will _always_ be situations in which unexpected / unforeseen (for whatever reason - changes in circumstances, lack of local knowledge or simply incompetence) things happen when any tactic is used.  We need to reach a position where that sort of communication and cooperation between police and protestors is the norm and not the exception.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So, by noting that superior training *"helps"* make the decision for the individual, you acknowledge that there will still be instances where, no matter how good the training, an individual may get carried away ... which is what we have been observing time and again in the footage of the polciing of the demonstrations.


 
Your post was about a 'psychological reluctance' to engage with the enemy, & not engaging with the enemy is far from getting carried away. 

Don't start twisting this as you do with monotonous regularity!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No, but it looked entirely consistent with being one (I specifically noticed because I had personally never previously encoutnered, or even heard of, snooker balls being thrown at demonstrations and when I read the reports of that I was surprised).
> 
> And I made no comment whatsoever about how it got there - I simply answered editor's question "Has anyone seen these snooker balls?" or whatever it was.  Why imply that I did?



What you said was that there was definitely a snooker ball there; not maybe, or something that could be, or looked like, or might be. You like your assertions presented as facts don't you.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## revlon (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Please provide ANY example of a situation (a situation as a whole, not on a one-to-one basis) in which there is evidence of the use of violence by the police happening before any use of violence by any of the protestors ...


 
mayday 2001 kettle!!!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No, but it looked entirely consistent with being one



pmsl


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's disingenuous in the extreme.


There is obviously a difference ... but in terms of the amount of force (or "violence") inherent in the tactic there is no difference and that is the context in which I drew the comparison.



> I can see no justification for this, none whatever. How is it not unlawful detention without charge of people exercising their democratic right to walk the streets?


The fact that YOU can see no justification is irrelevant.  The law can.  The Courts can.  The ECHR can.  The simple fact is that it IS a lawful tactic (so long as it can be justified).  If, like any other police action, you think it has been used inappropriately then the way to change how they do things is through the Courts by making complaints / suing them.  Fighting will NOT change anything (and, in fact, is far more likely to _help_ the police justify use of the tactic in future).

You might as well say that YOU can see no justification for, say, the police closing the road after a major traffic accident and using that as the basis for fighting with and trying the get through the cordon.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Please provide ANY example of a situation (a situation as a whole, not on a one-to-one basis) in which there is evidence of the use of violence by the police happening before any use of violence by any of the protestors ...


 
EDO Brighton May 2009 & October 2010.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Please provide ANY example of a situation (a situation as a whole, not on a one-to-one basis) in which there is evidence of the use of violence by the police happening before any use of violence by any of the protestors ...


 
Eh? 

I'm sure almost everyone on this thread can give you an example. The clearest one I can think of would come from a while ago and the Criminal Justice Act march at which I was right at the front. This was a very 'hippy' march. We were basically ensconced in the street dancing to a rather good sound system. I went to have a piss in a side street to find hundreds of riot police tooling up there. A few minutes later, the police had clearly decided that it was time for us to move, and charged us on horseback. There were kids there. It's very very lucky that they did not kill anyone. Agents provocateurs suddenly appeared behind us ordering us to 'hold our ground'. This was the time before they'd perfected the kettle – I have no doubt that these masked men were coppers. It was a calculated assault on a group of entirely peaceful protesters.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Please provide ANY example of a situation (a situation as a whole, not on a one-to-one basis) in which there is evidence of the use of violence by the police happening before any use of violence by any of the protestors ...


 
Many many times at football matches during the 1970s and on into the 80s; if you'd prefer examples from political demonstrations I can give those (as I'm sure could lots of other people on here). However, given your clearly stated predisposition re. the infalability of the police, you won't be able to accept any of them as genuine examples; unfourtunately for you, in doing so you'll undermine your own objective...so keep up the good work.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## revlon (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> There is obviously a difference ... but in terms of the amount of force (or "violence") inherent in the tactic there is no difference and that is the context in which I drew the comparison.
> 
> 
> The fact that YOU can see no justification is irrelevant.  The law can.  The Courts can.  The ECHR can.  The simple fact is that it IS a lawful tactic (so long as it can be justified).  If, like any other police action, you think it has been used inappropriately then the way to change how they do things is through the Courts by making complaints / suing them.  Fighting will NOT change anything (and, in fact, is far more likely to _help_ the police justify use of the tactic in future).
> ...


 
it's going through the european courts now, so don't hold your breath


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

revlon said:


> Baton charges, mounted police charges, snatch squads etc are all part of the kettling process.


No.  They _may_ be necessary if the use of the tactic is violently resisted.  The _only_ use of force required for an actual containment is a bit of pushing (as seen in the boring video clip mentioned earlier).  _Any_ further use of force is only needed because of resistance to the tactic.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 12, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Many many times at football matches during the 1970s and on into the 80s; if you'd prefer examples from political demonstrations I can give those (as I'm sure could lots of other people on here). However, given your clearly stated predisposition re. the infalability of the police, you won't be able to accept any of them as genuine examples; unfourtunately for you, in doing so you'll undermine your own objective...so keep up the good work.



Innit.


----------



## revlon (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  They _may_ be necessary if the use of the tactic is violently resisted.  The _only_ use of force required for an actual containment is a bit of pushing (as seen in the boring video clip mentioned earlier).  _Any_ further use of force is only needed because of resistance to the tactic.


 
no, they are an integral part of the process - maintaining the police cordons and subduing the crowd. It's a planned strategy from the start. 

When we get gold and silver's notes and briefings of the day (and we will) it will become all too apparent.


----------



## where to (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Sooner or later someone (police or protestor or even innocent passer-by) will die in a violent protest.  And those who encouraged it will be to blame.


 
Ian Tomlinson.  

You have a short memory.


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Please provide ANY example of a situation (a situation as a whole, not on a one-to-one basis) in which there is evidence of the use of violence by the police happening before any use of violence by any of the protestors ...


 
Battle of the beanfield at stonehenge was totally unprovoked violence entirely caused by police. The most disgraceful scenes of police violence I have ever seen. Buses with children and babies inside attacked. People prostrate on the ground battered. 



> After a stand-off of several hours, police attacked their procession of vehicles by entering the field where they were being contained, methodically smashing windows, beating people on the head with truncheons and using sledgehammers to damage the interiors of their coaches.The account was supported by all the independent witnesses and upheld by the subsequent court verdicts.



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

Orgreave was a situation where pushing and shoving was escalated into full on battle by the use of round shield riot police and horse charges.



> Initially the strike played out like most others, and the strikers played football for a while. But as more numbers arrived on both sides, tensions began to rise. There was constant intimidation from the police and unprovoked charges from mounted section of the police forced the miners to take cover where ever possible
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Orgreave


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  They _may_ be necessary if the use of the tactic is violently resisted.  The _only_ use of force required for an actual containment is a bit of pushing (as seen in the boring video clip mentioned earlier).  _Any_ further use of force is only needed because of resistance to the tactic.



Bollocks.



Mr.Bishie said:


> Containment is a tactic which is intended to _prevent_ the right to protest.
> 
> Containment is a tactic which is intended to provoke an aggressive reaction.


----------



## revlon (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Battle of the beanfield at stonehenge was totally unprovoked violence entirely caused by police. The most disgraceful scenes of police violence I have ever seen. Buses with children and babies inside attacked. People prostrate on the ground battered.
> 
> Orgreave was a situation where pushing and shoving was escalated into full on battle by the use of round shield riot police and horse charges.


 
both planned well in advance.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If you arrest someone or detain them, that is in itself an act of violence, even if they come quietly.


If you use "violence" is an absolutely theoretically way, yes.

99.999% of people talking about "violence" in the context of these demonstrations are using it in it's _normal_ way (and would draw the same distinction as me between a bit of physical contact with no danger of even trivial injury and "proper" violence such as throwing bricks and bottles and batoning someone over the head).

If we were having a debate in which the definition of "violence" was yours, then I (and the police and everyone else) would obviously acknowledge that by using any restrictive preventative measure the police would be the one's using violence first in many situations (but not all, because by the same definition, an aggressive crowd, intent on, say, bursting into a building, smashing windows and terrifying people inside would be being "violent" even if they had not yet done any of those things!).

But it is simply fuckwitted to claim that the debate about who started the "violence" in any public order policing debate is using your absolutely theoretical definition of violence.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Surely you mean all cases?


No.  I would never claim that the police have never fucked up.  Only last week I commented about the high-speed mounted branch charge into a seemingly peaceful crowd as being excessive.  If that crowd had responded with throwing bricks, etc. (which, to their credit they do not appear to have done) then it would have been plain that, if things were as they appeared from the footage, the police had started the violence (using it's normal meaning) in the context of that particular situation (even if they had not within the operation as a whole).


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  They _may_ be necessary if the use of the tactic is violently resisted.  The _only_ use of force required for an actual containment is a bit of pushing (as seen in the boring video clip mentioned earlier).  _Any_ further use of force is only needed because of resistance to the tactic.


 
This is your 'through the looking glass world' where people refusing to be corralled for hours on end by large numbers of masked and armoured riot officers, instigate baton charges and the use of horses; it has a whiff about of the discredited 'she was asking for it' defence. That's where working from ill informed apriori assumptions gets you DB, sounding like the in denial perpetrator who always tries to blame the victim, not being able to take any responsibility themselves.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  They _may_ be necessary if the use of the tactic is violently resisted.



Not true. Crowds need to be broken up so that the police can surround them. This can only be done through charges.

Baton charges, mounted charges etc _are_ the tactic.


----------



## where to (Dec 12, 2010)

What are the arguments against water cannons from the perspective of Police and protesters?

I've never seen them used in person but I've always assumed them to be preferable to horse charges and baton attacks, at least during the summer months.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  I would never claim that the police have never fucked up.


 
But you claim that they never instigate violence; are you now saying that sometimes they do?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> But you claim that they never instigate violence; are you now saying that sometimes they do?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
d-b speaks like someone with no first-hand experience at all of what he is talking about, tbh. He doesn't understand the police 'tactics' that he is defending.

In fact, I shall stop engaging – it's highjacking the thread, and d-b's arguments are laughable.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Containment is a tactic which is intended to _prevent_ the right to protest.


No.  It is intended to prevent violence, crime and disorder (i.e. unlawful protest).  If it were intended to prevent prtest altogether it would be used to contain those gathering at the start of the protest march ...



> Containment is a tactic which is intended to provoke an aggressive reaction.


It could be used in that way.  I would hope that it is not used in that way.  I have seen no evidence that it is ... but there is insufficient information in the public domain to know one way or the other.  (The individual comments by individual officers which are reported or caught in camera footage cannot be taken as evidence of the intention of the commanders using the tactic, certainly not unless they become so widespread and if they remain unchallenged by senior officers in public statements - they are evidence of individual fuckwittery by individual officers involved in delivering the tactic but not involved in choosing to use it in any way).


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2010)

Gilmours boy has been nicked


----------



## smokedout (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I take no issue with the fact that red mists exists.  I take no issue with the fact that soldiers are trained not to let it take them over.  And that for the most part their training works, the more so the more highly trained the particular unit and their supervisors.
> 
> But I also claim that the police are trained not to let it take them over too.  And that for the most part their training works, the more so the more highly trained the particular unit and their supervisors.



well you'd think that wouldn't you, but that smellie twat and the bastards who killed ian tomlinson were highly experienced public order cops - it seems to be a phenomena within the tsg that they turn up hyped up and looking for a ruck - strangely the most highly trained public order specialists in the met


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If it were intended to prevent prtest altogether it would be used to contain those gathering at the start of the protest march ...



Smash EDO Brighton October 2010. Fact.



> It could be used in that way.  I would hope that it is not used in that way.  I have seen no evidence that it is.



It is used in that way. Smash EDO Brighton May 2009 & October 13th.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 12, 2010)

smokedout said:


> well you'd think that wouldn't you, but that smellie twat and the bastards who killed ian tomlinson were highly experienced public order cops



Highly experienced in twatting people yeah.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The first act in those 'restrictive tactics', the charging of a crowd on horseback, is as clear an act of violence as you could hope to imagine.


Charging a crowd on horseback is patently NOT the first act in the use of containment tactics.  The vast majority of uses of containment tactics involve no use of horses at all.  Where they are used as part of a containment process they need only be used in a slow, methodical move forward and there is absoloutely no need for a charge at all in _any_ situation related soley to the deployment of a containment tactic.



> The police assume that they have the right to tell people where to go, and that they have the right to hit anyone who refuses to go.


The law says that they DO have the right to tell people where to go (provided that they can justify it) and the law says that they DO have the right to use "reasonable and necessary" force on people who refuse (provided that they can justify it).  That much is _entirely_ uncontroversial insofar as the law is concerned and it most definitely will NOT be changed by any legal action, here or in Strasbourg, arising out of any challenge to these tactics.

To base your challenge on saying that the police do not have the right to use the tactic at all, or to use any force in enforcing it, is destined to fail.  



> All else follows from there.


Some (but by no means all) protestors refuse to acknowledge the rule of law and refuse to accept any restriction on their right to do absolutely as they wish.  All else follows from there.


----------



## revlon (Dec 12, 2010)

the thing is kettling was used against 'anti-captalist' protestors who could be usefully disengaged with the general public. They could identify ringleaders/the usual suspects/troublemakers and use enough violence on the day to put off the rest from attending the next big demo. They have simply repeated the formula for the student protests.

Thing is it can't be done with this new generation of students and school kids. This isn't ideologoly as violent protest, this is genuinely pissed off angry people. I only hope enough hold their nerve.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

revlon said:


> That was said in 2005.


Factually that is uncontroversial.  Your point is?


----------



## revlon (Dec 12, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Gilmours boy has been nicked


 
having an offensive haircut in public?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Your post was about a 'psychological reluctance' to engage with the enemy, & not engaging with the enemy is far from getting carried away.


But the context in which the point had arisen was all about red mist and getting carried away.

Go back and read the posts which preceded it.  

Don't start taking things entirely out of context as you do with monotonous regularity ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> What you said was that there was definitely a snooker ball there; not maybe, or something that could be, or looked like, or might be. You like your assertions presented as facts don't you.


I've not said I didn't.  

You like to miss the fucking point entirely, don't you?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2010)

revlon said:


> having an offensive haircut in public?


 
attempted relevancy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

You're out of your depth here, d-b. It is plain to see that you have no idea what you're talking about. I'd suggest leaving the thread, tbh.


----------



## revlon (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Factually that is uncontroversial.  Your point is?



this



detective-boy said:


> No.  Containment has been a standard part of public order policing since forever.  It was _absolutely_ routine at the time of major football related disorder in the 80s.
> 
> Just because you have now invented a "cool" new name for it doesn't mean it's anything new.





revlon said:


> no, 'kettling' a very specific logistical operation. Containment is containment, a cordon is a cordon, kettling requires the application of a pre-planned strategy of containment involving police cordons, resulting in a mass of peole being held unlawfully and against their will in an ever tighter pen for a long period of time before being released individually to be photographed and have their details taken.
> 
> All this was explained in the judical review of the mayday 2001 kettle by the various gold and silver commanders.
> 
> Desk jockeys may be able to deal with drunken assaults and minor staurday night skirmishes but don't pretend you know the workings of your superiors.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

revlon said:


> mayday 2001 kettle!!!


No.  The tactic was used by the police before any large scale violence ... but no violence (using it's normal meaning in context - if you mean the use of (trivial) degrees of force such as pushing and shoving then I would say, yes the police used that ... but I am sure that there had also been some such pushing and shoving on the day before the containment was used (i.e. by whichever definition you are using the police did not use violence first but if you are using the two definitions to mean they used force before serious violence took place then, yes, you are right ... as the Court acknowledged they are entitled to do (so long as they can justify it).


----------



## sherpa (Dec 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> d-b speaks like someone with no first-hand experience at all of what he is talking about, tbh. He doesn't understand the police 'tactics' that he is defending.



He's a theorist.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> EDO Brighton May 2009 & October 2010.


Link to a factual account of those as I do not know of them in any detail.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The clearest one I can think of would come from a while ago and the Criminal Justice Act march at which I was right at the front. This was a very 'hippy' march. We were basically ensconced in the street dancing to a rather good sound system. I went to have a piss in a side street to find hundreds of riot police tooling up there. A few minutes later, the police had clearly decided that it was time for us to move, and charged us on horseback. There were kids there. It's very very lucky that they did not kill anyone. Agents provocateurs suddenly appeared behind us ordering us to 'hold our ground'. This was the time before they'd perfected the kettle – I have no doubt that these masked men were coppers. It was a calculated assault on a group of entirely peaceful protesters.


And there was no chance of any proper violence happening anywhere else on the protest?

If the _only_ issue was that you were causing obstruction then I would agree that the use of a mounted police charge (as opposed to a steady, methodical approach accompnaied by foot duty officers) would be a use of violence prior to any violence being used.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  The tactic was used by the police before any large scale violence ... but no violence (using it's normal meaning in context - if you mean the use of (trivial) degrees of force such as pushing and shoving then I would say, yes the police used that ... but I am sure that there had also been some such pushing and shoving on the day before the containment was used (i.e. by whichever definition you are using the police did not use violence first but if you are using the two definitions to mean they used force before serious violence took place then, yes, you are right ... as the Court acknowledged they are entitled to do (so long as they can justify it).



If you're serious about understanding this, I suggest you should go on a demonstration and be kettled. It may open your eyes to certain things.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> However, given your clearly stated predisposition re. the infalability of the police, you won't be able to accept any of them as genuine examples; unfourtunately for you, in doing so you'll undermine your own objective...so keep up the good work.


If you actually provide some evidence of what actually happened (i.e. some reports, details of some court case or something) then we can look at it.  It is fuckwitted to simply expect me to accept your statement of a time and place any more than it is for you to accept my personal experience.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

revlon said:


> no, they are an integral part of the process - maintaining the police cordons and subduing the crowd. It's a planned strategy from the start.


No, it isn't. 



> When we get gold and silver's notes and briefings of the day (and we will) it will become all too apparent.


No, you won't - there will be nothing there which supports your claims.  Because it simply does not happen.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> And there was no chance of any proper violence happening anywhere else on the protest?


 
You miss the point that the protest had already been going on for hours. Yet the riot police only tooled up there – a few minutes before kicking off the aggro. The violence was instigated by the police in a planned fashion. As I said before, it was very fortunate that nobody was killed.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

where to said:


> You have a short memory.


Nothing to do with memory.  But equally nothing to do with containment ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If you actually provide some evidence of what actually happened (i.e. some reports, details of some court case or something) then we can look at it.  It is fuckwitted to simply expect me to accept your statement of a time and place any more than it is for you to accept my personal experience.


 
Sometimes you have to accept it. By their very nature, such things are not reported and certainly never get anywhere near a court. People are giving you honest accounts of their experiences here. You ought to start taking them seriously.


----------



## sherpa (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  The tactic was used by the police before any large scale violence ... but no violence (using it's normal meaning in context - if you mean the use of (trivial) degrees of force such as pushing and shoving then I would say, yes the police used that ... but I am sure that there had also been some such pushing and shoving on the day before the containment was used (i.e. by whichever definition you are using the police did not use violence first but if you are using the two definitions to mean they used force before serious violence took place then, yes, you are right ... as the Court acknowledged they are entitled to do (so long as they can justify it).



Shame it was 'plain English' day on Friday eh? 

I was at the Mayday demonstration in 2001, and the police used aggressive, oppressive and violent tactics to try and contain and control. They were a fucking disgrace then, and they're a fucking disgrace now.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Battle of the beanfield at stonehenge was totally unprovoked violence entirely caused by police.


I would agree that that was an example of excessive, premature violence by police not justified by any significant prior use of violence (though as I recall the police did report some level of violent resistance to their stopping the convoy).  



> Orgreave was a situation where pushing and shoving was escalated into full on battle by the use of round shield riot police and horse charges.


Orgreave I would disagree - the violence started with the protestors attacking / resisting / trying to break police lines and steadily escalated from there.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not true. Crowds need to be broken up so that the police can surround them. This can only be done through charges.


Sometimes, not always by any means.

And the breaking up of a crowd can be, and often is, done using tactics other than a mounted police charge in any event.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I would agree that that was an example of excessive, premature violence by police not justified by any significant prior use of violence (though as I recall the police did report some level of violent resistance to their stopping the convoy).
> 
> 
> Orgreave I would disagree - the violence started with the protestors attacking / resisting / trying to break police lines and steadily escalated from there.



I'd use water to disperse the crowd - most could do with a wash anyway I suspect.  Being so poor they probably cant afford soap.


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If you actually provide some evidence of what actually happened (i.e. some reports, details of some court case or something) then we can look at it.  It is fuckwitted to simply expect me to accept your statement of a time and place any more than it is for you to accept my personal experience.


 
I have just given you to examples, stonehenge and Orgreave where police violence is well recorded and accepted by the courts (in both cases when substantial compensation payouts were given) . You have chosen to ignore them. 

An ITN reporter at stonehenge reported it thus


> What I have seen in the last thirty minutes here in this field has been some of the most brutal police treatment of people that I've witnessed in my entire career as a journalist. The number of people who have been hit by policemen, who have been clubbed whilst holding babies in their arms in coaches around this field, is yet to be counted. There must surely be an inquiry after what has happened today.


----------



## editor (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Orgreave I would disagree - the violence started with the protestors attacking / resisting / trying to break police lines and steadily escalated from there.


I'd say it started when the police - some on horseback - tried to physically force people into places where they didn't want to go.

I'm not sure if defending yourself against a horse being pushed in your face is what I'd call  "resisting" myself.


----------



## editor (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I'd use water to dispers the crowd - most could do with a wash anyway I suspect.  Being so poor they probably cant afford soap.


Have you any idea how stupid that pathetically ignorant comment makes you sound?

The vast majority of the crowd were anything* but* a load of old unwashed crusties, you clueless cretin.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

where to said:


> What are the arguments against water cannons from the perspective of Police and protesters?


From the police: practical (they take ages to fill and minutes to empty); tactical (they are not particularly maneouvrable, and useless in confined streets); PR (they look way more aggressive than they are, hence they are perceived as an escalation especially as they have never been used before); arbitrary (they are more likely to impact individuals not involved than most other tactics)


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> But you claim that they never instigate violence; are you now saying that sometimes they do?


If you actually read my fucking posts you'd know exactly what I'm saying.


----------



## editor (Dec 12, 2010)

This is the kind of thing that the cops are capable of:



> *Police officers 'tried to stop hospital staff treating injured protester'*
> Mother of injured student Alfie Meadows said that her son's life could have been put at risk by the journey to another hospital
> 
> Police have been accused of attempting to prevent seriously injured protesters being treated at the same hospital as officers hurt during last week's tuition fees demonstration, igniting claims that one student's life could have been put at risk.
> ...



Respect to the ambulance man.

*apols if it's already been posted


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In fact, I shall stop engaging – it's highjacking the thread, and d-b's arguments are laughable.


Which, roughly translated, means "Actually he has a point but I can't bring myself to acknowledge it ... "


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

smokedout said:


> well you'd think that wouldn't you, but that smellie twat and the bastards who killed ian tomlinson were highly experienced public order cops - it seems to be a phenomena within the tsg that they turn up hyped up and looking for a ruck - strangely the most highly trained public order specialists in the met


The flip side of that is the fact that those intent on having a fight, and enjoying it (and thus most resistant to the training) are attracted to such units.  I would suggest that they are an example of overly aggressive individuals failing to be properly supervised, etc. rather than under-trained individuals losing control.


----------



## sherpa (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Link to a factual account of those as I do not know of them in any detail.


 
Whose facts? The _facts_ put forward by Sussex police, or the facts put forward by people who were demonstrating?

The police persist with willful obfuscation when it comes to demonstrations, and demonstrators, showing themselves, as individuals, and as an organisation, to be bereft of integrity, time after time. And they get away with it, time after time.


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I would agree that that was an example of excessive, premature violence by police not justified by any significant prior use of violence (though as I recall the police did report some level of violent resistance to their stopping the convoy).
> 
> 
> Orgreave I would disagree - the violence started with the protestors attacking / resisting / trying to break police lines and steadily escalated from there.


 
Then you disagree with the courts who dismissed all charges against the miners (some of whom were charged with riot) and handed out substantial compensation payouts.  ALL independent research into Orgreave lay the blame for the violence on the unprovoked attacks of the police. 

As for stonehenge, to describe the police violence as excessive is an epic understatement. It was nothing short of a police riot. I remember it well. Crazed out of control cops beating the living daylights out of women holding babies in their arms. breaking the windows every every single vehicle despite people screaming "there are babies in here" two or more police beating people lying handcuffed on the ground. Dragging women through broken windows by their hair.  It was a disgrace. 

And no prizes for guessing how many police were prosecuted


----------



## sherpa (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Which, roughly translated, means "Actually he has a point but I can't bring myself to acknowledge it ... "


 
In your head maybe. By christ you're arrogant.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> From the police: practical (they take ages to fill and minutes to empty); tactical (they are not particularly maneouvrable, and useless in confined streets); PR (they look way more aggressive than they are, hence they are perceived as an escalation especially as they have never been used before); arbitrary (they are more likely to impact individuals not involved than most other tactics)


 
and if combined with kettling potentially fatal in this weather


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Smash EDO Brighton October 2010.


If that was the name of the demo it does _rather_ give away the intention to commit unlawful violence ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Which, roughly translated, means "Actually he has a point but I can't bring myself to acknowledge it ... "


 
It means what it says. And now I really will stop engaging. I've made it perfectly clear that I think you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

revlon said:


> this


I still don't see exactly what point you are trying to make.  The particular _combination of features_ of the MayDay 2001 containment were different from when it had been used previously ... but the containment tactic simply was not new and giving it a trendy new name does not make it so.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Orgreave I would disagree - the violence started with the protestors attacking / resisting / trying to break police lines and steadily escalated from there.


No it did NOT. I was there and I saw violence instigated, without provocation, by police on horseback and on foot, and I saw this repeated on picket lines throughout that strike.
I know what I saw.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Articles such as that absolutely justify very robust and restrictive policing tactics from the outset of every protest which could be considered as being against the State.  If you subscribe to that view then I look forward to you explaining that "Someone has to say it: mass violence against the police inevitably means that the police will use restrictive and robust policing tactics from an early stage, to defend themselves let alone the interests they are defending.  We wish it wasn't but it is.  The reason is simple: the protestors are intent on attacking the State unconditionally and the police are the only part of the State actually available for physical attack so they attacked without remorse - or even a second thought.  Reasonable police officers yearn for a compromise, whereby they facilitate peaceful and lawful protest: but the extremist protestors aren't listening.  Neither should the rest.".



Your cunt mate Paddick let the cat out of the bag though, suggesting rounding up people before protests. When it comes down to it when protesters refuse to submit to the demands and whims of the police, refuse to go on agreed a to b marches and refuse to be kettled and refuse to cower in the face of truncheons but instead fight back, the iron fist comes out.

It's not my job to provide strategy or analysis for the ruling class or the pigs, my only concern for them is that they are beaten or shown up for the cunts they are.


----------



## sherpa (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If that was the name of the demo it does _rather_ give away the intention to commit unlawful violence ...


 
You really are a concrete thinker, aren't you, Mr Literal?


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

editor said:


> Have you any idea how stupid that pathetically ignorant comment makes you sound?
> 
> The vast majority of the crowd were anything* but* a load of old unwashed crusties, you clueless cretin.


 
is that right?  Convince the general public of that then


----------



## editor (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I still don't see exactly what point you are trying to make.  The particular _combination of features_ of the MayDay 2001 containment were different from when it had been used previously ... but the containment tactic simply was not new and giving it a trendy new name does not make it so.


What happened at Mayday was outrageous and totally unjustifiable. It wasn't a  'containment tactic' it was unlawful imprisonment, with people detained in sub human conditions.


----------



## editor (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> is that right?  Convince the general public of that then


That's not my job or my interest, but why are you posting up such ignorant rubbish?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sometimes you have to accept it. By their very nature, such things are not reported and certainly never get anywhere near a court. People are giving you honest accounts of their experiences here. You ought to start taking them seriously.


People's accounts (honest or otherwise) tend to be focused on their _individual_ experience ... which they then extrapolate to cover the whole protest ("I saw no snooker balls thrown ... therefore there were no snooker balls thrown at any part of the protest").  

That applies in much of my experience too ... but at a higher rank I got to see the _whole_ picture and I can state without fear of contradiction that on _every_ occasion more robust (and properly "violent") police tactics were used it was in response to proper violence being used somewhere in the protest.

I am giving you my honest account of my experience here.  You ought to start taking it seriously.


----------



## sherpa (Dec 12, 2010)

editor said:


> That's not my job or my interest, but why are you posting up such ignorant rubbish?


 
Because he's an idiot?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> I have just given you to examples, stonehenge and Orgreave where police violence is well recorded and accepted by the courts (in both cases when substantial compensation payouts were given) . You have chosen to ignore them.


YOU have (and I have responded).

The other fuckwit hasn't.  He just posts pompous foolishness.


----------



## sherpa (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> People's accounts (honest or otherwise) tend to be focused on their _individual_ experience ... which they then extrapolate to cover the whole protest ("I saw no snooker balls thrown ... therefore there were no snooker balls thrown at any part of the protest").
> 
> That applies in much of my experience too ... but at a higher rank I got to see the _whole_ picture and I can state without fear of contradiction that on _every_ occasion more robust (and properly "violent") police tactics were used it was in response to proper violence being used somewhere in the protest.
> 
> I am giving you my honest account of my experience here.  You ought to start taking it seriously.



Rank. You like the idea of rank, don't you? It seeps out of every post you write, you closet authoritarian.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

Stop calling people fuckwits.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

editor said:


> I'd say it started when the police - some on horseback - tried to physically force people into places where they didn't want to go.


i.e. it started when the protestors decided to use violence to resist a lawful police use of force.

It is the aggregated up equivalent of the use of violence to resist an arrest which, as you know, is universally suggested as being a good idea as (a) it will rarely work; (b) it will likely lead to you being injured and (c) it may well result in you committing a criminal offence even if you hadn't up to that point.

The use of violence to resist a police use of force in a public order situation is no more sensible or likely to end in anything other than tears.  As with an arrest considered unlawful the thing to do is to gather evidence and mount a challenge in the courts.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 12, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Gilmours boy has been nicked


abou time that there was some payback for 'dark Side Of The Moon'


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

sherpa said:


> Whose facts?


The facts as determined by some form on investigation or enquiry.  Or reported by an independent observer such as a reliable reporter.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Then you disagree with the courts who dismissed all charges against the miners (some of whom were charged with riot) and handed out substantial compensation payouts.  ALL independent research into Orgreave lay the blame for the violence on the unprovoked attacks of the police.


No.  Those are decisons based on individual actions taken by individual officers against individual miners.  They actually point up the distinction I have been trying to make.


----------



## revlon (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I still don't see exactly what point you are trying to make.  The particular _combination of features_ of the MayDay 2001 containment were different from when it had been used previously ... but the containment tactic simply was not new and giving it a trendy new name does not make it so.


 
*"The facts of this case are quite exceptional. Never before, or since, May 1, 2001 have the police in England formed cordons enclosing a crowd of thousands before a substantial breakdown of law and order has occurred, with the result that the crowd were prevented from leaving for many hours".* 

aye and this we, the general public, get to call 'kettling'.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> But the context in which the point had arisen was all about red mist and getting carried away.
> 
> Go back and read the posts which preceded it.
> 
> Don't start taking things entirely out of context as you do with monotonous regularity ...



There's no need to read fuck all again - you said; 





detective-boy said:


> A psychologist would undoubtedly agree that there is an aspect of group think that takes over in such situations (and, having experienced it, I know that it does and that it is difficult to maintain individual perspective) but the vast majority of officers are able to maintain an appropriate attitude and act perfectly properly.  *In fact, just like there are examples of soldiers being reluctant to kill the enemy on an individual level, even when participating in an attack on a particular objective*, I have observed officers reluctant to use significant force during a public order operation even when it is perfectly justifiable on an individual level (on one occasion resulting in a person lawfully arrested for a serious offence being freed and one of the arresting officers significantly injured).



A soldier reluctant to engage with the enemy has fuck all to do with red mist & getting carried away in the moment. So quit acting like a cock.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> It's not my job to provide strategy or analysis for the ruling class or the pigs, my only concern for them is that they are beaten or shown up for the cunts they are.


From your statement you are resisting the rule of law.

You are more of a fuckwit than I thought if you think that fighting the fucking police who are applying the law is going to change the law ...


----------



## revlon (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> i.e. it started when the protestors decided to use violence to resist a lawful police use of force.
> 
> It is the aggregated up equivalent of the use of violence to resist an arrest which, as you know, is universally suggested as being a good idea as (a) it will rarely work; (b) it will likely lead to you being injured and (c) it may well result in you committing a criminal offence even if you hadn't up to that point.
> 
> The use of violence to resist a police use of force in a public order situation is no more sensible or likely to end in anything other than tears.  As with an arrest considered unlawful the thing to do is to gather evidence and mount a challenge in the courts.


 
this is incorrect


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Stop calling people fuckwits.


Now where should I start with my list of things for you and others to stop calling the police generally and me personally ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 12, 2010)

revlon said:


> this is incorrect


Thank you for the detailed justification of your position ...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> YOU have (and I have responded).
> 
> The other fuckwit hasn't.  He just posts pompous foolishness.



I take it that's aimed in my direction? Give Chief Constable Martin Richards a ring, i'm sure he'll explain why protesters were kettled before the demonstration even took place, & that he'll also explain why those who were kettled were arrested under Section 14.

And drop the insults.


----------



## revlon (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Thank you for the detailed justification of your position ...


 
it's both factual and legally incorrect.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> What a totally fuckwitted thing to suggest - that the time taken for a fucking response is in _any_ way associated with it's reliability ...



The "reliability" of the response didn't come into it. It was the fact that the reply was just:



detective-boy said:


> It isn't though.



Pantomime stuff.

I've been away making and eating my Sunday tea btw.

Now orf to walk the dog.


----------



## editor (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> i.e. it started when the protestors decided to use violence to resist a lawful police use of force.


Out of curiosity, what are basing your opinions on here? What you've read in the papers or the words of the people who were actually there?

If the cops were using _excessive and unreasonable force_ then it is not a lawful use of force.


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  Those are decisons based on individual actions taken by individual officers against individual miners.  They actually point up the distinction I have been trying to make.


 
Interesting you bring that up because in the case of Stonehenge the court decisions were the result of a 6 year battle against Wiltshire police. No action was taken against individual officers  and do you know why?

Because the bastards wore no identifying numbers.

You are also only partly correct in respect to Orgreave. Yes all charges were dropped against the miners but successful court action was also brought against South Yorkshire police who settled out of court with a 425.000 compensation pay out.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> From your statement you are resisting the rule of law.
> 
> You are more of a fuckwit than I thought if you think that fighting the fucking police who are applying the law is going to change the law ...


 
and complying with the pigs gets you where exactly?

how many dead in Iraq and Afghanistan because people complied with the law?


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 12, 2010)

Ban the pig.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 12, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Ban the pig.


 this


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> and complying with the pigs gets you where exactly?
> 
> how many dead in Iraq and Afghanistan because people complied with the law?


 
The 2003 march against the Iraq war was the biggest demonstration in British history. It was utterly totally and completely futile. A total waste of time and energy. Tony Blair ignored it and contemptuously referred to it as the "march of the luvvies."  That lesson has been learned. If we want to win we have to break the law. .


----------



## audiotech (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> In terms of informed comment, it has been done routinely since at least the early 90s, when police photographers began to be deployed as part of public order operations and photographs became a practical option (taking names _had_ been done previously but was not really particularly effective for obvious reasons ...).  It became even more commonplace as digital cameras made it practically more do-able (and affordable).



I'm back.

*Get down Shep.*

That post of yours addresses very little of what was posted:



audiotech said:


> Thousands of people being 'corralled' by the police, not being able to leave, having to stand in a line for hours and having their faces photographed is.



So, thousands (crucial word here) being 'corralled' (another), standing in line for hours (more crucial words), not being let out (yet more) and then being photographed? Happened before?

To add: All at the same time?

Take as much time as you want now.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

editor said:


> That's not my job or my interest, but why are you posting up such ignorant rubbish?



If you went to a football match and threw objects at fellow supporters you'd be rightly arrested and charged (if caught).  The fact that this was a demonstration is irrelevant.  It does not give you the right to break the law.  Quite frankly any parent that lets their children attend these demonstrations should be ashamed of themselves - and they certainly don't have the right to complain about aggressive behaviour by the police.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> The 2003 march against the Iraq war was the biggest demonstration in British history. It was utterly totally and completely futile. A total waste of time and energy. Tony Blair ignored it and contemptuously referred to it as the "march of the luvvies."  That lesson has been learned. If we want to win we have to break the law. .


 
then expect to get hurt and/or arrested.  Hopefully a few will get banged up over Christmas for their efforts.


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> If you went to a football match and threw objects at fellow supporters you'd be rightly arrested and charged (if caught).  The fact that this was a demonstration is irrelevant.  It does not give you the right to break the law.  Quite frankly any parent that lets their children attend these demonstrations should be ashamed of themselves - and they certainly don't have the right to complain about aggressive behaviour by the police.


 


gunneradt said:


> then expect to get hurt and/or arrested.  Hopefully a few will get banged up over Christmas for their efforts.



People are learning to expect to get hurt, it is true, whether they engage in violence themselves or not. There was a lot of collective punishment on Thursday.

In general you are demonstrating a serious failure of imagination. You are unable to imagine that people might have perfectly sane, reasonable motives for wanting to batter down the door of the treasury with a fence panel.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> If you went to a football match and threw objects at fellow supporters you'd be rightly arrested and charged (if caught).  The fact that this was a demonstration is irrelevant.  It does not give you the right to break the law.  Quite frankly any parent that lets their children attend these demonstrations should be ashamed of themselves - and they certainly don't have the right to complain about aggressive behaviour by the police.


 
You're quite the little authoritarian, aren't you?


----------



## audiotech (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> The 2003 march against the Iraq war was the biggest demonstration in British history. It was utterly totally and completely futile. A total waste of time and energy. Tony Blair ignored it and contemptuously referred to it as the "march of the luvvies."  That lesson has been learned. If we want to win we have to break the law. .


 

Ooo, I don't know? Who was it now who said the size of the march was "intimidating"? I've no idea what those who marched at the time are doing politically and thinking politically now?


----------



## sherpa (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The facts as determined by some form on investigation or enquiry.  Or reported by an independent observer such as a reliable reporter.


 
So there has to be an *inquiry* or investigation, before facts become facts? You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

And who decides who is independent? The police are quite happy to arrest legal observers on demos, so who provides the impartiality? You lot? Don't make me laugh.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Quite frankly any parent that lets their children attend these demonstrations should be ashamed of themselves - and they certainly don't have the right to complain about aggressive behaviour by the police.


 
You want to say that again in front of young Alfie's mum? 

You utter fucking cunt.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> i.e. it started when the protestors decided to use violence to resist a lawful police use of force.


That wasn't what happened. The police used massive force to deny people their rights of assembly, protest and picket, well before any response from us on the picket line


----------



## sherpa (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Now where should I start with my list of things for you and others to stop calling the police generally and me personally ...


 
And this sums you up - you're a police officer, maybe not a serving one, but it's written in your bone marrow, like words through a stick of rock. Once filth, always filth.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Quite frankly any parent that lets their children attend these demonstrations should be ashamed of themselves - and they certainly don't have the right to complain about aggressive behaviour by the police.


what utter, total garbage. They are letting their children go on peaceful protests - which they were for the vast majority of people there - on issues which affect their fundamental interests. The single biggest cause of trouble was police actions.
We have such a thing as the right to protest here in the UK, and it shouldn't be accompanied by 'a police right to wildly overdo it'.
It's what's called 'democracy', you know.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You want to say that again in front of young Alfie's mum?
> 
> You utter fucking cunt.


 
Demonstrations are not for children.  Now that this has regrettably happened you'd have to be a god awful parent to permit your child to attend.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> If you went to a football match and threw objects at fellow supporters you'd be rightly arrested and charged (if caught).  The fact that this was a demonstration is irrelevant.  It does not give you the right to break the law.  Quite frankly any parent that lets their children attend these demonstrations should be ashamed of themselves - and they certainly don't have the right to complain about aggressive behaviour by the police.



Those who make peaceful revolution impossible violent revolution inevitable. If you fail to see any point when violence is unacceptable, you're a slave. Period.

edit: sorry, typos, was changing a nappy with one hand typing with the other


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> what utter, total garbage. They are letting their children go on peaceful protests - which they were for the vast majority of people there - on issues which affect their fundamental interests. The single biggest cause of trouble was police actions.


 
While many are protesting peacefully - we have adults on here advocating breaking the law quite openly.  Children are getting to get swept along with it quite obviously.

Throwing anything at anyone is an offence

More will get hurt.


----------



## sherpa (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Demonstrations are not for children.  Now that this has regrettably happened you'd have to be a god awful parent to permit your child to attend.


 
So, those who don't have a voice through the legislated medium of voting, should remain silent because you say so.

Fuck off.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Demonstrations are not for children.  Now that this has regrettably happened you'd have to be a god awful parent to permit your child to attend.


 
I'd love to meet you IRL, see how much of a cock you really are.


----------



## ymu (Dec 12, 2010)

You have to be a godawful parent not to support these protests. Alfie's mum was on it herself, anyway.

@parentsprotest on Twitter are doing some nice work.


----------



## belboid (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Demonstrations are not for children.


 
really?  never? not even when it is about something that affects them massively? that doesn't seem very democratic


----------



## little_legs (Dec 12, 2010)




----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Those who make peaceful revolution impossible violent revolution inevitable. If fail to see any point when violence is acceptable, you're a slave. Period.



That's fine - then don't complain when people get hurt


----------



## sherpa (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> That's fine - then don't complain when people get hurt


 
Simpleton.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

discokermit said:


> orgreave, wapping, the beanfield, poll tax. db is just a fucking liar.


 
The old bill may well be told to not go for the head, but in just about any instance where there's a chance they might take a lump, they do.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

sherpa said:


> Simpleton.


 
well no doubt you'll all be here complaining after the next demonstration when someone else has been hurt.


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 12, 2010)

Don't forget the Countryside Alliance cracked skulls...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Have you got any examples of this psychological 'reluctance' in a soldier? How do you know what's going on in the mind of anyone, let alone a soldier in battle?
> 
> The whole point of intensive military training is taking away that doubt - any soldier who shows reluctance will not a soldier make.


 
You sometimes get it in conscript armies - mainly because they're not indoctrinated to the same degree, the main aim being to turn out bodies that can fire a rifle reasonably accurately, but in a modern military, it's massively less likely, especially given the input from psychologists into training over the last 40 years.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Demonstrations are not for children.  Now that this has regrettably happened you'd have to be a god awful parent to permit your child to attend.


what absolute bollocks! demonstrations are a crucial part of democracy, and we ALL have a vested interest in the youth becoming politically active and involved, as early as possible. Especially on issues which affect them.


----------



## sherpa (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> well no doubt you'll all be here complaining after the next demonstration when someone else has been hurt.


 
My name is legion; for we are many.

Twat.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> what absolute bollocks! demonstrations are a crucial part of democracy, and we ALL have a vested interest in the youth becoming politically active and involved, as early as possible. Especially on issues which affect them.


 
Are they? And do we?  Some of us get on with life and try to earn a living without whinging about everything.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes.  Of course they are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your example is of Paratroopers. So-called "Special Forces" who are assault troops. To use them as an example of the average soldier or infantryman misses the point


> But I also claim that the police are trained not to let it take them over too.  And that for the most part their training works, the more so the more highly trained the particular unit and their supervisors.  And that sometimes both soldiers and police succumb to it.


It works so well that we have far more examples of police succumbing to the red mist under pressure than we do of soldiers, even when the soldiers are in situations that are far more dangerous. 


> It is your absolute failure to acknowledge that soldiers _ever_ fuck up and you constant comparison of their 100% reliability with the police who you plainly consider a bunch of amateur fuckwits that leads to me concluding that you are (a) pro-military and (b) anti-police.  Not any "assumption" on my part - the _fact_ of what you write.


Anyone who's familiar with my posting history knows that I'm critical of the military, and even *you* know that I've never attributed 100% reliability to the military (although, in your usual slap-dash way, I'm sure you've inferred it), and that you have indeed made an assumption and are attempting to dress it up as a fact.
If it's a fact rather than an inference on your part, post up some proof. If you can't, then be quiet.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Are they? And do we?  Some of us get on with life and try to earn a living without whinging about everything.


 
You're always fucking whinging you tax-dodging cock


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Are they? And do we?  Some of us get on with life and try to earn a living without whinging about everything.


 
you whine all the fucking time on here, it's all you do


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> You're always fucking whinging you tax-dodging cock


 
I don't whinge at all - I spend most of my laughing at you lot and your glorification of the great class struggle.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I don't whinge at all - I spend most of my laughing at you lot and your glorification of the great class struggle.


 
there you go again, fucking whining like a kicked puppy


----------



## sherpa (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Are they? And do we?  Some of us get on with life and try to earn a living without whinging about everything.


 
You're DB's sock puppet, with added martyr complex, aren't you?


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> there you go again, fucking whining like a kicked puppy


 
no Im playing with my christmas lights and sipping red wine!!


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> no I*m playing with my christmas lights* and sipping red wine!!



i bet you are you dirty little man


----------



## audiotech (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Are they? And do we?  Some of us get on with life and try to earn a living without whinging about everything.



Accepting gains fought for in the past and now letting those be taken without even a word?

Or is it: 'Fuck you, I'm all right Jack'?


----------



## sherpa (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> no Im playing with my christmas lights and sipping red wine!!


 
Mind you don't blow yourself up.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> i.e. it started when the protestors decided to use violence to resist a lawful police use of force.
> 
> It is the aggregated up equivalent of the use of violence to resist an arrest which, as you know, is universally suggested as being a good idea as (a) it will rarely work; (b) it will likely lead to you being injured and (c) it may well result in you committing a criminal offence even if you hadn't up to that point.
> 
> The use of violence to resist a police use of force in a public order situation is no more sensible or likely to end in anything other than tears.  As with an arrest considered unlawful the thing to do is to gather evidence and mount a challenge in the courts.


 
so here we have it, give in, don't resist, you can't win, if you resist we will hit you harder both literally and with the force of law.

go home kids, keep your head down and whilst you can grumble and complain about being shafted by the ruling class any attempt to actually do something to get them off your back will be beaten down.

you must feel so proud you pinkerton scab fuck.


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 12, 2010)

I can't believe that wimp gummeradt can hold down a job he's on here moaning so much...


----------



## sherpa (Dec 12, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Or is it: 'Fuck you, I'm all right Jack'?



He's a smug simpleton, for sure.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> no Im playing with my christmas lights and sipping red wine!!


 
Paid for with nicked money you whingy fucking parasite


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> i bet you are you dirty little man


 
ha ha that was even mildly amusing


----------



## sherpa (Dec 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> you must feel so proud you pinkerton scab fuck.



Ooooof.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> If you went to a football match and threw objects at fellow supporters you'd be rightly arrested and charged (if caught).  The fact that this was a demonstration is irrelevant.  It does not give you the right to break the law.  Quite frankly any parent that lets their children attend these demonstrations should be ashamed of themselves - and they certainly don't have the right to complain about aggressive behaviour by the police.



Where did this fuckwit come from?


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Paid for with nicked money you whingy fucking parasite


 
no not at all - it was my top shop store card


----------



## sherpa (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> no not at all - it was my top shop store card


 
troll

best ignored.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> no not at all - it was my top shop store card


 
So a tax dodger using a tax dodger's store card. Apt.


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 12, 2010)

It bought Xmas lights in Top Shop?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> That's fine - then don't complain when people get hurt


 
And neither should you, because one day they might be fighting for something you agree with, even though I doubt this because you seem to be a passive-aggressive sort.

edit: if you pick a fight with the police, fine expect to get hit - but those who peacefully had their liberty removed, were batoned, charged with horses and treated like shit, don't deserve even your contempt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> It's mostly referring to WW2, Vietnam, Korea etc. It does say this though; "Superior training *currently* used by military organizations helps make the decision for the individual." There certainly wasn't any 'superior training' given to soldiers of those said wars, unlike today where there is superior & intensive training.


Note that they're all conflicts were large amounts of conscripts were deployed to front-line service.
It's not a particularly good article either. Lots of assertion but bugger-all sourcing.
Grossman's "On Killing" is an interesting read, though, as it digs into the military psychology side of things (I bought it  about 3 years ago at the same time as I bought Norman Dixon's "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence", which is also a good book).



> Where did you pluck that one from? I've never professed to any such thing.


 
Projection, innit.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> And neither should you, because one day they might be fighting for something you agree with, even though I doubt this because you seem to be a passive-aggressive sort.
> 
> edit: if you pick a fight with the police, fine expect to get hit - but those who peacefully had their liberty removed, were batoned, charged with horses and treated like shit, don't deserve even your contempt.


 
I dont like to see children hurt but more will if this carries on.


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 12, 2010)

And thousands more will develop a healthy contempt for the filth. My boys have it drummed into them already.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 12, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You sometimes get it in conscript armies - mainly because they're not indoctrinated to the same degree, the main aim being to turn out bodies that can fire a rifle reasonably accurately, but in a modern military, it's massively less likely, especially given the input from psychologists into training over the last 40 years.


 
There was an interesting documentary on this a while ago - US Civil War rifles were found chocka full of shot and they couldn't work out why. Then they realised that they were pretending to fire on queue but weren't actually pulling the trigger. They'd then get more led shot and stuff it back down the barrel. Military training as far as i can see in recent years (post WWII) was focused around dehumanisation of people to the point where their personality was all but removed from their thinking.

Im sure this goes part way to explaining why many riot police seem to have that glazed look in their eyes and think nothing of smacking people over the head. Maybe the post traumatic stress will get them....


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I dont like to see children hurt but more will if this carries on.


 
I didn't see anyone in Parliament Square who looked too young to make decisions for themselves.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> And thousands more will develop a healthy contempt for the filth. My boys have it drummed into them already.


 
excellent - just the way to go.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> pmsl


 
No laughing matter when you bear in mind that two armed coppers believed that Harry Stanley's table leg in a carrier bag looked "entirely consistent" with a gun.

How long before it's trotted out as an excuse for some pre-emptive head-bashing?
"He had in his hand something that looked entirely consistent with a cosh, your honour. It was only when my colleagues and I had beaten him to the ground that we noticed it was actually a cheese baguette".


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> I didn't see anyone in Parliament Square who looked too young to make decisions for themselves.


 
no problem then


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> no problem then


 
Nope. I've no idea what you're wittering on about.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Hopefully a few will get banged up over Christmas for their efforts.



I'd rather be banged up over Christmas, than be you.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I dont like to see children hurt but more will if this carries on.


 
Yes, people will be hurt if those sections peacefully demonstrating are on the end of illegal and violent actions by riot police who only seem to want to scare protesters from coming back (indeed one report i read had a protester saying that a riot squad officer told him just that). Although i've seen a video where one riot squad officer was visibly affected by a young girl pleading with him to let her out. The conversation went something like...

Girl: "Please i want to go home i dont want to cause trouble!"
Riot Officer, (looking a bit shaken) "I know, i don't agree with it but i have orders, but if i let you out id have to let everyone out".

Handy thing those "orders", even when illegal. This is an area protesters, those not keen on rucking with police, should be looking to milk in my view.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 12, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> I didn't see anyone in Parliament Square who looked too young to make decisions for themselves.


 
yeah the only people there incapable of making a decision for themselves were generally quite a bit older although in terms of mental age...

I mean this thick cunt can't even eat a yoghurt properly


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 12, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> edit: if you pick a fight with the police, fine expect to get hit - but those who peacefully had their liberty removed, were batoned, charged with horses and treated like shit, don't deserve even your contempt.


HE deserves THEIR contempt tho'; these complacent, unthinking reactionary types are precisely how dictatorships come about - they simply bow down before Authority, accept its' every word unthinkingly, andf care about no-one else. He really doesn't deserve to have any rights, let alone the vote.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 12, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Your example is of Paratroopers. So-called "Special Forces" who are assault troops. To use them as an example of the average soldier or infantryman misses the point



Indeed. Any infantryman will tell you that the Para's are all wannabe special forces, & are arrogant & obnoxious cunts with their heads firmly up their arses.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 12, 2010)

Those videos of the riot cops being charged then kettled by demonstators and one of the pigs almost losing it, but not _daring_ to hit the agitator giving it large in his face were brilliant, inspiring and beautiful.


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 12, 2010)

The ones at Warrenpoint certainly had their heads up their arses...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Many many times at football matches during the 1970s and on into the 80s; if you'd prefer examples from political demonstrations I can give those (as I'm sure could lots of other people on here). However, given your clearly stated predisposition re. the infalability of the police, you won't be able to accept any of them as genuine examples; unfourtunately for you, in doing so you'll undermine your own objective...so keep up the good work.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Fair point, LM. I used to occasionally take my grandfather across the Thames to see Fulham when they played at home, back in the late '70s, and the Old Bill were *always* on the edge of tipping over into aggro mode. Same with demos. It was a situation where you knew they wanted it to kick off, so you mostly behaved well, so they didn't have an excuse to give people a leathering.
In the mid '80s I drank in a boozer which got overrun by coppers, after an ex-copper took over the licence. The amount of boasting you'd hear about "scruffy students" and "wogs" having been given a kicking was quite nauseating.
Obviously, these were either just "bad apples", or they were drunkenly telling lies to each other, because such a thing couldn't possibly be a standard mode of behaviour.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 12, 2010)

It's a long one and I'm just watching myself, but this guys videos are usually quite entertaining.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 12, 2010)

Apols if repost or seen before.

15 year old kid. Good lad.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> No it did NOT. I was there and I saw violence instigated, without provocation, by police on horseback and on foot, and I saw this repeated on picket lines throughout that strike.
> I know what I saw.


 
In fact, wasn't part of the shock at that "Miners" 3-parter a while ago, for the 20th anniversary of the strike, the unearthing of the edited-out parts of the Beeb's footage of Orgreave, which showed unequivocally that the police had started the aggro?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> is that right?  Convince the general public of that then


 
You speaking for the general public now, gunner?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

editor said:


> That's not my job or my interest, but why are you posting up such ignorant rubbish?


 
Because he's ignorant and rubbish?


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Yes, people will be hurt if those sections peacefully demonstrating are on the end of illegal and violent actions by riot police who only seem to want to scare protesters from coming back (indeed one report i read had a protester saying that a riot squad officer told him just that). Although i've seen a video where one riot squad officer was visibly affected by a young girl pleading with him to let her out. The conversation went something like...
> 
> Girl: "Please i want to go home i dont want to cause trouble!"
> Riot Officer, (looking a bit shaken) "I know, i don't agree with it but i have orders, but if i let you out id have to let everyone out".
> ...



but if you're in a crowd where some are behaving illegally and throwing things then it is quite possible you will get hurt when the police get angry


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You speaking for the general public now, gunner?


 
possibly


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 12, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> i bet you are you dirty little man


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Stop calling people fuckwits.


 
If you demonise and/or belittle your opponents, it's easier to obfuscate them without feeling remorse. 

That may well be why d-b swears a lot more than any of the supposed members of the mythical "collective" do.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

editor said:


> Out of curiosity, what are basing your opinions on here? What you've read in the papers or the words of the people who were actually there?
> 
> If the cops were using _excessive and unreasonable force_ then it is not a lawful use of force.


 
Problem being that "reasonable force" is an elastic definition that's almost always interpreted to justify the actions of the police.


----------



## sherpa (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> but if you're in a crowd where some are behaving illegally and throwing things then it is quite possible you will get hurt when the police get angry



The police are always angry. They hold the people they serve, in contempt, most of the time. Demonstrations give them the opportunity to play out that contempt, with impunity, on the whole.


----------



## editor (Dec 12, 2010)

It was only a matter of time....


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

sherpa said:


> The police are always angry. They hold the people they serve, in contempt, most of the time. Demonstrations give them the opportunity to play out that contempt, with impunity, on the whole.


 
yep you're right - all the more reason not to let your children go and get hurt.  Of course some parents seem to think it's OK.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 12, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> In fact, wasn't part of the shock at that "Miners" 3-parter a while ago, for the 20th anniversary of the strike, the unearthing of the edited-out parts of the Beeb's footage of Orgreave, which showed unequivocally that the police had started the aggro?


oh god yes, i'd forgotten about that! I sat there watching that programme with a feeling of mixed anger and satisfaction, I felt vindicated


----------



## revol68 (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> yep you're right - all the more reason not to let your children go and get hurt.  Of course some parents seem to think it's OK.


 
you planning on raising any children you might have as snivelling cowards who bow down to bullys?


----------



## sherpa (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> yep you're right - all the more reason not to let your children go and get hurt.  Of course some parents seem to think it's OK.



So, you think children and young people shouldn't have a voice; a right to make their feelings known, by whatever legal means possible, all because our police force can't control themselves?

Jog on, knobber.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> yep you're right - all the more reason not to let your children go and get hurt.  Of course some parents seem to think it's OK.


so the police should have the right to break the law with impunity, and nothing should be done about their misconduct?


----------



## ymu (Dec 12, 2010)

I've never met a parent who wasn't proud of what their kids had done in standing up for what they believe in, and I've met four whose children were killed in the process.

Cowardice and capitulation are not attributes to be proud of.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> possibly


 
I just did a straw poll, and the general public reckon you shouldn't try speaking for them, because they think you're a cunt.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 12, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I just did a straw poll, and the general public reckon you shouldn't try speaking for them, because they think you're a cunt.



sounds conclusive enough for me


----------



## dylans (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> yep you're right - all the more reason not to let your children go and get hurt.  Of course some parents seem to think it's OK.


 
The language of a slave. Don't try to break your chains. That would upset the master. Master miight get angry. Best to quietly pick the cotton. Slave.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

sherpa said:


> The police are always angry. They hold the people they serve, in contempt, most of the time. Demonstrations give them the opportunity to play out that contempt, with impunity, on the whole.


 
Talk to any copper who's been in the job for a few years, one-on-one, and (in my personal and professional experience) the majority (I'd say 4/5ths) of them are alienated (in the psychological rather than the socio-economic sense of the word) from the people they're supposed to serve (except for detective-boy, obviously, because he's perfect!).
A lot of that alienation is attributable to the kinds of institutional attitudes and prejudices that circulate within the profession, and the fact that the police services are a "closed" culture (as is the military) means that modifying or neutralising those attitudes and prejudices is a long and difficult job that would require political will and the expenditure of political capital. Not something you could expect the previous or the current band of ignoble capitalist toadies to be willing to do.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Dec 12, 2010)

editor said:


> It was only a matter of time....




It's been giving for a few years that.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I just did a straw poll, and the general public reckon you shouldn't try speaking for them, because they think you're a cunt.


 
well it's mutual I'd say - and youre all mouth an no trousers


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> so the police should have the right to break the law with impunity, and nothing should be done about their misconduct?


 
nope - and nor should protesters


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> The language of a slave. Don't try to break your chains. That would upset the master. Master miight get angry. Best to quietly pick the cotton. Slave.


 
I have no chains to break - nor chips, grudges or problems to repel.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> well it's mutual I'd say -


What, you think that the general public are cunts?
Sounds about right of you.


> and youre all mouth an no trousers


About what? Be specific, boy!


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I have no chains to break - nor chips, grudges or problems to repel.



_Per adua ad asbestos_, then.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 12, 2010)

I got the same result here VP. Astonishing!


----------



## little_legs (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> well it's mutual I'd say - and youre all mouth an no trousers


 
Violent Panda is right, you are a cunt. He just has the energy & kindness to take your puny shitty arguments apart.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 12, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I have no chains to break - nor chips, grudges or *problems to repel*.


 
No, but you seem to have a problem with attracting something to fill the void between your ears.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If you actually provide some evidence of what actually happened (i.e. some reports, details of some court case or something) then we can look at it.  It is fuckwitted to simply expect me to accept your statement of a time and place any more than it is for you to accept my personal experience.


 
It's called personal testimony, widely aknowledged as a legitimate and valuable resource (even by yourself when you cite your experience as higher ranking officer with an overview); your problem is the mental straight jacket you've put yourself in which simply can't accomodate some evidence.

By the way I'm not out to convince you of anything, just to get you to clarify your position, which you are doing admirably.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 12, 2010)

One long hot humid summer, these really angry kids and the mets testosterone hyped attitude and this could all go really fucking wrong.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> What, you think that the general public are cunts?
> Sounds about right of you.
> 
> About what? Be specific, boy!


 
Come along, gunner, surely a fellow like yourself has answers to my questions?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> No, but you seem to have a problem with attracting something to fill the void between your ears.


 
Even though nature abhors a vacuum.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> One long hot humid summer, these really angry kids and the mets testosterone hyped attitude and this could all go really fucking wrong.



You're right, it very well could, but is there a realistic alternative to protest for the "angry kids", or to the Met (testosterone or not) being deployed to defend privilege? I can't think of anything.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If you actually read my fucking posts you'd know exactly what I'm saying.


 
You said 'the police (as an organisation) are invariably correct when they say that they (as an organisation) are not the first to act violently'; did you mean it or not?

The swearing is making you look a bit silly.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 12, 2010)

Nearly 100 pages for fuck's sake! Why is it that so many on U75 are so obsessed with demonstrations whereas discussions about the actual issue of university tuition fees going up, something that's going to seriously affect people for years to come, hardly manages more than a few pages?

So a handful of largely testosterone fuelled males, some of them in police uniform, decide to use a demonstration as an excuse to indulge in a bit of mindless violence. It's very old news.


----------



## Tankus (Dec 12, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> One long hot humid summer, these really angry kids and the mets testosterone hyped attitude and this could all go really fucking wrong.


 before that........and it will ...not could ....... Prince Charles has had a very public slap ... embarrassing those in need of baubles 

Water cannon first , closely followed by baton rounds ...each severe injury upping the ante ........


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 12, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Nearly 100 pages for fuck's sake! Why is it that so many on U75 are so obsessed with demonstrations whereas discussions about the actual issue of university tuition fees going up, something that's going to seriously affect people for years to come, hardly manages more than a few pages?
> 
> So a handful of largely testosterone fuelled males, some of them in police uniform, decide to use a demonstration as an excuse to indulge in a bit of mindless violence. It's very old news.


I think a lot of people here have enough political background knowledge that they think there isn't much to discuss about them. They are shit. I could present the reasons why those plans are shit - and it's as much to do with marketisation as with fee levels - but I'd be preaching to the choir here. 

As for focussing on the protests, maybe people simply think that the people implementing these changes don't give a fuck about their effects, and therefore can't be convinced by reasoned argument to give up their plans but instead have to be forced to give them up.


----------



## Flanflinger (Dec 12, 2010)

Charlie Gilmore footage showing on the TV screen in the pub. 

Chorus of voices..................what does that twat look like ?


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 12, 2010)

> *Police could use water cannon to disperse rioters, Theresa May says*
> 
> Theresa May, the Home Secretary, has opened the way for water cannon to be used on the British mainland for the first time if future demonstrations escalate into uncontrollable violence.
> 
> ...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...non-to-disperse-rioters-Theresa-May-says.html


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> No laughing matter when you bear in mind that two armed coppers believed that Harry Stanley's table leg in a carrier bag looked "entirely consistent" with a gun.
> 
> How long before it's trotted out as an excuse for some pre-emptive head-bashing?
> "*He had in his hand something that looked entirely consistent with a cosh, your honour. It was only when my colleagues and I had beaten him to the ground that we noticed it was actually a cheese baguette*".


 
Its a DB quote from the future...


----------



## ymu (Dec 12, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Nearly 100 pages for fuck's sake! Why is it that so many on U75 are so obsessed with demonstrations whereas discussions about the actual issue of university tuition fees going up, something that's going to seriously affect people for years to come, hardly manages more than a few pages?
> 
> So a handful of largely testosterone fuelled males, some of them in police uniform, decide to use a demonstration as an excuse to indulge in a bit of mindless violence. It's very old news.


 
That's a very unreliable metric you're using there.

This thread has functioned as a newswire as well as a discussion. Plus, it's dealing with a lot of fuckwits who seem to want change, but only if it comes without anyone fighting for it.

The content of your posts demonstrate what you think is important. Your priorities are fucking obscene.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 12, 2010)

Tankus said:


> Water cannon first , closely followed by baton rounds ...each severe injury upping the ante ........


 Mainland police keep looking at the water cannon and keep turning it down. It is intended to disperse people not contain them. It is very difficult to co-ordinate with lines of containment cops.

I think it is dumb assed wanna be tough guy politicians mouthing off and not a serious option.


----------



## revol68 (Dec 12, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Mainland police keep looking at the water cannon and keep turning it down. It is intended to disperse people not contain them. It is very difficult to co-ordinate with lines of containment cops.
> 
> I think it is dumb assed wanna be tough guy politicians mouthing off and not a serious option.


 
water cannon was a laugh in Prague, lots of fast moving groups of 20 or so run rings round them.


----------



## big eejit (Dec 12, 2010)

Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson faces mounting pressure after footage emerged showing an officer policing Thursday's student protests not wearing identification.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/12/student-protests-met-police-chief


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 12, 2010)

ymu said:


> That's a very unreliable metric you're using there.
> 
> This thread has functioned as a newswire as well as a discussion. Plus, it's dealing with a lot of fuckwits who seem to want change, but only if it comes without anyone fighting for it.
> 
> The content of your posts demonstrate what you think is important. Your priorities are fucking obscene.



Your point that the thread partly functions as a newswire is interesting. 

What do you assume are my priorities and what is obscene about them?


----------



## revol68 (Dec 12, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Your point that the thread partly functions as a newswire is interesting.
> 
> What do you assume are my priorities and what is obscene about them?


 
having a discussion that isn't required rather than doing shit about it or atleast discussing pratical means of opposing the cuts and fees.

how many arguments did we have against invading Iraq, what use were they?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 12, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> I think it is dumb assed wanna be tough guy politicians mouthing off and not a serious option.



That and maybe trying to put the frighteners on that they may be suddenly "deployed" on future marches.


----------



## ymu (Dec 12, 2010)

big eejit said:


> Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson faces mounting pressure after footage emerged showing an officer policing Thursday's student protests not wearing identification.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/12/student-protests-met-police-chief


 


> Today police released images of 14 people they want to speak to following clashes during the demonstration, asking the public to help identify those pictured.





> IMPORTANT NOTE: This site is for the use of media organisations only.
> Media organisations should not publish links to this site.
> 
> http://www.met.police.uk/pressbureau/sites/co774/page01.htm



Naughty Guardian. But why wouldn't the Met want this link publicised? What is so secret about this link that they want to hide it from the public? Should we write and ask them what the problem with this link is?


----------



## WWWeed (Dec 12, 2010)

ymu said:


> Naughty Guardian. But why wouldn't the Met want this link publicised? What is so secret about this link that they want to hide it from the public? Should we write and ask them what the problem with this link is?



Nice find  

theres even a video link from the police photographers!

http://www.met.police.uk/pressbureau/sites/co774/co774-10footage.wmv


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 12, 2010)

big eejit said:


> Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson faces mounting pressure after footage emerged showing an officer policing Thursday's student protests not wearing identification.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/12/student-protests-met-police-chief


 
link gives a 404


----------



## big eejit (Dec 12, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> link gives a 404


 
No it doesn't


----------



## audiotech (Dec 12, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> It's a long one and I'm just watching myself, but this guys videos are usually quite entertaining.



Highlights the farcical side of the state and its operations. With music and atmosphere, funny and tense at times.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 12, 2010)

WWWeed said:


> Nice find
> 
> theres even a video link from the police photographers!
> 
> http://www.met.police.uk/pressbureau/sites/co774/co774-10footage.wmv


blimey 

people are beginning to organise themselves, eh?


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 12, 2010)

People really should contact the police on 020 8358 0100 if they recognise anyone from the 14 pics released today

I thought I saw the one with the hood in Tescos buying some salt earlier, he'd bleached his hair though, presumably in an attempt to avoid being spotted.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 12, 2010)

Anyone got any ex boyfriends they really really hate?


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 12, 2010)

big eejit said:


> No it doesn't


 
yes it does


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 12, 2010)

Works ok for me blagsta.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 12, 2010)

stephj said:


> Works ok for me blagsta.



funny, I get this


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 12, 2010)

working now, weird


----------



## revol68 (Dec 12, 2010)

jesus only the pigs would still be using windows media player for watching the videos.


----------



## ymu (Dec 12, 2010)

Worked OK for me. They've been doing odd things with their website though - the new search facility was bringing up 404s the other day.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Nearly 100 pages for fuck's sake! Why is it that so many on U75 are so obsessed with demonstrations whereas discussions about the actual issue of university tuition fees going up, something that's going to seriously affect people for years to come, hardly manages more than a few pages?


It's not just about tuition fees, Norbert.
If you had anything approaching a clue, rather than being a reactionary toss-cloth, you'd be aware of that.


> So a handful of largely testosterone fuelled males, some of them in police uniform, decide to use a demonstration as an excuse to indulge in a bit of mindless violence. It's very old news.


No, it's an old strategy, but it's new news to the people it is being used on.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

Tankus said:


> before that........and it will ...not could ....... Prince Charles has had a very public slap ... embarrassing those in need of baubles
> 
> Water cannon first , closely followed by baton rounds ...each severe injury upping the ante ........


 
Take your hand off your cock, you miserable cunt, ffs!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Its a DB quote from the future...


 
Unfortunately, you're probably right.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 12, 2010)

"Police have been accused of attempting to prevent seriously injured protesters being treated at the same hospital as officers hurt during last week's tuition fees demonstration, igniting claims that one student's life could have been put at risk."

His mother added: 



> The ambulance man took us to Chelsea and Westminster hospital. That [hospital] had been given over to police injuries and there was a standoff in the corridor. Alfie was obviously a protester and the police didn't want him there, but the ambulance man insisted that he stayed.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/12/police-injured-protester-hospital


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Anyone got any ex boyfriends they really really hate?


 
The BNP member list is still floating about. Grass them up. Pretend to be a neighbour.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> People really should contact the police on 020 8358 0100 if they recognise anyone from the 14 pics released today
> 
> I thought I saw the one with the hood in Tescos buying some salt earlier, he'd bleached his hair though, presumably in an attempt to avoid being spotted.


 
The dark-haired clean-shaven bloke in no. 17 definitely looks like my mate beardy ginger Mick. I'd better call the OB and let them know.


----------



## WWWeed (Dec 12, 2010)

Oh and if you haven't already seen it heres the BBC sticker incident on youtube:


----------



## ymu (Dec 12, 2010)

The EDL donor list just got published by Anonymous too ...

List


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

audiotech said:


> "Police have been accused of attempting to prevent seriously injured protesters being treated at the same hospital as officers hurt during last week's tuition fees demonstration, igniting claims that one student's life could have been put at risk."
> 
> His mother added:
> 
> ...


 
"Given over to police injuries"!
Injuries like those sustained by falling off your horse and having it trample you, or muscle strain from ramming your shield rim into the face of protesters. perhaps even sprained wrists from over-energetic use of truncheons.
So fuck someone who's in serious trouble, because a bluebottle might need his bee-stung thumb or his wanker's cramp tended.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

TopCat said:


> The BNP member list is still floating about. Grass them up. Pretend to be a neighbour.


 
One of them lives down the road from my parents. I might dob the cunt in, then get my dad to video any OB activity aimed at nicking him.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2010)

Buy a £10 phone from asda, a handful of £1 sims from the newsagent and get grassing the stooges up. Wear the polices legs out..


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 12, 2010)

WWWeed said:


> Oh and if you haven't already seen it heres the BBC sticker incident on youtube:



 I saw him get completely mobbed while trying to report at one point


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2010)

I think I'll dig out my copy of the BNP membership list and see whether there are any shared entries in it. Just on the off-chance that the claims of the BNP and EDL that they don't share members happens to be false.


----------



## ymu (Dec 12, 2010)

There were far right there bashing protesters with the full consent of the police - according to the Guardian live blog and an eye-witness account passed on by grogwilton on this thread. It's probably best to spam the Met with the EDL donor list, just in case, like.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 12, 2010)

Just think about it for a few mins, get in character and then ring the number.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 12, 2010)

Why are they calling it 'Operation Malone' then?


----------



## ymu (Dec 12, 2010)

The truth about water cannons


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 12, 2010)

Interesting New Scientist article on crowd control archived here, with direct reference to policing of protests:



> The protests that took place on the streets of London on the eve of the G20 summit in April lived up to many people's expectations. Around 2000 protestors turned up, and were heavily marshalled by police. There was a bit of trouble, but the police tactics - specifically, the decision to corral the entire crowd into a small area near the Bank of England, an approach known as "kettling" - kept a lid on the violence.
> 
> That, at least, is the official version of events, and it reflects a belief about crowds that is shared by police, governments and to a large degree the general public across the world: that they are hotbeds of trouble and must be contained. Trouble is seen as especially likely when something goes wrong at a large gathering. Under such circumstances, the expectation is that the crowd will lose its head and all hell will break loose.
> 
> ...



http://www.sott.net/articles/show/189376-Why-cops-should-trust-the-wisdom-of-the-crowds


----------



## ymu (Dec 12, 2010)

> Mr McIntyre described what happened: “I was in Parliament Sq with my brother and we saw everyone running to one of the corners so we ran and made our way to the front.
> 
> “One policeman hit me with his baton in the shoulder then suddenly four or five of them picked me up, and dragged me from my chair. They carried me quite violently and against my will and put me on the pavement.
> 
> ...


----------



## embree (Dec 12, 2010)

ymu said:


> There were far right there bashing protesters with the full consent of the police - according to the Guardian live blog and an eye-witness account passed on by grogwilton on this thread. It's probably best to spam the Met with the EDL donor list, just in case, like.


 
No list there anymore


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 12, 2010)

Was there a list in the first place?


----------



## ymu (Dec 12, 2010)

Ah shit.

It's from Anonymous - bound to be mirrored. I'll have a hunt.

(And yes - there was a list. Names, addresses, some email and Sjype accounts.)


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 12, 2010)

ymu said:


> Ah shit.
> 
> It's from Anonymous - bound to be mirrored. I'll have a hunt.


 
http://pastebin.com/pa1YAp9D


----------



## ymu (Dec 12, 2010)

Nice one. I'll save a copy this time.


----------



## ymu (Dec 12, 2010)

Back-up copy, in case it disappears again ...

EDL donor list


----------



## ddraig (Dec 12, 2010)

audiotech said:


> "Police have been accused of attempting to prevent seriously injured protesters being treated at the same hospital as officers hurt during last week's tuition fees demonstration, igniting claims that one student's life could have been put at risk."
> 
> His mother added:
> 
> ...


 
but it is perfectly acceptable as DB has kindly explained to us all  
makes me physically sick and again, fair play to the ambulance driver


----------



## 19sixtysix (Dec 12, 2010)

I was wondering if the police action might also be complained about to the HSE as the police would have to justify their risk assessment for the event and if they've missed out well known research on crowds and reactions to kettles while this may not lead to prosecutions this time but in future demos they may be considered in breach of the act having not acted on scientific research if they go ahead in the same manner.


----------



## gunneradt (Dec 12, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Come along, gunner, surely a fellow like yourself has answers to my questions?


 
I was spending my time more interestingly watching the xfactor final


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 12, 2010)

Some reactionary cunt called Paddick (a former police officer I believe) was just on the news calling for suspected protesters to be arrested _before_ the next demo.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 12, 2010)

can only see 2 Welsh addresses so far


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 12, 2010)

19sixtysix said:


> I was wondering if the police action might also be complained about to the HSE as the police would have to justify their risk assessment for the event and if they've missed out well known research on crowds and reactions to kettles while this may not lead to prosecutions this time but in future demos they may be considered in breach of the act having not acted on scientific research if they go ahead in the same manner.


 
Good idea.  I think I'll write a letter.


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 12, 2010)

....and none in my home town, where there is relatively massive support.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 12, 2010)

ddraig said:


> can only see 2 Welsh addresses so far


 
I noticed a distinct lack of Welsh addresses too, then it occurred to me that not many WDL members would have been buying England-themed clothing. Maybe the St David's flag stuff is done separately?


----------



## ddraig (Dec 12, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> I noticed a distinct lack of Welsh addresses too, then it occurred to me that not many WDL members would have been buying England-themed clothing. Maybe the St David's flag stuff is done separately?


 
1 abergele and 1 conwy, someone says they found someone in st mellons who bought merch alledgedly


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 12, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Apols if repost or seen before.
> 
> 15 year old kid. *Good lad.*




Although, he talks with pregnant pauses like Blair.


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 12, 2010)

ymu said:


> Back-up copy, in case it disappears again ...
> 
> EDL donor list


 
is there a copy of this anywhere in a format which doesn't hurt my eyes?


----------



## ddraig (Dec 12, 2010)

gawkrodger said:


> is there a copy of this anywhere in a format which doesn't hurt my eyes?


 
sure there will be very soon
anyway, another thread... guilty of it here too

ai C66 me pa said let's hope he doesn't turn out to be another bliar


----------



## free spirit (Dec 12, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> Some reactionary cunt called Paddick (a former police officer I believe) was just on the news calling for suspected protesters to be arrested _before_ the next demo.


 I saw that as well. twat.


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 13, 2010)

i see a couple of lads I know are doing a 'docco' for Vice TV

http://www.vbs.tv/en-gb/watch/rule-britannia/rule-britannia-teenage-riot-trailer


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 13, 2010)




----------



## GuerillaPhoto (Dec 13, 2010)

still from a friends video:






what is this on their backs?


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 13, 2010)




----------



## editor (Dec 13, 2010)

That thing with the books is ace.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 13, 2010)

Yeah.  Was something similar in Italy.

http://www.wumingfoundation.com/english/wumingblog/?p=1515


----------



## ymu (Dec 13, 2010)

GuerillaPhoto said:


> still from a friends video:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fire extinguisher.


----------



## GuerillaPhoto (Dec 13, 2010)

cool, that seems to be the answer.

Thanks


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 13, 2010)

You spelt guerrilla incorrectly, Bertie.


----------



## useless eater (Dec 13, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're right, it very well could, but is there a realistic alternative to protest for the "angry kids", or to the Met (testosterone or not) being deployed to defend privilege? I can't think of anything.


 
Yes there are a million ways but protest marches aren't the way.

Protest marches are easy.

Protest marches can be kettled, sprayed, beaten, charged on horseback & are great if you want to let loose a couple of dozen agent provocateurs dressed in black (since when have anarchists worn uniforms?) so they can attack protesters & property with impunity before the complicit gaze of mainstream media.

Protest marches are the actions of compliant slaves who believe they will be treated humanely & non violently by police who repeatedly are allowed to torture them with poison sprays & violently assault them with impunity.

We are dealing with a criminal government & political oppression.

& Charlie & Camilla... anyone else wonder how they ended up in the direct path of a protest / agent provocateur operation with their windows down on a cold winter night?

Where were the armed ex SAS minders that the surround themselves with whenever they go anywhere?

This was a media false flag photo op clearly to be used by media shills to equate protesters with rioters & marginalise & demonise them amongst the masses at home. It will also be used to justify much more brutal tactics at the next protest which is an attempt to scare people away.

I saw no damage to the car on the video but a photo taken later on it has a broken window & paint marks.

How many protesters attended the March? 20k? 30k?

Imagine them in urban guerilla flash protest groups of 50 to 100 that acted in unison or a coordinated staggered action with other groups to target their peaceful, creative mass actions on say, the banks, or shopping centres, or arterial roads, or banks. Or banks.

Think outside the box being offered to us. 

Remember austerity is just the rebranding of daylight fucking robbery by the banksters who, with the collusion of the rent boy politicians, engineered the £4+ trillion debt slavery of us, our children & even our grandchildren.

This situation was not created through incompetence but by design.

The economic collapse is like 9/11 & 7/7. Deliberate, orchestrated false flag terror by those in power who see people awakening & that scares the shit out of them.

The real target of the war on terror, is not a fictional group called al qaeda, it's us.

They road tested the same protocol in the third world. Oppression of the people, whilst imposing puppet dictators upon them who sell their people into servitude to the banks. And we let them. 

The goal is one world currency, one world government & one world bank.

Or in other words, fascism.

The students are the first group to suffer, but the rest of us will follow as we are taxed, surveilled, & oppressed into obedience & we should all care very much about what is going down here.

This is the New World Order & you're not invited.

Liberty not democracy. 
Democracy is 2 wolves & a sheep deciding what's for dinner...

To see the farm, is to leave it.

Peaceful, mass non compliance is how we take the power back. 

Refusal to hate other groups we are invited to blame for this contrived scarcity because divide & conquer is our enemies greatest weapon against us.

The left-right, blue-red, arsenal-spurs paradigm is false.  A means of control. Google Hegelian Dialectic. 

Next time there's a protest, be aware of the agent provocateurs used routinely by police/secret services to sabotage peaceful protest.

FILM THEM. FOLLOW THEM. POST ON YOU TUBE. EXPOSE WHO IS REALLY BEHIND THEM & YOU WILL FIND POWER. 

Maybe next time everyone should come dressed in pink or fancy dress? Ok, maybe not but we need to find a way to respond to this machiavellian & illegal subversion of legitimate protest.

Other responses could be to all sit down or turn away or step aside so there is nothing between them & police lines & film that...

This is just the start & already we're learning.

We are not free & Muslims don't hate us because of how free we are.

The real terrorists are here & they are in positions of power. 

The politicians are just minions. 

The police are used as brute force but include people who are starting to wake up too. Some are just power tripping thugs but as the Love Police show brilliantly, many can see what is happening & are on our side.

Know your real enemy. 

But don't let them set our agenda. We have control if we act peacefully & stand together.

It's going to be a bumpy ride but there's only one way this will end. 

This is the end of the pyramid power structure, of power over others using violence & deceit, & just because you call yourself a government doesn't make it ok.

Government is meant to serve the people & not oppress them or treat them as a cash crop.

Time to take back the power people.


Love to all x


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Dec 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> The truth about water cannons



Nasty.


----------



## editor (Dec 13, 2010)

Can I just add that this girl was magnificent? She stood right in front of the riot cops and refused to budge:







http://www.urban75.org/photos/protest/parliament-student-protest-dec-2010-2.html


----------



## editor (Dec 13, 2010)

useless eater said:


> & Charlie & Camilla... anyone else wonder how they ended up in the direct path of a protest / agent provocateur operation with their windows down on a cold winter night?
> 
> Where were the armed ex SAS minders that the surround themselves with whenever they go anywhere?
> 
> ...


Awesome! We've got a 9/11 reality-defying conspiraloon troofer in the house!


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 13, 2010)

Great photos ed


----------



## past caring (Dec 13, 2010)

useless eater said:


> Yes there are a million ways but protest marches aren't the way.
> 
> Protest marches are easy.
> 
> ...




Wrong 'un.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 13, 2010)

useless eater said:


> Yes there are a million ways but protest marches aren't the way.
> 
> Protest marches are easy.
> 
> ...



Agreed. 

You should post more. This is fascinating stuff. 



Love to you too x


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 13, 2010)

useless eater said:


> Yes there are a million ways but protest marches aren't the way.
> 
> Protest marches are easy.
> 
> ...



Hmmmm...some nice ideas but a tad confused!  That's what happens when you have no politics.


----------



## rekil (Dec 13, 2010)

shaman75 said:


>




Furious woman at 2:50 is fantastic.  That copper that belted her in the face, what'll it be like at christmas dinner in the homes of his ilk. 

"Oooh Dave was on the youtube, weren't you Dave?"
"Yes, I smacked a young woman in the face."
<..............>

My whole family and everyone I know would never speak to me again if I did something like that. My mam would probably die of shame. She's 100% behind the students here and in the UK btw.


----------



## xes (Dec 13, 2010)

copliker said:


> Furious woman at 2:50 is fantastic.  That copper that belted her in the face, what'll it be like at christmas dinner in the homes of his ilk.
> 
> "Oooh Dave was on the youtube, weren't you Dave?"
> "Yes, I smacked a young woman in the face."
> ...


 But the families of pig scum will probably wank over the fact that one of their own hit a member of the public. That is what pig scum do, hit members of the public.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 13, 2010)

xes said:


> But the families of pig scum will probably wank over the fact that one of their own hit a member of the public. That is what pig scum do, hit members of the public.


 
I think some family members of pig scum possibly don't know what they really get up to at work.


----------



## xes (Dec 13, 2010)

8ball said:


> I think some family members of pig scum possibly don't know what they really get up to at work.


 
they should watch the news occasionally.


----------



## peterkro (Dec 13, 2010)

I love the pig hitting his helmet with his truncheon at about 5.50 .


----------



## xes (Dec 13, 2010)

He didn't really whack her in the face, he tried to take her "mask" off. 

(hadn't watched the footage before comment)


----------



## miniGMgoit (Dec 13, 2010)

copliker said:


> Furious woman at 2:50 is fantastic.  That copper that belted her in the face, what'll it be like at christmas dinner in the homes of his ilk.


She was good wasn't she


----------



## miniGMgoit (Dec 13, 2010)

xes said:


> He didn't really whack her in the face, he tried to take her "mask" off.
> 
> (hadn't watched the footage before comment)


 
In the clip before that one you see him punch her in the face


----------



## xes (Dec 13, 2010)

miniGMgoit said:


> In the clip before that one you see him punch her in the face


 
aah, I take it all back  

(the cunt )


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 13, 2010)

xes said:


> But the families of pig scum will probably wank over the fact that one of their own hit a member of the public. That is what pig scum do, hit members of the public.



Only when they clearly deserve it..............

if some of these vandalsitic little neds had had a few clips round the head when they were kiddies, they might heve learned how to behave in public.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 13, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Only when they clearly deserve it..............
> 
> if some of these vandalsitic little neds had had a few clips round the head when they were kiddies, they might heve learned how to behave in public.



Interesting then, that physical abuse in childhood is associated with anti-social behaviour and violent behaviour as an adult.


----------



## xes (Dec 13, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Only when they clearly deserve it..............
> 
> if some of these vandalsitic little neds had had a few clips round the head when they were kiddies, they might heve learned how to behave in public.


 
Wow, you're a cunt.


----------



## winjer (Dec 13, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Given over to police injuries"!
> Injuries like those sustained by falling off your horse and having it trample you


That doesn't appear to be all that happened:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=585_1292118087



shaman75 said:


> Why are they calling it 'Operation Malone' then?


Baby gangstas, innit:


----------



## 8ball (Dec 13, 2010)

xes said:


> they should watch the news occasionally.



The edited highlights you normally see will make them look pretty heroic, I imagine.


----------



## strung out (Dec 13, 2010)

footage of the guy being dragged out of his wheelchair and along the ground has been found...

from 1.25


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 13, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Interesting then, that physical abuse in childhood is associated with anti-social behaviour and violent behaviour as an adult.


 
its interesting, but not something this fool will pay attention to


----------



## Crispy (Dec 13, 2010)

xes said:


> Wow, you're a cunt.


 
On a deliberate windup these days - not worth responding to


----------



## xes (Dec 13, 2010)

me or him?


----------



## winjer (Dec 13, 2010)

strung out said:


> footage of the guy being dragged out of his wheelchair and along the ground has been found...


Also: : :


----------



## rekil (Dec 13, 2010)

winjer said:


> That doesn't appear to be all that happened:
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=585_1292118087


Look at the state of the copper on the right trying to make his horse go.  Like Mel Gibson in Gallipoli when he's trying out for the cavalry.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 13, 2010)

Crispy said:


> On a deliberate windup these days - not worth responding to


 
They do that.  Each attempt to reason with them sends them more and more mental and eventually they end up getting banned.

I think they're probably a bit lonely and has self-esteem issues.  If they just went to nobbin' & sobbin' for a bit of a whinge things would probably go better for them.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 13, 2010)

Water Cannons I won't worry too much so long you bring some waterproofs and don't get too near then you are o.k. they don't last long, they base on the old Dennis fire engines minus the blue lights replace by water cannons...


----------



## 8ball (Dec 13, 2010)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Water Cannons I won't worry too much so long you bring some waterproofs and don't get too near then you are o.k. they don't last long, they base on the old Dennis fire engines minus the blue lights replace by water cannons...


 
You want some hefty goggles too _just in case _you get a little too near.


----------



## rekil (Dec 13, 2010)

8ball said:


> You want some hefty goggles too _just in case _you get a little too near.


 
When water cannons were tried at mayday 2004 in Dublin, a girl appeared with a snorkel and scuba diving mask and amused us with swimming motions. All in all they were a bit rubbish but blasted a photographer off a 9 foot high wall out of sheer badness.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 13, 2010)

8ball said:


> I think some family members of pig scum possibly don't know what they really get up to at work.


 
I think you are right, there is a tremendous naivity out there... Especially for those people who have never been on demos/protests/actions...


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 13, 2010)

Brightened up version of that video


----------



## xes (Dec 13, 2010)

fuck'in'ell. Dirty pig cunt. Surplus scum. Wonder if "anyone" will be along to defend it.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 13, 2010)




----------



## ymu (Dec 13, 2010)

Good article in the THES, from the lecturer who found Alfie. More detail on that incident, and an analysis of the situation we're facing. I'll quote the Alfie bit.



> The story of one Middlesex undergraduate who used to sit in on my MA classes, Alfie Meadows, is already notorious. He received a full-on blow to the side of his skull. My partner and I found him wandering in Parliament Square a little after 6pm, pale and distraught, looking for a way to go home. He had a large lump on the right side of his head. He said he’d been hit by the police and didn’t feel well. We took one look at him and walked him towards the nearest barricaded exit as quickly as possible. It took a few minutes to reach and then convince the taciturn wall of police blocking Great George Street to let him through their shields, but they refused to let me, my partner or anyone else accompany him in search of medical help. We assumed that he would receive immediate and appropriate treatment on the other side of the police wall as a matter of course, but in fact he was left to wander off on his own, towards Victoria.
> 
> As it turns out, Alfie’s subsequent survival depended on three chance events. If his mother (a lecturer at Roehampton, who was also “contained” in Parliament Square) hadn’t received his phone call and caught up with him shortly afterwards, the odds are that he’d have passed out on the street. If they hadn’t then stumbled upon an ambulance waiting nearby, his diagnosis could have been fatally delayed. And if the driver of this ambulance hadn’t overruled an initial refusal of the A&E department of the Chelsea and Westminster hospital to look at Alfie, his transfer to the Charing Cross neurological unit for emergency brain surgery might well have come too late.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> Good article in the THES, from the lecturer who found Alfie. More detail on that incident, and an analysis of the situation we're facing. I'll quote the Alfie bit.


 
That seems like a pretty shocking breach of the police's duty of care to me.  If they have one.

Good old Theresa May is speaking about the protests and policing now http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/default.stm


----------



## DRINK? (Dec 13, 2010)

xes said:


> fuck'in'ell. Dirty pig cunt. Surplus scum. Wonder if "anyone" will be along to defend it.


 
If detective drama is anything to go by then its always the chap in the wheel chair what done it...


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 13, 2010)

Theresa May said:
			
		

> they [the police] showed great restraint


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 13, 2010)

she is continually refusing to accept any negative comments about kettling (of which there have been several)


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 13, 2010)

shaman75 said:


>




Nice one! Who is the backing track by?


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 13, 2010)

Rutita1 said:


> Nice one! Who is the backing track by?


 
Akala (Miss Dynamite hee-hee's little brother)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akala_(rapper)


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 13, 2010)

Cool cheers!


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 13, 2010)

What a great reason for voting for something 



> LIB Dem MP John Hemming has revealed he WILL vote for an increase in tuition fees – despite students staging a three-hour sit-in at his Birmingham offices.
> 
> A group of seven protesters occupied the Yardley MP’s constituency offices on Coventry Road, Yardley, ahead of Thursday’s controversial Commons vote on plans to increase tuition fees to up to £9,000-a year.
> 
> ...



http://www.birminghammail.net/news/...emming-s-office-97319-27780391/#ixzz180niZ1Cd


----------



## editor (Dec 13, 2010)

What a childish prick.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 13, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> What a great reason for voting for something
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.birminghammail.net/news/...emming-s-office-97319-27780391/#ixzz180niZ1Cd


 
Yeah, and since then he has been trying to claim that he didn't break the pledge by voting for the tuition fees rise, and that in fact the tuition fees are a graduate tax, and not a debt.



> Let us start with the NUS Pledge:
> “I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.”
> 
> This is normally misrepresented by people as a simple statement against voting against fees. In fact often only the first part is mentioned.
> ...



There's more to the post.. http://johnhemming.blogspot.com/2010/12/pledge-and-manifesto-what-do-they-mean.html


----------



## ymu (Dec 13, 2010)

May moves to rule out use of water cannon


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> May moves to rule out use of water cannon


 
It's not just "hardcore activists" anymore, it's also "street gangs".


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 13, 2010)

BigTom said:


> Yeah, and since then he has been trying to claim that he didn't break the pledge by voting for the tuition fees rise, and that in fact the tuition fees are a graduate tax, and not a debt.
> 
> 
> 
> There's more to the post.. http://johnhemming.blogspot.com/2010/12/pledge-and-manifesto-what-do-they-mean.html



Why doesn't he just say he was wrong and he's changed his mind instead of trying to persuade us that the statement doesn't mean what every other english speaking person interprets it as?


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 13, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> Why doesn't he just say he was wrong and he's changed his mind instead of trying to persuade us that the statement doesn't mean what every other english speaking person interprets it as?


 
Because he's a politician.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 13, 2010)

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned deploying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mosquito yet, what with all these kids being there.  Maybe they are and I just can't hear it.

And of course it's only a matter of time before the police are carrying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2010)

useless eater said:


> Yes there are a million ways but protest marches aren't the way.
> 
> Protest marches are easy.
> 
> ...


My post specifically asked about alternatives to marches, and if you'd bothered to read more than a couple of the hundred-plus pages of the thread, you'd be aware of my feelings about marches - they're negative.


> We are dealing with a criminal government & political oppression.


No, you're dealing with a government that has the power to put the stamp of legality on their actions, which include political oppression.
Rhetoric about "criminal government" is all very well, but rubbing examples of the criminal behaviour in peoples' faces is much better.


> & Charlie & Camilla... anyone else wonder how they ended up in the direct path of a protest / agent provocateur operation with their windows down on a cold winter night?
> 
> Where were the armed ex SAS minders that the surround themselves with whenever they go anywhere?
> 
> This was a media false flag photo op clearly to be used by media shills to equate protesters with rioters & marginalise & demonise them amongst the masses at home. It will also be used to justify much more brutal tactics at the next protest which is an attempt to scare people away.


Apply Occam's Razor, and "clusterfuck" comes out ahead of "conspiracy".


> I saw no damage to the car on the video but a photo taken later on it has a broken window & paint marks.
> 
> How many protesters attended the March? 20k? 30k?
> 
> Imagine them in urban guerilla flash protest groups of 50 to 100 that acted in unison or a coordinated staggered action with other groups to target their peaceful, creative mass actions on say, the banks, or shopping centres, or arterial roads, or banks. Or banks.


This is something some of us have been proposing for years, newbie (except we didn't/don't call them "flash mobs", because that's well Nathan Barley)! 


> Think outside the box being offered to us.
> 
> Remember austerity is just the rebranding of daylight fucking robbery by the banksters who, with the collusion of the rent boy politicians, engineered the £4+ trillion debt slavery of us, our children & even our grandchildren.


I love being lectured by people who think they're saying new and exciting things. 


> This situation was not created through incompetence but by design.
> 
> The economic collapse is like 9/11 & 7/7. Deliberate, orchestrated false flag terror by those in power who see people awakening & that scares the shit out of them.


Do you understand anything about macro-economics?
If so, then you know that you *can't* design a failure such as the one that took place. It happened not because by design or because of incompetence, but because the politicians of the "developed world" have spent the last 30 years buying into the Hayekian market economy - neo-liberalism. Without that belief that the market will smooth out the peaks and troughs of the economic cycle (voodoo economics on the scale of "trickle-down", in reality), our politicians wouldn't have left regulation of banking and trading as open as they did, and the crash might not have happened. 
You don't need incompetence or evil machinations to wreck economies, just misplaced faith - faith that the "invisible hand" is the best regulator; faith in neo-liberal capitalism - and a dash of greed.


> The real target of the war on terror, is not a fictional group called al qaeda, it's us.
> 
> They road tested the same protocol in the third world. Oppression of the people, whilst imposing puppet dictators upon them who sell their people into servitude to the banks. And we let them.
> 
> The goal is one world currency, one world government & one world bank.


Except that a single world currency, outwith any other currency against which to be judged, against which to speculate etc, isn't a currency in real terms, it's scrip.



> Or in other words, fascism.


Please don't misapply that word. If you know what the word means, you know that it *doesn't* have the meaning you're attributing to it.


> The students are the first group to suffer, but the rest of us will follow as we are taxed, surveilled, & oppressed into obedience & we should all care very much about what is going down here.


The students are merely the latest and most obvious of a long line of those who've suffered. Fortunately for them, they're enough in number and loud enough to be noticed, and they've caught the _zeitgeist_.


> This is the New World Order & you're not invited.
> 
> Liberty not democracy.
> Democracy is 2 wolves & a sheep deciding what's for dinner...
> ...


Yawn.


> Peaceful, mass non compliance is how we take the power back.
> 
> Refusal to hate other groups we are invited to blame for this contrived scarcity because divide & conquer is our enemies greatest weapon against us.
> 
> ...


Easy to say, difficult to do, given that there's no *political* mechanism to revoke governmental power.
Oh well, revolution it is then!


> Time to take back the power people.
> 
> 
> Love to all x


It's all very well holding the sentiment "fuck war", but sometimes war is the only tool left in the box.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 13, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> It's not just "hardcore activists" anymore, it's also "street gangs".


 
well there must be!! there were non whites there for gods sake man!! and we KNOW they are all in gangs!!!

getting more tory talk and extremely annoying by the hour 
like the mugshots released, why just them?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2010)

winjer said:


> That doesn't appear to be all that happened:
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=585_1292118087
> 
> Looks very much as if the weight of coppers piling in to spank the two protesters holding onto the tack, pulled the mounted copper out of the saddle.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2010)

xes said:


> fuck'in'ell. Dirty pig cunt. Surplus scum. Wonder if "anyone" will be along to defend it.


 
Who'd be enough of a shit-cunt to do that?


----------



## ymu (Dec 13, 2010)

ViolentPanda;11330675][QUOTE=winjer said:


> That doesn't appear to be all that happened:
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=585_1292118087



Looks very much as if the weight of coppers piling in to spank the two protesters holding onto the tack, pulled the mounted copper out of the saddle.[/QUOTE]
You could see that on the original video. The two protesters emerge from behind the shying horse as he falls off it, holding onto each other tightly - some cops jump to help the fallen plod, some of them jump on the protesters and drag them off. They were nabbed at the time, and they're very clearly identifiable on the original video, so they are likely fucked.


----------



## ymu (Dec 13, 2010)

One for those who attended, and the video geeks.

Appeal for witnesses/video evidence

Cut'n'paste odyssey because it's important, and relevant to the thread:



> Appeals for information
> 
> Did you witness or film these incidents? Please get in touch, this information may lead to upholding a complaint or preventing wrongful prosecution. Please note this page will be updated with new appeals as we get them (and contact us if you would like to get your info on here).
> 
> ...


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 13, 2010)

Looks to me like those two protesters had caused the weight of the officer on the horse to shift before any other police arrived 

He was starting to hang off after the copper on the horse arrived with his baton waving.  I can't honestly say I think the police pulled him off.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 13, 2010)

strung out said:


> footage of the guy being dragged out of his wheelchair and along the ground has been found.



Watching that makes my fuckin' blood boil!



xes said:


> fuck'in'ell. Dirty pig cunt. Surplus scum. Wonder if "anyone" will be along to defend it.



How could any human possibly defend the actions of those bastards? I for one, hope that Jody sues for assault. I may have been arrested for assault myself, as there is no way on this earth i'd have been able to stop myself from defending Jody & kicking the living shit out of those bastards.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> Looks to me like those two protesters had caused the weight of the officer on the horse to shift before any other police arrived
> 
> He was starting to hang off after the copper on the horse arrived with his baton waving.  I can't honestly say I think the police pulled him off.


 
They save that sort of behaviour for the locker room.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> Looks to me like those two protesters had caused the weight of the officer on the horse to shift before any other police arrived
> 
> He was starting to hang off after the copper on the horse arrived with his baton waving.  I can't honestly say I think the police pulled him off.


 
I just checked out a link on another thread, and the pics on the link, under the headline "What sort of sick mind would do this to a horse" (three quarters of the way down the web page) are very interesting.
Now, I haven't been on a horse in over 30 years, but what I can see there is a horse that hasn't been saddled properly. there's no way the girth strap should have been loose enough that the blanket and saddle could have moved around the horse's barrel like that.


----------



## twentythreedom (Dec 13, 2010)

just saw footage of the fella in the wheelchair, jodie macintyre, being given polite directions on to the tarmac by some nice policemen. 

and water cannon are on the way.

*cunts*


----------



## WWWeed (Dec 13, 2010)

Theres loads of good protest pics over at http://www.demotix.com/uk-student-uprising

but there all watermarked


----------



## ddraig (Dec 14, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I just checked out a link on another thread, and the pics on the link, under the headline "What sort of sick mind would do this to a horse" (three quarters of the way down the web page) are very interesting.
> Now, I haven't been on a horse in over 30 years, but what I can see there is a horse that hasn't been saddled properly. there's no way the girth strap should have been loose enough that the blanket and saddle could have moved around the horse's barrel like that.






			
				shitrag said:
			
		

> Inside the square, fires were created from piles of placards, burning to the accompaniment of loud rap music played to the crowd.


no RAP music  it is surely the end of days! 
ffs, at least 200 other alarmist bullshit phrases used in that article, impressive


----------



## Weller (Dec 14, 2010)

I am absolutely disgusted to be in a country where the BBC try to justify police dragging a disabled man accross the road for rolling towards them , jesus putting him through that - wtf has this country become.


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

Jody McIntyre does an absolutely magnificent job in that interview and shows Ben Brown up for the shabby amateur he is. Superb work. Well worth watching all of it.


----------



## Weller (Dec 14, 2010)

ymu said:


> Jody McIntyre does an absolutely magnificent job in that interview and shows Ben Brown up for the shabby amateur he is. Superb work. Well worth watching all of it.



yep he wins over  anyone watching Id say , disgusting smear attempt though by the bbc , sunk to a new low there


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 14, 2010)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage/


----------



## spitfire (Dec 14, 2010)

Done. Fucking arsehole.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 14, 2010)

Me too.  Wonder if we'll see Ben Brown covering anymore protests soon...


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

Moves afoot to oust Aaron Porter, who has just announced he is standing for a second term.



> watch this space... We're trying for an Extraordinary Conference. Need 25 SUs. Model motion being written now! #porterout
> 
> http://twitter.com/GuyAitchison


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 14, 2010)




----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

_*writes to Santa*_


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 14, 2010)

ymu said:


> Jody McIntyre does an absolutely magnificent job in that interview and shows Ben Brown up for the shabby amateur he is. Superb work. Well worth watching all of it.


 
"Imagine if it was Charles, or Camilla, or a policeman who'd been within an inch of their life". Spot on.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 14, 2010)

possibly agent provocateurs at the demo? this video piece is too short to be sure either way I think, but nonetheless:
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/12/agents-provocateurs.html


----------



## magneze (Dec 14, 2010)

Weller said:


> I am absolutely disgusted to be in a country where the BBC try to justify police dragging a disabled man accross the road for rolling towards them , jesus putting him through that - wtf has this country become.


The bit where Ben Brown accusses him of "rolling towards the police" is particularly illuminating. The answer being that Jody can't wheel himself, so no. Shameful interview.


----------



## GuerillaPhoto (Dec 14, 2010)

Press TV get attacked everytime they try to report, I have seen it before at various demo's. Not sure why might be because they are not known or maybe because they are known and the guy stands there with a holier than thou look on his face when he does his reports. Everyone was being attacked by groups who did not want to be filmed or photographed, you just carry on and work through it instead of being a pussy and crying about it online like they have.


----------



## belboid (Dec 14, 2010)

good god, I'm really quiet shocked at just how bad that Ben Brown piece is.  He wouldn't dare to behave like with a 'proper' politician. Shameful.


----------



## trevhagl (Dec 14, 2010)

magneze said:


> The bit where Ben Brown accusses him of "rolling towards the police" is particularly illuminating. The answer being that Jody can't wheel himself, so no. Shameful interview.


 
what a wanker that bloke is, why isn't he working for Sky instead? The disabled bloke handled it very well though


----------



## Onket (Dec 14, 2010)

Can't see video at work- what's he saying?


----------



## Onket (Dec 14, 2010)

Ok, just found this thread with more info- http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...rview-with-man-pulled-from-wheelchair-by-cops.


----------



## belboid (Dec 14, 2010)

Onket said:


> Can't see video at work- what's he saying?


 
did you do it?  why did you do it?  you call yourself a revolutionary dont you?  so you must have done it.  why havent you put in an official complaint yet?  well, why not why not why not? why did you try and assault the police from your wheelchair?  call yourself a revolutinary, you cant even make your own wheels go round


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 14, 2010)

magneze said:


> The bit where Ben Brown accusses him of "rolling towards the police" is particularly illuminating. The answer being that Jody can't wheel himself, so no. Shameful interview.


 
True, although TBF he actually said ‘_there has been a suggestion_ that you were rolling your wheelchair towards the police’.

Now there’s two ways of looking at that interview, lets face it there’s no fucking defence for the police action, but a lot of viewers are going to be thinking along the lines of ‘there must have been some reason for the police to react’. So, the interviewer picked-up on something that could be a reason, a fucking weak reason, but a reason all the same and no doubt all he had to question Jody on.

The same with ‘why haven’t you put in a complaint yet?’-  again in some people’s minds they are going to be asking themselves the very same question in view of the police statement that he hadn’t.

With both of these Jody  dealt with them and totally dismissed them, he was given plenty of time to put across his position and came across very well.

At the end of the day the interviewer has to have a bit of dig over the facts, otherwise it’s not going to be much of an interview. Of course, there wasn’t much to dig over, because it’s simply indefensible, and overall I think the interview worked well as it showed the police had neither reason nor justification for their actions.


----------



## belboid (Dec 14, 2010)

the interviewer does indeed have to ask questions.  Putting the police version of events to him is absolutely part of his job.  But it isn't the whole of it. The aggressive and insulting tone, the raising of utterly irrelevant crap ('you wrote on the internet you believe in revolution!!!) and the repetition of questions already answered showed clearly where Brown was coming from.  

No 'proper politician' (other than maybe Galloway or Griffin) would be so treated, and normally Joe Public are gone a bit easier on.  Dreadful performance from Brown.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2010)

Who had made the 'suggestion'?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 14, 2010)

Jody totally fucking owned that prick Brown. I wonder if brown will have the balls to attend and report form future demos? Might need a harder hard hat.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 14, 2010)

ben.brown@bbc.co.uk

I have emailed him to put across that his behaviour was a disgrace. Perhaps others might put across their views.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Who had made the 'suggestion'?



Good question, it could have come from some twat in the Met’s press office or, I think more likely, someone within the BBC possibly even Ben Brown, on the basis that they had to have something to ask Jody as what could have caused to make the police act like that, and basically they had fuck all else. 



TopCat said:


> Jody totally fucking owned that prick Brown. I wonder if brown will have the balls to attend and report form future demos? Might need a harder hard hat.


 
He did indeed, came across very well.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Dec 14, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> It's not just "hardcore activists" anymore, it's also "street gangs".


 
Sadly, I suspect an element of truth in that

It was bloody unpleasant being threatened with smashed cameras & physical violence by masked up youths who didn't seem to know what the protest was about at the previous one (just before both Tescos and Waterstones were attacked at Trafalgar Square). They also threatened an Al Jazeera photographer who was with me at the time and only stopped when another protester saw what was happening and stepped in

That was about an hour before a video cameraman (BBC I think) was hit on the head with a piece of flying metal post & knocked out -just outside the Waterstones at T Square. The students who stood in front of Waterstones window and tried to defend it that day were very brave too but again, I don't believe for a moment that it was students who went for the windows

Although, rather than "street gangs" I'd say small gangs of youths looking for fights would be more accurate


----------



## TopCat (Dec 14, 2010)

GoneCoastal said:


> Sadly, I suspect an element of truth in that
> 
> It was bloody unpleasant being threatened with smashed cameras & physical violence by masked up youths who didn't seem to know what the protest was about at the previous one (just before both Tescos and Waterstones were attacked at Trafalgar Square). They also threatened an Al Jazeera photographer who was with me at the time and only stopped when another protester saw what was happening and stepped in
> 
> ...


 
The practice of the press and tv in giving up all their footage to the Met police when asked might have something to do with the attitude.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Dec 14, 2010)

TopCat said:


> The practice of the press and tv in giving up all their footage to the Met police when asked might have something to do with the attitude.


 
There are a lot of rumours circulating but I haven't met anyone who did either get asked or gave up their footage or photos yet - although if the BBC did then that stinks but as I said - I'm not aware of any of the freelance's being asked yet - or doing so 

The NUJ have been reminding everyone that we have exceptions under PACE to cover that eventuality 

There seems to be a rumour floating around that it's happening though which needs stamping  on - full article here http://www.epuk.org/Resources/958/police-photographers-and-the-law but the relevant part quoted below

Below section from EPUK re Journalists Material:
As a journalist, are my photographs afforded any special protection?

Section 14 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) states that journalistic material is subject to the rules of Special Procedure Material.

This section also applies to material acquired or created in the course of any trade, business, profession or other occupation or for the purpose of any paid or unpaid office where it is held subject to an express or implied undertaking to hold it in confidence.

Generally, once your images are recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order. However, see above regarding s.51 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.

In terrorist cases, e.g. where police contact starts with a search under section 43 Terrorism Act 2000, a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent may issue a search warrant (without court order) if there exists a “great emergency” and “immediate action is necessary.” This only applies to terrorist cases, not investigations of other criminal offences.

In many cases therefore, the production or seizure of images will require a court order. This should only be granted in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the material is likely to be of substantial value to that investigation; and where there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest for the material to be disclosed, having regard to the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation, and the circumstances under which you had the material in your possession.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Dec 14, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Jody totally fucking owned that prick Brown. I wonder if brown will have the balls to attend and report form future demos? Might need a harder hard hat.


 
Ah yes the usual veiled threats from the hard left. "If you question us we'll fucking deck you". Classy as ever.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Dec 14, 2010)

not sure if this has been posted:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eivbQ-fIrts


----------



## TopCat (Dec 14, 2010)

ExtraRefined said:


> Ah yes the usual veiled threats from the hard left. "If you question us we'll fucking deck you". Classy as ever.


 
Its not a veiled threat at all. Pretty clear.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 14, 2010)




----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2010)

May has just claimed to the Commons home affairs committee that any kettling whatsoever took place in Pa.  square.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> May has just claimed to the Commons home affairs committee that any kettling whatsoever took place in Pa.  square.


 
What the fuck?


----------



## skyscraper101 (Dec 14, 2010)

Shippy?


----------



## rekil (Dec 14, 2010)

Simon Hardy was just on sky news and did very well, accused the police of  lying about what's happening at the demos and used the De Menezes case to back it up. Do they even bother looking for Aaron Porter anymore?


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

sunnysidedown said:


> not sure if this has been posted:
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=eivbQ-fIrts


 
PressTV are the Iranian equivalent of BBC World. May or may not have been the far right giving them extra attention - there are other reports of people being attacked by (suspected far right) thugs whilst the cops looked on, which is exactly what the reporter there says happened to them. Twenty odd thugs being allowed to wander through the protest attacking people. And the EDL have announced they will support the police against the students, according to a tweet from Bristol.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 14, 2010)

ymu said:


> PressTV are the Iranian equivalent of BBC World. May or may not have been the far right giving them extra attention - there are other reports of people being attacked by (suspected far right) thugs whilst the cops looked on, which is exactly what the reporter there says happened to them.


 
These so called reports look bogus to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2010)

Press tv are the international PR front of the Iranian theocracy.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 14, 2010)

skyscraper101 said:


> Shippy?


 
In this pic we can clearly see the orange/red epaulette of an Police Inspector. They would be a particular target in future I think.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 14, 2010)

skyscraper101 said:


> Shippy?


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Dec 14, 2010)

copliker said:


> Simon Hardy was just on sky news and did very well, accused the police of  lying about what's happening at the demos and used the De Menezes case to back it up. Do they even bother looking for Aaron Porter anymore?


 
I don't think they do thankfully, the twat is redundant.


----------



## Spion (Dec 14, 2010)

ymu said:


> And the EDL have announced they will support the police against the students, according to a tweet from Bristol.


The EDL have come out on in support of the police and chatter on their boards is about defending Churchill's statue etc and/or giving some students a slap
http://whitechapelanarchistgroup.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/church-and-king-mob/

A sideshow, but worth knowing about


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

TopCat said:


> These so called reports look bogus to me.


 
We've had a report of an eye-witness account on this thread, relayed by grogwilton. Similar reports appeared on the Guardian live blog (60 year old man and 17 year old girl attacked whilst police looked on), this report from PressTV, and an announcement from EDL that they will be supporting the police against the students (no link given - will search for source in a bit).

I think it's worth looking into.


----------



## Spion (Dec 14, 2010)

ymu said:


> an announcement from EDL that they will be supporting the police against the students (no link given - will search for source in a bit).


There's youtube footage of Tommy Robinson saying this on the Whitechapel Anarch Gp page I linked to above


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

Cheers.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 14, 2010)

Just googled 'EDL forum', fuck me they seem to have a lot of members, time for trolls to come out from under the bridge I think.


----------



## scalyboy (Dec 14, 2010)

ymu said:


> We've had a report of an eye-witness account on this thread, relayed by grogwilton. Similar reports appeared on the Guardian live blog (60 year old man and 17 year old girl attacked whilst police looked on), this report from PressTV, and an announcement from EDL that they will be supporting the police against the students (no link given - will search for source in a bit).
> 
> I think it's worth looking into.



"I just got home after attending the embers of the protest at the end of Victoria Street. While there I got chatting to a 17year-old girl. A while later a group of people who I believe to be neo-Nazis turned up and started causing trouble. They were trying to start on an old man of about 60. A policeman calmed him down. They then started picking on this girl. They all started to scream "****!" at her and she called them this back. The group (about 12-15) walked up to her in a very menacing way. We backed off towards the police and then one of the group pushed the girl violently in the head, causing her to fall down on her back. I pulled her away to the police and asked for help. Two of them smirked at each other and one said: "You wanted free speech." They then continued to watch as the neo-Nazis caused trouble. This occurred at around 7pm."

From the 'A collection of recounts' post, about half-way down

Also, does anyone remember a report about a group going round randomly attacking people with sticks, inside the kettle, and the police doing nothing? Maybe the same people?


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

Thanks!


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

Here's grogwilton's post:



> My mate has just got back from work, she works at a school and teaches two 6th formers who were both attacked apparently randomly by guys with concrete blocks. No mention about who they were far right or not, it was in the middle of a lesson so she couldn't get any more detail on this.



And one from gawkrodger:



> anyone heard anything about this?
> 
> Two different people I know (and aren't in the habit of making things up) claim there were anti-student counter-protesters who briefly attacked marchers before being beaten back (and not by the OB?)
> 
> Plain clothes or far-right?


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

The Lords are voting on fees tonight. Live feed for the debate: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=7201

A mob are gathering, if anyone can get there.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2010)

ExtraRefined said:


> Ah yes the usual veiled threats from the hard left. "If you question us we'll fucking deck you". Classy as ever.


 
You must be feeling depressed. You've had a couple of weeks of windmilling your metaphorical arms, trying to land written punches, and yet not a single one has hit home.


----------



## past caring (Dec 14, 2010)

So nothing concrete to confirm EDL/far right, then?


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 14, 2010)

past caring said:


> So nothing concrete to confirm EDL/far right, then?



Not that I've seen. It could of been young rozzers just got off duty.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2010)

past caring said:


> So nothing concrete to confirm EDL/far right, then?


 
Doesn't seem to be anything so far. Worth keeping an eye out for, though.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2010)

This edl/far right stuff is well ropey. Calm down.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> This edl/far right stuff is well ropey. Calm down.


 
It's ropey, but that doesn't mean the daft cunts won't latch onto it, unfortunately.


----------



## past caring (Dec 14, 2010)

We could also do without people on our side giving it more credence than it deserves. Yes, it might be worth watching out for, but I doubt the EDL have either the brains or the bravery or the ambition to pull off a little stunt like that.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 14, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's ropey, but that doesn't mean the daft cunts won't latch onto it, unfortunately.


 
I agree. The shite they've been posting on their forums etc, but without plod protection they wouldn't have the bollocks imo.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 14, 2010)

past caring said:


> but I doubt the EDL have either the brains or the bravery or the ambition to pull off a little stunt like that.



Yep.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 14, 2010)

ymu said:


> The Lords are voting on fees tonight. Live feed for the debate: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=7201
> 
> A mob are gathering, if anyone can get there.


 
It's refreshing to see some proper discussions/ statements rather than the defensive shite in the commons


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 14, 2010)

Does anyone know the probability of enough rebellion in the Lords to send it back?


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 14, 2010)

10 new images released by met.

http://cms.met.police.uk/news/appea...connection_with_serious_disorder_and_violence


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> Does anyone know the probability of enough rebellion in the Lords to send it back?


I would think reasonably likely, especially since there have been some concerns raised over the BIS modelling of winners/losers (report on www.falseeconomy.org.uk).


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 14, 2010)

i hope they send it back


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> Does anyone know the probability of enough rebellion in the Lords to send it back?


 
None, esp now that labour have made it a bill killing vote.


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

Public_uni are tweeting summaries of the debate.



> # Lords: We will get the worst of American system without the safeguards 3 minutes ago via web
> 
> Lords: Browne view that education is a private good and not a public value is mistaken 4 minutes ago via web
> 
> ...


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 14, 2010)

ymu said:


> I would think reasonably likely



Very unlikely IMO.


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

I think it will be pretty tight. Lots of cross-benchers in there ... which makes it tough to predict. But there is a question over whether the House was misled. The BIS figures were based on inaccurate demographics and some odd assumptions, and the superficially similar IFS analysis assumed that they meant £21k in 2012, when it's actually £21k in 2016. If these points are raised forcefully, I'd think there's a very good chance that it'll be bounced back.

Govt majority in the Lords is only 40. Govt majority in the Commons fell from 84 to 21. It's not an outlandish possibility at all.


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 14, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> 10 new images released by met.
> 
> http://cms.met.police.uk/news/appea...connection_with_serious_disorder_and_violence


 
good luck with half of 'em! #19 especially


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2010)

The vote is not to bounce it back it's to effectively veto it. That's why it will pass.


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

The Lords have a power of veto? I thought that'd long gone? Every time they've done anything in the last century the govt has taken a bit more of their power away ...

Got a link?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2010)

They can introduce a fatal amendment which means the original legislation has to be introduced to the commons again. They never work. A handful of times in history. (This one isn't designed to work either). That's what they'll be voting on tonight.


----------



## dylans (Dec 14, 2010)

gawkrodger said:


> good luck with half of 'em! #19 especially


 
#28 must be shitting himself


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> They can introduce a fatal amendment which means the original legislation has to be introduced to the commons again. They never work. A handful of times in history. (This one isn't designed to work either). That's what they'll be voting on tonight.


 
do you mean the amendments never enough to get it bounced back downstairs or that even when it is, it is passed again and kicked back upstairs?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2010)

Nope - there's two separate things here. The normal vote on the commons Bill that allows the Lords to bounce it back if its defeated and a _fatal amendment_ that means, if passed, the bill is effectively killed and needs to be re-introduced in the commons.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 14, 2010)

right, I see. If they can pass a bill with an amendment that means the original purpose is diluted to uselessness , the commons gov would have to re-introduce it or give up on the bill. No wonder it doesn't work very often then.


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

Debate finished. Vote now, presumably.


----------



## WWWeed (Dec 14, 2010)

> We have received a considerable number of complaints about an interview Ben Brown did last night on the BBC News Channel with Jody McIntyre. The context of the interview was that Mr McIntyre was on the student demonstrations in London last week and video emerged yesterday of him being pulled out of his wheelchair by police.
> 
> I am aware that there is a web campaign encouraging people to complain to the BBC about the interview, the broad charge being that Ben Brown was too challenging in it. However I am genuinely interested in hearing more from people who have complained about why they object to the interview. I would obviously welcome all other views.
> 
> ...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/12/interview_with_jody_mcintyre.html#comments


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

Triesman amendment: defeated


----------



## twentythreedom (Dec 14, 2010)

ahem.. may i quote a letter from today's evening standard, i am sure the author speaks for us all...

"of course, water cannons (sic - what a div, eh?) would be used selectively. they would be aimed exclusively at those seeking to cause trouble. it would incapacitate their mobile phones and be more effective than any amount of kettling. no-one would get hurt - they would just get unpleasantly cold and wet and go home. and they would not disrupt demonstrations again in a hurry"

hear, hear!!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2010)

What was that 70+ votes safe? No chance ever.


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What was that 70+ votes safe? No chance ever.


 
I couldn't hear the numbers - shit audio on my laptop. I *think* they're voting on the main bill now.


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

No - Triesman's second amendment now.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2010)

The govt had a majority of 68 on the real vote. The main bill vote is now irrelevant.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 14, 2010)

TopCat said:


> In this pic we can clearly see the orange/red epaulette of an Police Inspector. They would be a particular target in future I think.


 
Yes indeed.


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What was that 70+ votes safe? No chance ever.


 
Close. 68.

Think they're still voting on the main bill though, no? The problem with the amendments was that they amounted to a veto, but the fact that they exist doesn't mean it can't be bounced back in the normal way.

Still voting on amendment #2.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2010)

Give it fucking up 

Seriously, it's gone. There was never ever any likelihood whatsoever. You're mistaking what you wanted to see happen with what was likely to happen again.


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

> "Just as they unseated me from my wheelchair, we will unseat every member of the government."
> 
> Jody McIntyre


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 14, 2010)

ymu said:


> Close. 68.




There was a media-fest over the commons vote, fuck all about the vote in the lords, you seem to have been the only person that thought there was any chance of a no vote.


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

Bill passed. They're fucking off now. Cunts.


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> How can you call that close, compared to the commons vote, which in itself wasn't close?
> 
> There was a media-fest over the commons vote, fuck all about the vote in the lords, you seem to have been the only person that thought there was any chance of a no vote.


You could always try reading the quoted post I was replying to.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 14, 2010)

Well sed ed.


editor said:


> Can I just add that this girl was magnificent? She stood right in front of the riot cops and refused to budge:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 14, 2010)

ymu said:


> You could always try reading the quoted post I was replying to.


 
I did, hence the edit, delayed by the boards being slow again for me. 

But, seriously you're becoming a bloody laughing stock with your fantasy political league game.


----------



## rekil (Dec 14, 2010)

"Let's leave the politics aside for one second." You what?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> I did, hence the edit, delayed by the boards being slow again for me.
> 
> But, seriously you're becoming a bloody laughing stock with your fantasy political league game.


 
I think she laid out a reasonable potential realisable scenario for the challenge to Clegg argument - i just think it's wrong.


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

And you are usually right about these things BA. But I retain the right to explore every possible avenue in my own hopelessly optimistic way.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 14, 2010)

ymu said:


> And you are usually right about these things BA. But I retain the right to explore every possible avenue in my own hopelessly optimistic way.





"I was planning on playing the mindless optimisim card very strongly." - George, Blackadder IV


----------



## killer b (Dec 14, 2010)

i found this article quite interesting - it coalesced some thoughts i've been vaguely having about what protesters should expect from the police... i expect it's fairly elementary stuff, but i've not seen it written about much elsewhere.

this paragraph especially:



> Fair-minded people are against “disproportionate”, “provocative”, or “brutal” policing; and presumably in favour of a polite push and shove.  This is an appealing message (and it may make sense to accentuate it to the cameras), but is more or less a fiction.  Of course, there are incidents here and there where we can say that particular police could have been less brutal.  But if the direct action we defend has any content at all, it must mean we supported, and support, concrete attempts to stop the law being passed, up to, including, and beyond the invasion of parliament – and we are in support of people trying as hard as possible to do that.   And it is a fiction that the police could have tolerated that, or that preventing it could ever have been done gently.  If it could have been, we wouldn’t have really been trying.  If the police hadn’t been at parliament square last night, and if they hadn’t been prepared to act brutally, parliament would have been stormed, and legislation to triple top-up fees and abolish EMA would not have been passed. The brutality of the police is not incidental to the nature of the state, it is essential to it.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 14, 2010)

editor said:


> Can I just add that this girl was magnificent? She stood right in front of the riot cops and refused to budge:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My god, the look on her face!  If looks could kill... 

wicked photo


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

Clare Solomon is suggesting that a demo announced for 20th Dec is a fake called by the EDL as a trap. No more info than that, and I'm not sure if there's any sound basis for it. I'm not on facebook so can't check myself, but apparently there's some hints on the facebook page that it might not be kosher, if anyone wants to check.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=179218858770566


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 14, 2010)

ymu said:


> Clare Solomon is suggesting that a demo announced for 20th Dec is a fake called by the EDL as a trap. No more info than that, and I'm not sure if there's any sound basis for it. I'm not on facebook so can't check myself, but apparently there's some hints on the facebook page that it might not be kosher, if anyone wants to check.
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=179218858770566



It's called by the "UK People's Initiative", whoever they are.


----------



## killer b (Dec 14, 2010)

clare solomon is a bit hysterical there...


----------



## creak (Dec 14, 2010)

It does look dodgy, imo. There are a couple of people posting URLs on every post written on the event, linking to a separate facebook album with screenshots of messages that the event creator, John Abraham, has been posting on other people's walls. And although the messages don't exactly give conclusive evidence that the protest is somehow linked to the EDL, they are a bit suspicious. I don't know if non-fb people can see these images?

First
Second
Third


----------



## killer b (Dec 14, 2010)

there's nothing in those screenshots to suggest he's anything but a student tbh. he started a group about those muslim dudes burning poppies, but i don't think only the fascists were pissed off about that.


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

I can see them, but not being a facebook user, I don't really know what I'm looking at.

I'll see if I can get my head around it ...


<seconds later>
_
*gives up_


----------



## creak (Dec 14, 2010)

killer b said:


> there's nothing in those screenshots to suggest he's anything but a student tbh. he started a group about those muslim dudes burning poppies, but i don't think only the fascists were pissed off about that.



Maybe I'm reading into it too much, but I think there's something unspoken but implied by his friend Claire Rodwell in their exchange in the second image, for example.


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

Political views: Geert Wilders?


----------



## dylans (Dec 14, 2010)

ymu said:


> Clare Solomon is suggesting that a demo announced for 20th Dec is a fake called by the EDL as a trap. No more info than that, and I'm not sure if there's any sound basis for it. I'm not on facebook so can't check myself, but apparently there's some hints on the facebook page that it might not be kosher, if anyone wants to check.
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=179218858770566



It sounds dodgy as fuck. The organiser is linked to anti Muslim comments and lists Gert Wilders on his facebook. It is also allowing posts calling for the arrests of demonstrators (with pics) I don't know what to make of it but it seems sensible that given the controversy and suspicion surrounding the event it is best to give it a wide berth.

Edit. It looks like it's EDL htp://oi55.tinypic.com/2d829h3.jpg


----------



## killer b (Dec 14, 2010)

ymu said:


> Political views: Geert Wilders?


 
ah, missed that. 

still unconvinced it's anything but a solo idiot.


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

Motion to oust Aaron Porter



> A model motion drawn up by the National Union Of Students (NUS) Executive Committee Members will be sent to universities across the country.
> 
> The document claims Mr Porter should be stripped of his position because he has failed to back the student protests.
> 
> ...


----------



## where to (Dec 14, 2010)

I have been keeping an eye on this 20th December march since the weekend.  I'm certain its fake and have written more in the thread on the matter in this sub-forum.

Probably not a real "EDL/ Police trap", but fucking dodgy none-the-less and NCACF are spot on deterring people from attending.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 14, 2010)

dylans said:


> It sounds dodgy as fuck. The organiser is linked to anti Muslim comments and lists Gert Wilders on his facebook. It is also allowing posts calling for the arrests of demonstrators (with pics) I don't know what to make of it but it seems sensible that given the controversy and suspicion surrounding the event it is best to give it a wide berth.
> 
> Edit. It looks like it's EDL htp://oi55.tinypic.com/2d829h3.jpg


your link don't work mate.


----------



## creak (Dec 14, 2010)

Add a 't' to the http://


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 14, 2010)

creak said:


> Add a 't' to the http://


doh!


----------



## treelover (Dec 14, 2010)

'there's nothing in those screenshots to suggest he's anything but a student tbh. he started a group about those muslim dudes burning poppies, but i don't think only the fascists were pissed off about that. '

Exactly, you don't have to be Bernard Right-on to be against the cuts, why should it be the preserve of the far left, not that I am endorsing the EDL organising one..


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 15, 2010)

wut?


----------



## treelover (Dec 15, 2010)

I'm saying in this new age of autonomous protest, it doesn't have to be the usual far left suspects who call for demos, etc...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 15, 2010)

so it's a good thing if the edl are trying to organise the youth?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2010)

treelover said:


> 'there's nothing in those screenshots to suggest he's anything but a student tbh. he started a group about those muslim dudes burning poppies, but i don't think only the fascists were pissed off about that. '
> 
> Exactly, you don't have to be Bernard Right-on to be against the cuts, why should it be the preserve of the far left, not that I am endorsing the EDL organising one..


 
Did you try the link dylans posted? There's a convo where the guy admits the protest on the 20th is an EDL one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> so it's a good thing if the edl are trying to organise the youth?


 
Or rather, trying to trick the youth! I wonder if any anti-fascists might turn up, posing as youthful students (well, the scarfs will cover some of the wrinkles! )?


----------



## killer b (Dec 15, 2010)

treelover said:


> I'm saying in this new age of autonomous protest, it doesn't have to be the usual far left suspects who call for demos, etc...


 
in principle, yeah. in practice, i don't want to go on a demo organised by a dude who idolizes geert wilders...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 15, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Or rather, trying to trick the youth! I wonder if any anti-fascists might turn up, posing as youthful students (well, the scarfs will cover some of the wrinkles! )?


i'm still struggling to understand what point treelover is making here. protests are ok regardless of who calls them, cos shouting about the establishment is an excuse for lying and intimidating and misappropriating youthful enthusiasm? on what basis does any edl event deserve some kind of tacit agreement. 

it's quite simple. if you want to get involved in any kind of anti-cuts protest, then get involved, locally nationally whatever. if you want to get out on the streets, then go out there and do it. use the media, but don't trust them. but please don't get sucked into some nonsense about the edl having a point. they have a focus but that's very different to having any real meaning for most decent people.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 15, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> protests are ok regardless of who calls them


 
Like the British Wildcats.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2010)

slightly different to this, no, as there was a genuine issue there of workers being shafted, even if some unsavoury elements did pick up on it


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 15, 2010)

There's a genuine issue here!


----------



## killer b (Dec 15, 2010)

tbf to TL, i don't think he's suggesting we should team up with the EDL - he was just replying to a post i made earlier. and he wants to make a point about - would you believe it - the failings of 'the left' more than address the point in question...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 15, 2010)

That isn't to say that I think that this FB stuff some sort of equivalent to the BNP attempt, I don't think it is at all, but there's a general point.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2010)

yeah but my point is that those strikes weren't bnp even though the bnp tried to piggyback on it and turn it into some kind of fash front, if this demo is really organised by the edl or a sympathiser there is no way that people should be endorsing it, fair enough if people want to go anyway, but id be a bit wary about comparing the two tbh, and stuff about how it shouldn't just be the far left organising demos and that activists/the left wouldn't be supporting it if its just a normal person organising it is im sorry to say bollocks, as was shown last fri and probably countless other demos across the country


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 15, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Like the British Wildcats.


the fuck is that all about??!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 15, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> yeah but my point is that those strikes weren't bnp even though the bnp tried to piggyback on it and turn it into some kind of fash front, if this demo is really organised by the edl or a sympathiser there is no way that people should be endorsing it, fair enough if people want to go anyway, but id be a bit wary about comparing the two tbh, and stuff about how it shouldn't just be the far left organising demos and that activists/the left wouldn't be supporting it if its just a normal person organising it is im sorry to say bollocks, as was shown last fri and probably countless other demos across the country


 
I'm not quite with you here. The protests here aren't BNP or EDL or whatever either even if people do try to piggyback - and I'll repeat that I'm not saying this instance is part of any sort of organised campaign, even if it's organised by an EDL supporter who tried to lie about its credentials, I'm making a general point that you can't just uncritically say "whoever".


----------



## ddraig (Dec 15, 2010)

alledged strikers solidarity but turned out to be fash iirc

e2a http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2009/02/02/british-wildcats-exposed/


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 15, 2010)

ddraig said:


> alledged strikers solidarity but turned out to be fash iirc


 
I see now their domain name points to bnpreform .com.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 15, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I see now their domain name points to bnpreform .com.


hence my confusion.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 15, 2010)

> *Student protests may be banned altogether if violence continues*
> 
> Scotland Yard will consider asking the Home Secretary to ban further student marches should the levels of violence which have marred the recent protests continue, Britain's most senior police officer said yesterday.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...altogether-if-violence-continues-2160620.html


----------



## dylans (Dec 15, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...altogether-if-violence-continues-2160620.html


 
The velvet glove is slipping


----------



## winjer (Dec 15, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Did you try the link dylans posted? There's a convo where the guy admits the protest on the 20th is an EDL one.


But as that guy is Angus Meigh, and not the event organiser, why would anybody believe a word he says?


----------



## pk (Dec 15, 2010)

LOL how do they think they will ban the protests??


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 15, 2010)

> Sir Paul also revealed that he will be off work, possibly until the end of January, as he is due to undergo surgery for what is believed to be a non-cancerous tumour in his femur.




lol


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 15, 2010)

Yeah! and about time too! Like to see him try and put that on his C.V.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...altogether-if-violence-continues-2160620.html


 
If small, peaceful demonstrations and other political and civic occasions were not overpoliced maybe they would have more manpower for dealing with actual riots. In any case, preserving the Queen's Peace is what they are supposed to do, and the Queen's Peace includes freedom of assembly and protest. So I'd say it is their duty to deal with criminals who attach themselves to marches *in order to preserve the rights of protesters to protest.*


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> If small, peaceful demonstrations and other political and civic occasions were not overpoliced maybe they would have more manpower for dealing with actual riots. In any case, preserving the Queen's Peace is what they are supposed to do, and the Queen's Peace includes freedom of assembly and protest. So I'd say it is their duty to deal with criminals who attach themselves to marches *in order to preserve the rights of protesters to protest.*


 
...and here we enter the upside world of the authoritarian civil liberatrian - defence of aggressive violent policing in the name of liberty. Peterloo of course being the best example of this wondeful liberty he wishes to extend to all.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> ...and here we enter the upside world of the authoritarian civil liberatrian - defence of aggressive violent policing in the name of liberty. Peterloo of course being the best example of this wondeful liberty he wishes to extend to all.


 
I'm defending the right to protest, rather than to have protests bans. I don't make any comment on police tactics.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2010)

No you don't do you.

_And liberty for all!_


----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> ...and here we enter the upside world of the authoritarian civil liberatrian - defence of aggressive violent policing in the name of liberty. Peterloo of course being the best example of this wondeful liberty he wishes to extend to all.


 
The policing only became violent in response to people trying to break police lines, and throw missles. It's not like the police started that fight.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2010)

..and he's off. Back on solid ground


----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No you don't do you.
> 
> _And liberty for all!_


 
I don't make any comment in that sentance, I have done elsewhere. There were some police actions that went to far, for instance dragging a wheelchair user out of their chair. Some of the baton use was also too much.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The policing only became violent in response to people trying to break police lines, and throw missles. It's not like the police started that fight.


 
The police never start fights; are you channelling DB?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The police never start fights; are you channelling DB?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
It's _impossible_ for them to do so Louis - you know that. But the times when they do achieve this impossible feat, then it's justified. I think that was the case presented.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The police never start fights; are you channelling DB?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
They do sometimes, for instance when they push people back into kettles. In this instance though there was clearly a group of students geared up for violence wearing green crash helmets with giant mock books to push and break police lines.

I know many think protestors can do no wrong, but there was an organised attempt to cause disorder at that protest from some people.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 15, 2010)

fuck off moon


----------



## rekil (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The policing only became violent in response to people trying to break police lines, and throw missles. It's not like the police started that fight.


Lies. Here's the police cavalry charge. The line was static at that point and this attack inflamed the crowd. One of your precious guardians of the queen's peace even got trampled quite badly by his own horse in the ensuing mess.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 15, 2010)

Moon your love of freedom is so timid that it's not really worth the name.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

copliker said:


> Lies. Here's the police cavalry charge. The line was static at that point and this attack inflamed the crowd. One of your precious guardians of the queen's peace even got trampled quite badly by his own horse in the ensuing mess.




I've allready said some of the things the police did were wrong. In this instance the charge achieved little but inflame the situation. This bit of footage does take place after a sustained period of protestor violence having pushed back police lines. You can see the missles and paint bombs on the road.


----------



## winjer (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The policing only became violent in response to people trying to break police lines


Police lines that were put in place in response to what, pray tell?


----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Moon your love of freedom is so timid that it's not really worth the name.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
It just doesn't extent to supporting violent protestors that's all. I don't live in a fantasy world where protestors can do no wrong.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

winjer said:


> Police lines that were put in place in response to what, pray tell?


 
Protestors trying to find another way around the police, after their attempts to break through to Parliment on the square failed.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> They do sometimes, for instance when they push people back into kettles. In this instance though there was clearly a group of students geared up for violence wearing green crash helmets with giant mock books to push and break police lines.
> 
> I know many think protestors can do no wrong, but there was an organised attempt to cause disorder at that protest from some people.


 
If only they hadn't been lied to and betrayed in the first place by a bunch of lying cunts, eh?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It just doesn't extent to supporting violent protestors that's all. I don't live in a fantasy world where protestors can do no wrong.


 
I'm not the one dealing in absolutes such as 'protestors can do no wrong'; you on the other hand with your dismisal of 'violent protest' inhabit a fantasy world of your own creation, where change never has to be fought for physically. Fortunately for all of us, there have been and continue to be people whose love of freedom is rather more resolute than yours.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It just doesn't extent to supporting violent protestors that's all. I don't live in a fantasy world where protestors can do no wrong.


 
When push comes to shove it extends no further than your own ill concieved economic self interest.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## stupid dogbot (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It just doesn't extent to supporting violent protestors that's all. I don't live in a fantasy world where protestors can do no wrong.


 
Just Clegg, huh?


----------



## janeb (Dec 15, 2010)

Not sure if this has been covered elsewhere, but I've not seen any legal observers on the demo's - given the number of camera's around these days prob not as useful as they used to be, but I've found them very useful on previous protests, esp ones where NVDA was planned (usually TP / anti nuclear ones)


----------



## GuerillaPhoto (Dec 15, 2010)

loads in Parliament square taking people's details who were assaulted by police etc... not sure what they will do with the details though. Also handing out flyers etc....


----------



## revlon (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The policing only became violent in response to people trying to break police lines, and throw missles. It's not like the police started that fight.


 
if people being kettled, their freedom of movement denied, physically assaulted and held captive (for over 8 hours) respond by being violent, surely the answer it to take away all those things that provoke a violent reaction.

Oddly breaking out of a kettle is not unlawful (even when using reasonable force) because kettling people in this way the police are creating a breach of the peace.

You are wrong on so many levels it's frightening.


----------



## janeb (Dec 15, 2010)

GuerillaPhoto said:


> loads in Parliament square taking people's details who were assaulted by police etc... not sure what they will do with the details though. Also handing out flyers etc....


 
Thanks


----------



## revlon (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Protestors trying to find another way around the police, after their attempts to break through to Parliment on the square failed.


 
which is neither violence nor unlawful


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It just doesn't extent to supporting violent protestors that's all. I don't live in a fantasy world where protestors can do no wrong.



Do you live in a fantasy land where the police can do no wrong? And didn't start any trouble? And put Alfie Meadows & loads of others in the hospital in desperate, terrified, baton-flailing self-defence as tears ran down their beautiful Old Bill coupons?

You fucking pillock.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> They do sometimes, for instance when they push people back into kettles. In this instance though there was clearly a group of students geared up for violence wearing green crash helmets with giant mock books to push and break police lines.
> 
> I know many think protestors can do no wrong, but there was an organised attempt to cause disorder at that protest from some people.


 
Yes...?


----------



## revlon (Dec 15, 2010)

and just to take the liberal line for a moment, if someone causes violence, or a group of people cause violence, this does not make the demonstration 1. unlawful 2. a violent demonstration 

Kettling is based on the assumption that everybody who is protesting is acting unlawfully, and violently, and therefore must be contained. Kettling is an inherently political manoeuvre


----------



## revlon (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> They do sometimes, for instance when they push people back into kettles. In this instance though there was clearly a group of students geared up for violence wearing green crash helmets with giant mock books to push and break police lines.
> 
> I know many think protestors can do no wrong, but there was an organised attempt to cause disorder at that protest from some people.


 
again the law allows people to use instruments to protect themselves against police violence. Fairford coach hearing police insisted the protestors were 'intent on causing trouble' because they had brought homemade shields to the demo. Judges laughed it out of court.

You related to sir paul stephenson?


----------



## winjer (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Protestors trying to find another way around the police, after their attempts to break through to Parliment on the square failed.


Including the line across Whitehall, blocking the NUS-negotiated route out of Parliament Square?


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 15, 2010)

In public order terms, was it really that different from, say, Mods vs. Rockers at Brighton on Bank Holiday Monday, 18hundred and something.

This is at least as much abut the media lust for violence and also the absolute desire for an image-led news agenda.

(((police)))


----------



## ExtraRefined (Dec 15, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You must be feeling depressed. You've had a couple of weeks of windmilling your metaphorical arms, trying to land written punches, and yet not a single one has hit home.



Posts in P&P in the last month;

ExtraRefined 13
Violent Panda c.1000


----------



## stupid dogbot (Dec 15, 2010)

So you're not very productive, either.

Perhaps another couple of posts about kicking car wing mirrors off to show how _grrrrrreat_ you are?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 15, 2010)

ExtraRefined said:


> Posts in P&P in the last month;
> 
> ExtraRefined 13
> Violent Panda c.1000


 
Content in post in P&P

Extrarefined 0

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## spitfire (Dec 15, 2010)

stupid dogbot said:


> So you're not very productive, either.
> 
> Perhaps another couple of posts about kicking car wing mirrors off to show how _grrrrrreat_ you are?


 
I had my car wing mirror kicked off the other night. Fucking worked hard to buy that car. Not happy.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Dec 15, 2010)

stupid dogbot said:


> So you're not very productive, either.
> 
> Perhaps another couple of posts about kicking car wing mirrors off to show how _grrrrrreat_ you are?


 
D-lock ffs. Amateurs.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2010)

pk said:


> LOL how do they think they will ban the protests??


 
The idea isn't to stop the marchers, mate. It's to be able to criminalise them. If the protest marches are banned, then anyone undertaking a protest march is guilty of a (IIRC) civil offence in law.
This is aimed at weeding out the waverers who'll think "fuck, I can't risk getting nicked", and will make it easier for the govt and their sock-puppet Stephenson to pretend that the marchers are "hardcore class war activists" and almost as bad as terrorists.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> > Sir Paul also revealed that he will be off work, possibly until the end of January, as he is due to undergo surgery for what is believed to be a non-cancerous tumour in his femur.
> 
> 
> lol


 
Oi, Stephenson, shake a leg, you bone-idle cunt!


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 15, 2010)

spitfire said:


> I had my car wing mirror kicked off the other night. Fucking worked hard to buy that car. Not happy.


 
and now it's fucked cos it's taken a knock to the periphery


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm defending the right to protest, rather than to have protests bans. I don't make any comment on police tactics.


 
You're implicitly licencing the police to break heads in pursuit of "criminals".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> They do sometimes, for instance when they push people back into kettles. In this instance though there was clearly a group of students geared up for violence wearing green crash helmets with giant mock books to push and break police lines.


So, implements that are defensive in nature, like helmets and shields (look up the definitions of the word "shield" in a dictionary sometime) somehow transmute into implements of offence, brought purely to "push and break police lines"?

You're already fucking dead. 



> I know many think protestors can do no wrong, but there was an organised attempt to cause disorder at that protest from some people.


Have you any proof of these "organised attempts"? Given that the police and the security services haven't been able to turn anything up, I do believe that you're bullshitting, and _spieling_ off crap that you've read in the red-tops.


----------



## spitfire (Dec 15, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> and now it's fucked cos it's taken a knock to the periphery




Fucked enough that the periphery along with the rest of the car has to go into the garage to be fixed leaving me with no car for work. Anyway, I digress. Sorry. I just hope it wasn't Extra Refined whodunnit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2010)

copliker said:


> Lies. Here's the police cavalry charge. The line was static at that point and this attack inflamed the crowd. One of your precious guardians of the queen's peace even got trampled quite badly by his own horse in the ensuing mess.




Yep, flying wedge is a standard cavalry assault formation deployed in order to split a static mass into two or more more manageable portions. It's not a tactic you'd employ in response to pushing and shoving, or even to strengthen lines elsewhere. Its purpose is to cause chaos.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2010)

ExtraRefined said:


> Posts in P&P in the last month;
> 
> ExtraRefined 13
> Violent Panda c.1000


 
There's a slight difference between my posting serious comment, and your attempts at right-wing iconoclasm. Pretentious of me to classify what I post as "serious comment", I know, but compared to the _dreck_ you post, it is.


----------



## creak (Dec 15, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep, flying wedge is a standard cavalry assault formation deployed in order to split a static mass into two or more more manageable portions. It's not a tactic you'd employ in response to pushing and shoving, or even to strengthen lines elsewhere. Its purpose is to cause chaos.


 
I've played Medieval Total War 2 a _lot_, and therefore feel well qualified to second this.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 15, 2010)




----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> So, implements that are defensive in nature, like helmets and shields (look up the definitions of the word "shield" in a dictionary sometime) somehow transmute into implements of offence, brought purely to "push and break police lines"?
> 
> You're already fucking dead.
> 
> ...


 
Yes, I’ve seen people posting up information on how to break police lines, and discussions on what to throw at the police. Then there are groups of protestors for instance all the revolution kids who stick together and try to agitate violence.


----------



## revlon (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes, I’ve seen people posting up information on how to break police lines, and discussions on what to throw at the police. Then there are groups of protestors for instance all the revolution kids who stick together and try to agitate violence.


 
if it's said on the internet it must be true


----------



## stupid dogbot (Dec 15, 2010)

ExtraRefined said:


> D-lock ffs. Amateurs.


 
Expect limited sympathy when someone decides to jack open their door one day, dumping you on your pretty teeth...


----------



## winjer (Dec 15, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> The idea isn't to stop the marchers, mate. It's to be able to criminalise them. If the protest marches are banned, then anyone undertaking a protest march is guilty of a (IIRC) civil offence in law.


A criminal, not civil offence. Organising or inciting people to take part are punishable by up to 3 months in prison and/or fine up to £2500, taking part by a fine of up to £1000.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

revlon said:


> if it's said on the internet it must be true



You don't have to be a genius to work out that lot's of radical socialist student groups organise on the internet. I've been at protests myself and seen groups of radical socialists & anarchists trying to start violence.

I used to be a socialist, I know how they operate.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2010)

You didn't even know which bloody party you were in!


----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> So, implements that are defensive in nature, like helmets and shields (look up the definitions of the word "shield" in a dictionary sometime) somehow transmute into implements of offence, brought purely to "push and break police lines"?



You forget, flares, paintbombs and snooker balls which are all offensive.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You didn't even know which bloody party you were in!


 
Yes I do, the Socialist Party.


----------



## ddraig (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You forget, flares, paintbombs and snooker balls which are all offensive.


 
£10 if you can produce evidence of a snooker ball
thanks


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I used to be a socialist, I know how they operate.


 
Oh good lord


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes I do, the Socialist Party.


 
Oh you've remembered - well done. It was a different one a few months ago.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

ddraig said:


> £10 if you can produce evidence of a snooker ball
> thanks


 
It's easy to produce evidence of paint bombs, flares and missiles being thrown at police. This image of all the protestors being sweet and innocent is bullshit, the sooner some of you admit there are some groups of violent protestors the sooner you will all be taken seriously by those outside of your clique board.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's easy to produce evidence of paint bombs, flares and missiles being thrown at police. This image of all the protestors being sweet and innocent is bullshit, the sooner some of you admit there are some groups of violent protestors the sooner you will all be taken seriously by those outside of your clique board.


 
So why did you invent a lie about snooker balls? Do you think that lying helps or undermines your case?


----------



## Belushi (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's easy to produce evidence of paint bombs, flares and missiles being thrown at police. This image of all the protestors being sweet and innocent is bullshit, the sooner some of you admit there are some groups of violent protestors the sooner you will all be taken seriously by those outside of your clique board.


 
Produce evidence of your claim that a snooker ball was hurled then.


----------



## Spion (Dec 15, 2010)

Round and round in circles. Posters who have a clue argue with someone who clearly has no idea what the cops do at demos.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Oh you've remembered - well done. It was a different one a few months ago.


 
No it wasn't, I simply confused the Socialist Party of Great Britian as being the Socialist Party. It's a joke there are so many different socialist parties in the UK. The fact that so called comrades can't even work together in the same party just shows everything that is wrong with Socialism and Communism in practice.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

Spion said:


> Round and round in circles. Posters who have a clue argue with someone who clearly has no idea what the cops do at demos.


 
Yes I do have a good idea of what police do at protests, I’ve been on lot's of protests and been subjected to police violence before. I'm not clamming the police are always innocent, I’ve even said that some of the things they have done at the student protest were wrong. I'm just not so utterly bias that I can't admit the reality that some of the protesters were out to cause trouble.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's easy to produce evidence of paint bombs, flares and missiles being thrown at police. This image of all the protestors being sweet and innocent is bullshit, the sooner some of you admit there are some groups of violent protestors the sooner you will all be taken seriously by those outside of your clique board.


 
Some groups of protestors are violent.  So?  The state is violent, capitalism is violent, poverty is violent.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes, I’ve seen people posting up information on how to break police lines, and discussions on what to throw at the police. Then there are groups of protestors for instance all the revolution kids who stick together and try to agitate violence.


 
You wrote:
"I know many think protestors can do no wrong, but *there was an organised attempt to cause disorder at that protest* from some people." (my emphasis)

So, we're not talking about discussions or information in posts, or whether "revolution kids" (whatever the fuck *they* are) stick together, we're talking about organised attempts to cause disorder at that particular protest that *you* claimed to exist, _capisce_?


----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

Belushi said:


> Produce evidence of your claim that a snooker ball was hurled then.


 
It's not my claim, it was reported.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2010)

winjer said:


> A criminal, not civil offence. Organising or inciting people to take part are punishable by up to 3 months in prison and/or fine up to £2500, taking part by a fine of up to £1000.


 
Cheers for the correction. I haven't really looked at the CJA since the 1990s, so wasn't sure.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 15, 2010)

Let's get this in proportion though.  Some protestors, armed with paintbombs and placard sticks against police with full body armour, helmets, big hard sticks, horses, vans and the full weight of the state behind them.  Get some perspective ffs.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's not my claim, it was reported.


 
No, it was your claim. You can't help yourself can you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You forget, flares, paintbombs and snooker balls which are all offensive.


 
1) Flares: They're lighting implements (very handy for dark, drizzly evenings), although they *will* burn people stupid enough to get close to the business end, what with using magnesium as a fuel source.

2) Paintbombs: Yes, they're offensive, but they're not even as affecting as getting hit by a paintball - lower velocity and greater surface area.

3): Snooker balls. Have any actually been presented as evidence, or televised by the Met like they do when they've seized caches of "weapons"? Nah - because they were talking out of their arses, like you.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You wrote:
> "I know many think protestors can do no wrong, but *there was an organised attempt to cause disorder at that protest* from some people." (my emphasis)
> 
> So, we're not talking about discussions or information in posts, or whether "revolution kids" (whatever the fuck *they* are) stick together, we're talking about organised attempts to cause disorder at that particular protest that *you* claimed to exist, _capisce_?


 
These are the socialist revolution kids, part of the latest youth indoctrination -
http://www.socialistrevolution.org/

and here they are 51 secs into this video, charging in a line with sheilds, helmets hitting police with sticks. Note later in the video someone hitting police with a metal bar.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2010)

ddraig said:


> £10 if you can produce evidence of a snooker ball
> thanks


 
This.
Cos you'd have thought that with the claimed "barrage" of snooker balls that were chucked at the OB, at least one would have been unambiguously depicted on telly or in a photo, wouldn't you?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> These are the socialist revolution kids, part of the latest youth indoctrination -
> http://www.socialistrevolution.org/
> 
> and here they are 51 secs into this video, charging in a line with sheilds, helmets hitting police with sticks. Note later in the video someone hitting police with a metal bar.




OMG, and you think you 'know' about socialists?


----------



## Spion (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> and here they are 51 secs into this video, charging in a line with sheilds, helmets hitting police with sticks


good for them. The police barred their way for no good reason. The police could have just stayed at home and let people protest as is their right but they keep coming out and battering people and imprisoning them in kettles. No wonder these kids are getting wise and protecting themselves


----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Let's get this in proportion though.  Some protestors, armed with paintbombs and placard sticks against police with full body armour, helmets, big hard sticks, horses, vans and the full weight of the state behind them.  Get some perspective ffs.


 
Blagsta, I'm just saying some protestors are violent, as are some police. I think some of police's actions went to far, and so did some of the protestors actions. I defend peaceful protest, but not violent protest that is all.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

Spion said:


> good for them. The police barred their way for no good reason. The police could have just stayed at home and let people protest as is their right but they keep coming out and battering people and imprisoning them in kettles. No wonder these kids are getting wise and protecting themselves


 
Apart from the last time a student protest was left to it's own ends they ended up trashing the HQ of a democratic political party. What if it was the EDL, would you be happy for them to rampage through the streets at will?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's easy to produce evidence of paint bombs, flares and missiles being thrown at police.


You made a claim about *snooker balls*, _bubeleh_. Put up, or shut up. 


> This image of all the protestors being sweet and innocent is bullshit...


Please post a link to *any* post on the politics fora where the protesters are portrayed as "all sweetness and light", or belt up, there's a good chap!


> ...the sooner some of you admit there are some groups of violent protestors...


There's no evidence to support your contention about "groups", not from the regular police or the intelligence services.
What there are, of course, are people who may use violence, but there's nothing to show that "groups" of people bent on violence are attending the protests.
There is, however, plenty of evidence that shows people using physical direct action, both as an offensive measure *after* police violence, and as a defensive measure *during* police violence.


> ...the sooner you will all be taken seriously by those outside of your clique board.


 
Already am, as are most of the other posters, _bubeleh_. You, on the other hand, you have to rail against "clique boards" because you're actually vaguely aware of how tissue-thin your claims are, aren't you?


----------



## Spion (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Apart from the last time a student protest was left to it's own ends they ended up trashing the HQ of a democratic political party


I don't know the exact circumstances, and neither do you, but I do know that police tactics are not aimed at calming these situations - kettles boil and you reap what you sow



moon23 said:


> What if it was the EDL, would you be happy for them to rampage through the streets at will?


Let them, I say. They'd get battered and the police are no protection anyway. As here again they expend most of their efforts on kettling anti-EDL protestors.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Blagsta, I'm just saying some protestors are violent, as are some police. I think some of police's actions went to far, and so did some of the protestors actions. I defend peaceful protest, but not violent protest that is all.


 
You're defending the violent status quo then.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Apart from the last time a student protest was left to it's own ends they ended up trashing the HQ of a democratic political party.



Yeah, that was ace. 



moon23 said:


> What if it was the EDL, would you be happy for them to rampage through the streets at will?



oh dear, context fail


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> These are the socialist revolution kids, part of the latest youth indoctrination -
> http://www.socialistrevolution.org/


There's no evidence of a bloc of "socialist revolution" (or their armed wing, *chortle* members attending the protest, so I have to presume you just googled something like "student riots revolution" in order to make yourself look like less of a bullshitter.
Guess what? 


> and here they are 51 secs into this video, charging in a line with sheilds, helmets hitting police with sticks.


You're either not particularly observant, or very partisan.
Watch your clip again, and this time *don't* focus on the central action, watch what's happening elsewhere too. It only took me two viewings to work out why the green helmets surged, and why a couple (and that's all it was) flailed against the police long-shields. let's see if you can spot why.


> Note later in the video someone hitting police with a metal bar.




You mean the single fella who hits the bar against the shield wall twice? 

It boils down to this: If you're supporting your claims of an "organised attempt to cause disorder" with this clip and material like it, then you either don't understand what "organised disorder" is, or you're incredibly dishonest.


----------



## klang (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Apart from the last time a student protest was left to it's own ends they ended up trashing the HQ of a democratic political party. What if it was the EDL, would you be happy for them to rampage through the streets at will?


 
Are you seriously comparing a fascist hate-org like the edl to a blossoming student movement resisting the most horrible developements in living memory??? well fuck you too!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2010)

Spion said:


> good for them. The police barred their way for no good reason. The police could have just stayed at home and let people protest as is their right but they keep coming out and battering people and imprisoning them in kettles. No wonder these kids are getting wise and protecting themselves


 
If you watch the video, you can see that the mass of protesters builds up to the left and to the top of the screen, which is a fairly good indicator that what the green helmets were up to was pushing the old bill back to ease the crush.


----------



## xes (Dec 15, 2010)

holy shit, someone on that BBC blog agrees with Ben Brown and Kevin


----------



## editor (Dec 15, 2010)

There was a little gang of hopelessly harmless-looking anarchists with matching brand new black face masks (bless) being pointlessly chased around the streets on the edge of the protest around 4pm. It was quite amusing to watch.


----------



## editor (Dec 15, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> 1) Flares: They're lighting implements (very handy for dark, drizzly evenings), although they *will* burn people stupid enough to get close to the business end, what with using magnesium as a fuel source.
> 
> 2) Paintbombs: Yes, they're offensive, but they're not even as affecting as getting hit by a paintball - lower velocity and greater surface area.
> 
> 3): Snooker balls. Have any actually been presented as evidence, or televised by the Met like they do when they've seized caches of "weapons"? Nah - because they were talking out of their arses, like you.


I was standing in and amongst the police lines for a bit and while there was no shortage of objects flying over (mainly bits of stick and the odd green helmet), I saw no snooker balls or saw any on the floor.


----------



## xes (Dec 15, 2010)

Is that some kind of double whacking stick the pig just right of centre has?

Was going to say it's in both pics, but they're the same picture.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 15, 2010)

Some nice pics from the protests here.

e2a: looks very familiar, might have been posted before?


----------



## audiotech (Dec 15, 2010)

My favourite comment so far.

127. At 6:28pm on 14 Dec 2010, Garrie Mushet wrote:



> To ask Jody, a sufferer of Cerebral Palsy, who is unable to operate his own manual wheelchair, if he was throwing things at the police is equivalent to asking Prof. Stephen Hawking if he'd consider entering a Break-Dancing Competition.



....and this conveys very much my thoughts:

143. At 7:03pm on 14 Dec 2010, Dunc wrote:



> In my opinion, the absolute best thing to come out of this interview is the comments made by Mr McIntyre. I think he consistently outwitted Ben Brown, and showed the lack of decent media coverage on this issue for what it really is.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/12/interview_with_jody_mcintyre.html


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 15, 2010)

> Aaron Porter, the NUS leader who has consistently condemned violence and property damage on demonstrations, has now joined ex cop Brian Paddick in calling for the Met to improve its intelligence gathering.
> 
> The best case scenario is Mr Porter is ignorant and should talk to a few of the activists and organisers who have been at the sharp end of police intelligence gathering over the last decade.
> 
> ...



http://www.fitwatch.org.uk/2010/12/15/oppose-intelligence-led-policing/


----------



## audiotech (Dec 15, 2010)

An astute observation.

181. At 8:31pm on 14 Dec 2010, trichome wrote:



> Andrew Marr appears to have ignored his schooling in favour of his career. Some people have no conscience.


----------



## rollinder (Dec 15, 2010)

editor said:


> I was standing in and amongst the police lines for a bit and while there was no shortage of objects flying over (mainly bits of stick and the odd green helmet), I saw no snooker balls or saw any on the floor...



There's an (self alleged) policeman over at moneysavingexpert claiming to have been policing the demo & to have seen and seized evidence that students were attacking police with snooker balls. (oh and bits of iron bars/railing too now)




			
				-me on mse said:
			
		

> people are still wheeling out the "protesters were armed with/throwing snooker balls" line nearly a week on
> - where's the evidence?






			
				another member said:
			
		

> Yep you would have expected a nice display from several officers adorned with epaulettes full of shining pips demonstrating the armoury they were subjected to.
> Remarkably silent on the Alphie Meadows issue too.






			
				CWCDiver_selfproclaimed demo cop said:
			
		

> The evidence, some of which I myself seized, is in the evidence store and being taken out for printing.


http://forums. moneysavingexpert.com/
showpost.php?p=39397348&postcount=251

(link borked because of board wars and that)

Any one else feel like challenging him?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I used to be a socialist, I know how they operate.


 
got any evidence of sp members starting violence then? 

thought not

i find the stuff you're saying fucking revolting tbh - most sp comrades and even most of the "hardcore" anarchists i know for all their posturing on boards like this D) wouldn't hurt a fly beyond the minor bit of graffing etc unlike your scum party and what is one paint ball chucked at the police compared to destroying the lives of half of society 

the shit you're saying is fucking disgusting 

and you know it

take a look in the mirror, if you want to slander people on here (among others) of whatever political persuasion as being in favour of violence and stirring it up, if it wasn't for the three lots of tories there wouldn't be any protests and thus no opporunity to get violent in the first place !!


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2010)

_armed with wooden staves_


----------



## ymu (Dec 15, 2010)

It wouldn't actually be very surprising if there were snooker/pool balls deployed. Every SU and a lot of school/college common rooms have a pool table, and they usually have red and yellow balls instead of proper pool balls. I don't really understand why people are making such a big deal out of this one point. If you're trying to prove that everyone there was intent on an entirely peaceful protest ... well, they weren't, and thank fuck for that, quite frankly.

The issue is how much of the violence was caused by police tactics. The police have already stated that they have been surprised at the type of people they have arrested, and how obvious it is that they did not go along intending to cause serious disturbance. The very obvious question that arises from that is, how much of the unplanned disorder was due to pathetically bad policing, and how much was down to the extreme anger felt by those attending at their powerlessness to stop the criminal damage being done to their futures and the economy as a whole.

I hope quite a lot of it was anger at the situation, but there's no doubt that a lot of it was anger at the police tactics.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No it wasn't, I simply confused the Socialist Party of Great Britian as being the Socialist Party. It's a joke there are so many different socialist parties in the UK. The fact that so called comrades can't even work together in the same party just shows everything that is wrong with Socialism and Communism in practice.


 
they're not the same party you clueless fuck 

look how many tory parties there are in the uk ffs - three (or possibly four+ if you count ukip, veritas etc) why can't all the tories work together in one party? shows what problems there are with toryism in practice doesn't it


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2010)

Because the reported use of snooker balls is a long standing ground-preparing move before attempting to stich someone up, quite important to realise that and to get it understood. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard this bollocks.


----------



## dylans (Dec 15, 2010)

ymu said:


> It wouldn't actually be very surprising if there were snooker/pool balls deployed. Every SU and a lot of school/college common rooms have a pool table, and they usually have red and yellow balls instead of proper pool balls. I don't really understand why people are making such a big deal out of this one point. *If you're trying to prove that everyone there was intent on an entirely peaceful protest ... well, they weren't, and thank fuck for that, quite frankly.*
> 
> The issue is how much of the violence was caused by police tactics. The police have already stated that they have been surprised at the type of people they have arrested, and how obvious it is that they did not go along intending to cause serious disturbance. The very obvious question that arises from that is, how much of the unplanned disorder was due to pathetically bad policing, and how much was down to the extreme anger felt by those attending at their powerlessness to stop the criminal damage being done to their futures and the economy as a whole.
> 
> I hope quite a lot of it was anger at the situation, but there's no doubt that a lot of it was anger at the police tactics.



Absolutely. We knew this was going to kick off and I'm glad it did.  The actions of the police guaranteed it for sure but we should be clear. Violent demonstrations are a correct response to these attacks. I have yet to see a snooker ball being thrown either but I think its a bloody good idea for the next one.


----------



## where to (Dec 15, 2010)

snooker balls are quite dear.


----------



## ymu (Dec 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Because the reported use of snooker balls is a long standing ground-preparing move before attempting to stich someone up, quite important to realise that and to get it understood. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard this bollocks.


 
If it didn't happen, they can't stitch anyone up with it. If it did, they'll have to provide evidence. I can't see how anything would be any different with or without these claims being made.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Because the reported use of snooker balls is a long standing ground-preparing move before attempting to stich someone up, quite important to realise that and to get it understood. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard this bollocks.


 
agreed 

ooooh snooker balls 

the poor governmenet 

(((((government))))


----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's no evidence of a bloc of "socialist revolution" (or their armed wing, *chortle* members attending the protest, so I have to presume you just googled something like "student riots revolution" in order to make yourself look like less of a bullshitter.
> Guess what?



No I’ve been in the pub with this group after a protest once, and spoke with them about whether violence was justified. I was saying it just undermines the respectability of your position.



> You're either not particularly observant, or very partisan.
> Watch your clip again, and this time *don't* focus on the central action, watch what's happening elsewhere too. It only took me two viewings to work out why the green helmets surged, and why a couple (and that's all it was) flailed against the police long-shields. let's see if you can spot why.



Nope I can't spot anything, there is other stuff going on in other clips, but nothing in this section. Of course there could be something that happened before that provoked them. 




> You mean the single fella who hits the bar against the shield wall twice?
> 
> It boils down to this: If you're supporting your claims of an "organised attempt to cause disorder" with this clip and material like it, then you either don't understand what "organised disorder" is, or you're incredibly dishonest.


 
The single fella section doesn't demostrate organised violence on it's own, what that section demostrates is that sometimes some protestors are violent. 

All i'm saying is that some of the police actions went too far, e.g. charging with the horses, as did some of the protestors actions.


----------



## DJ Squelch (Dec 15, 2010)

I heard christmas tree baubles full of paint where thrown, isn't it possibility that someone mistook a flying bauble for a snooker ball.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2010)

the police are armed and have the full weight of the state and the monopoloy of violence on their side, thus their violence is qualititivvely diferent from the protesters' violence not least in the consequecens that violence will have 

this is basic stuff, you did politics, how do you not understand this


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2010)

sorrry im pissed


----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> got any evidence of sp members starting violence then?
> 
> thought not
> 
> ...


 
I'm not saying most of the protestors cause violence, or that SP members are involved in stuff specifically. There are however some organised groups of protestors like the Revolution Students who plan to cause trouble. Mainly they just want to break police lines, and smash a bit of property. Nothing major really. 

Then again the police violence was relatively minor and in proportion to what they faced.

I accept some police tactics inflame the situation.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2010)

who are the revolution students? ive never heard of tht group so how do i no your not making it up 

i agree some people go to demos with the intention of fighting, then again sopme people join the police cos theyre attracted to violence


----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> the police are armed and have the full weight of the state and the monopoloy of violence on their side, thus their violence is qualititivvely diferent from the protesters' violence not least in the consequecens that violence will have
> 
> this is basic stuff, you did politics, how do you not understand this



They don't have a monopoly on violence, we saw from the trashing of Millbank, barriers being thrown at the police, the attack on Charles, the smashing of shops etc that students are quite capable of this too. 

The police are also subject to the law just like anyone else, if the legal observers at these protests were more concerned about methodological evidence collection then they could have had some good legal actions by now.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2010)

they have a monopoloy on LAWFUL violence though


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2010)

if i beat someone to death what sentence will i get? 

if a policeman beats someone to death what sentence will they get? (if they get sentenced at all)

come on this is basic stuff


----------



## dennisr (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes I do, the Socialist Party.


 
pm me the details of your membership - meetings - people (names of..) those you met. 
I'll check thias out for you and confirm - lets see if you are telling the truth.

Its a chance to prove your honesty. If you cannot you will - of course - be fucked.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 15, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> who are the revolution students? ive never heard of tht group so how do i no your not making it up
> 
> i agree some people go to demos with the intention of fighting, then again sopme people join the police cos theyre attracted to violence


 
Here they are :
http://www.socialistrevolution.org/

Here is a video of them, you can always see them as they have quite recognisable flags on canes. Fairplay for them attending an anti-EDL protest.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm not saying most of the protestors cause violence, or that SP members are involved in stuff specifically. There are however some organised groups of protestors like the Revolution Students who plan to cause trouble. Mainly they just want to break police lines, and smash a bit of property. Nothing major really.
> 
> Then again the police violence was relatively minor and in proportion to what they faced.
> 
> I accept some police tactics inflame the situation.


 
its not about the sp
i jut find it fucking disgusting your attempts at slandering people on protests tbh and the fact you are just saying shit with no evidence, "I used to be a socialist so i know how they operate" whatever, like they are some sort of terrorist fucking group, its disgusting, they SP get criticised (with some grounds if your coming it from a certain position) for NOT suppoirting direction action enough, something i think that you know,
there are critiques to be made of the left, the sp, anarchists, etc, and i think you will find many people on these boards have made them quite well, but this is just basless noinsense that you know is not true and it comes across like your trying to jutsify treatment of protesters on the flimsiest of pretexts and i find it disgusting from someone who claims they know better


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 15, 2010)

dennisr said:


> you will - of course - be fucked.


 
prison rules?


----------



## dennisr (Dec 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Here they are :



Here are a few fantisists showing off on the internet. It shows nothing whatsoever. I am guessing you would be in good company at least in that sence.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 15, 2010)

Most anarchists i know wouldn't hurt a fly, they might talk a good game, but how many people have died at the hands of anarchists over the years compared to how many at the hands of the police


----------



## dennisr (Dec 15, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> prison rules?


 
if we must. i'll bring the soap.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 16, 2010)

dennisr said:


> pm me the details of your membership - meetings - people (names of..) those you met.
> I'll check thias out for you and confirm - lets see if you are telling the truth.
> 
> Its a chance to prove your honesty. If you cannot you will - of course - be fucked.


 
I'm not being funny, but i'm hardly very well liked on this board so i'd rather not give out my personal details. I used to be a member down in Brighton from around 1999-2001, I think the regional organiser was called Naomi, but I can't remember many other people's names from back then. I was just an a-level student. I did organise a road block and occupied my FE colleague though. I was quite the radical before realising the problems with Socialism.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> i agree some people go to demos with the intention of fighting, then again sopme people join the police cos theyre attracted to violence



indeed - they are the type of people who sign up for the very events we witnessed


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

sorry btw - i will edit, ive just come in from being on a picket line the whole day and then later at the pub, i will edit if its too ranty / angry


----------



## moon23 (Dec 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Most anarchists i know wouldn't hurt a fly, they might talk a good game, but how many people have died at the hands of anarchists over the years compared to how many at the hands of the police


 
That's true most are not violent people, unless they are attacking what they view as an instrument of the state. I'm not saying that all Socialist or Anarchist are violent at all. Just that there are groups within these large protests who identify with those ideologies who are intent on causing violence.  

I agree the police on balance are far more violent.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> sorry btw - i will edit, ive just come in from being on a picket line the whole day and then later at the pub, i will edit if its too ranty / angry


 
No problem it is fine, I am just off to bed now with a Whisky toddy as I have a stinking cold. G'night.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm not being funny, but i'm hardly very well liked on this board so i'd rather not give out my personal details. I used to be a member down in Brighton from around 1999-2001, I think the regional organiser was called Naomi, but I can't remember many other people's names from back then. I was just an a-level student. I did organise a road block and occupied my FE colleague though. I was quite the radical before realising the problems with Socialism.


 
what do you honestly believe i'm gonna pop around and intimidate you because i disagree with you on internet boards!! - jesus wept. I guess you have to start believing some of the shite you type here. sad. and no there has never been an regional organiser called naomi in the south east. so a liar then?


----------



## moon23 (Dec 16, 2010)

dennisr said:


> Here are a few fantisists showing off on the internet. It shows nothing whatsoever. I am guessing you would be in good company at least in that sence.


 
They mainly are fantasists, but then you could argue that about lot's of people who genuinely think there will be a revolution ( or even Lib Dems like myself who hope Nick will become less Tory). I’m not just basing this off the web, but first hand experience of them too.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 16, 2010)

dennisr said:


> what do you honestly believe i'm gonna pop around and intimidate you because i disagree with you on internet boards!! - jesus wept. I guess you have to start believing some of the shite you type here. sad. and no there has never been an regional organiser called naomi in the south east. so a liar then?


 
No I don't think you are going to come and intimidate me. Do your records go back to that period?  What would you need to find me on your system? She might have been a London organiser or a youth organiser.  I'm not lying, i've mentioned I was a member ages ago on this board.


----------



## ymu (Dec 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> who are the revolution students? ive never heard of tht group so how do i no your not making it up
> 
> i agree some people go to demos with the intention of fighting, then again sopme people join the police cos theyre attracted to violence


 
I get confused, but I think Revolution are the youth wing of Workers Power, which Permanent Revolution recently split off from. There were plenty of Revolution flags there, although I do not know if they were involved in any violence. or indeed 'violence'. They do tend to hook up with more anarchist elements, despite being Trots.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> They mainly are fantasists, but then you could argue that about lot's of people who genuinely think there will be a revolution ( or even Lib Dems like myself who hope Nick will become less Tory). I’m not just basing this off the web, but first hand experience of them too.


 
Your 'first hand experience' consists of being unsure which socialist party you were a member of. unwilling to show any link to any real organisation and desperately googling to find some fantasists to back your own fantasies and lies. No?

you had a chance to prove genuine 'experience' of so-called 'violent socialists - you have just blown it. just a liar and smear/muck spreader.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm not being funny, but i'm hardly very well liked on this board so i'd rather not give out my personal details. I used to be a member down in Brighton from around 1999-2001, I think the regional organiser was called Naomi, but I can't remember many other people's names from back then. I was just an a-level student. I did organise a road block and occupied my FE colleague though. I was quite the radical before realising the problems with Socialism.


 
what problems are they then if you're saying that they are violent then you are wrong the because the whole reason they are most often criticised is bcause they dont go "far enough" in support direct action , thats why anarchists and the like criticise them , of all the things you can criticise teh sp or anyone else trot goup for that its not it, you cant even criticise anarchists for it, they might go on and on about how it necessary and bore everoyne shitless but they dont do anything violent, 99% of the time, and most of them would never out and out advocate violence, it shows that you dont have a very good memory, or at least you are so keen to prove how much of a fanactical lib dem you are you are willing to misreprenet people in the process just to prove to yourself you are right, well you are not right, as i said i volunteered for the lib dems once in an election, im not going to say the activists i met are all nazis just to prove im right to myself, thats just intelctual dishonestly


----------



## dennisr (Dec 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Do you records go back to that period?


 
records. more fantasy. no the memories of activists i have known for over 20 years from the area (there is not that many full-time organisers or branches... mores the pity) would prove you genuinely knew and were involved with real people - I am not even asking for your details - just the branch, where meetings were, names of members you knew. You know basic non-scary stuff. its an opportunity to clear your name. - give a simple example of your "first hand experience" - prove you are not a liar.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

ymu said:


> I get confused, but I think Revolution are the youth wing of Workers Power, which Permanent Revolution recently split off from. There were plenty of Revolution flags there, although I do not know if they were involved in any violence. or indeed 'violence'. They do tend to hook up with more anarchist elements, despite being Trots.



ah fair play , and ye lol, sure some ex WP memberrs on ere will have summink so say


----------



## dennisr (Dec 16, 2010)

ymu said:


> Revolution are the youth wing of Workers Power


 
yep fantasists - young kids


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

dennisr said:


> records. more fantasy. no the memories of activists i have known for over 20 years from the area (there is not that many full-time organisers or branches... mores the pity) would prove you genuinely knew and were involved with real people - I am not even asking for your details - just the branch, where meetings were, names of members you knew. You know basic non-scary stuff. its an opportunity to clear your name.


 
sorry mate i will edit some of my posts if i am making that much of a tit of myself ,, ...


----------



## ymu (Dec 16, 2010)

dennisr said:


> yep fantasists - young kids


 
From my experience of them, that would be a fair assessment, yes.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> sorry mate i will edit some of my posts if i am making that much of a tit of myself ,, ...


 
*confused* 

Hiya froggie - that was just a reply to moonies comments dude!? you arn't being foolish in any way that i can see mate?? 

I am guessing that moonie has told one lie too many (he is welcome to prove me wrong). it is one I am calling him (in the gentle sense) on. If it shows he is lying then that exposes the 'quality' of the rest of his (or i guess her - but probably a his...) arguements up.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

ah ok cool its just im quite drunk and i dotn want to say anythng foolish!  and i agree, it would be interesting to see (to say the least)


----------



## ymu (Dec 16, 2010)

He seems to be saying that he knows all about socialist parties because he got involved in one (but he's not sure which one) when he was a teenager. Is that right? If so, breathtaking, even by moon's standards.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> ah ok cool its just im quite drunk and i dotn want to say anythng foolish!  and i agree, it would be interesting to see (to say the least)


 
 just you say what ever you want to say. its not like i could stop even if i wanted to - *secret: remember you are the bad SP policemen and i'm the good one this eve ( we can swap around tomorrow)*


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 16, 2010)

ymu said:


> He seems to be saying that he knows all about socialist parties because he got involved in one (but he's not sure which one) when he was a teenager. Is that right? If so, breathtaking, even by moon's standards.


 
they sinisterly flog you newspapers at solidarity prices


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> That's true most are not violent people, unless they are attacking what they view as an instrument of the state. I'm not saying that all Socialist or Anarchist are violent at all. Just that there are groups within these large protests who identify with those ideologies who are intent on causing violence.
> 
> I agree the police on balance are far more violent.


 
so why mention it then and why mention the SP and others like they are violent grouops and why say that "its how scoalists work" if thats not what you beleive why say it !!! if you belive the police are far more violent then why constantly go on about the behaviour of protesters and link organisations which are proven to be non violent to them on a thread that is given over to discussion of the police tactics when there are other threads to do so on 

unless you think that "violence" is doing anything other than saying "its a fair cop guv" as soon as you step foot near a Protest 

if you agree wthat the police are far more vioent, then fair enough,  agree there is a cause for discussing tactics, and violent direct cton etcm and whether it works (and if you look at my posts, its actually points I myself hace made on this b=oard), but you are not doing it, it seems that you tryign to just insult and attack people, and you are just making excuses for the police brutality 



and btw re the violence - this is a very basic thing, the police do have a monopoly on the AUTHORISED use of the state violence. *they are the only force in society apart frm the secret serivces and the army that is allowed to use violence, if i beat someone to death i will be jailed andrightly so, if a policeman beats someone to death the chances are they will just get away with it*

Do you get what I am saying? Im not saying the police are the only group to commit violence but in day to day life (ie not in war) they are the only group its AUTHORISED for 

thats a very different thing to saying that nobody except the police commits violence and it should be common snese surely? anyone who has watched any show involving the police know that they get away with things (even if it is the right thing) that normal citizens wouldnt necessarily get away with


----------



## dennisr (Dec 16, 2010)

ymu said:


> He seems to be saying that he knows all about socialist parties because he got involved in one (but he's not sure which one) when he was a teenager. Is that right? If so, breathtaking, even by moon's standards.



 and if he was in the SP he is more likely to have been put off by the tedium having to do a saturday morning paper sale than the *ahem* fantasy weopons training in rediness for the uprising


----------



## dennisr (Dec 16, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> they sinisterly flog you newspapers at solidarity prices


 
evil manipulators of the popular mood for a bargain *shamed*


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

dennisr said:


> just you say what ever you want to say. its not like i could stop even if i wanted to - *secret: remember you are the bad SP policemen and i'm the good one this eve ( we can swap around tomorrow)*


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

lol at preparing weapons for an uprising, like that would ever happen


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 16, 2010)




----------



## moon23 (Dec 16, 2010)

dennisr said:


> records. more fantasy. no the memories of activists i have known for over 20 years from the area (there is not that many full-time organisers or branches... mores the pity) would prove you genuinely knew and were involved with real people - I am not even asking for your details - just the branch, where meetings were, names of members you knew. You know basic non-scary stuff. its an opportunity to clear your name. - give a simple example of your "first hand experience" - prove you are not a liar.


 
Well it was the Brighton branch and they met in the George's Taven which has now closed down. The pub used to have a monopoly quiz machine in it you could play. I used to be a member with another student called Johhny Savage who I was friends with.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 16, 2010)

dennisr said:


> and if he was in the SP he is more likely to have been put off by the tedium having to do a saturday morning paper sale than the *ahem* fantasy weopons training in rediness for the uprising


 
And getting shouted at by the SWP


----------



## moon23 (Dec 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> so why mention it then and why mention the SP and others like they are violent grouops and why say that "its how scoalists work" if thats not what you beleive why say it !!! if you belive the police are far more violent then why constantly go on about the behaviour of protesters and link organisations which are proven to be non violent to them on a thread that is given over to discussion of the police tactics when there are other threads to do so on



I'm only talking about the Socialist party, becuase BA questioned suggested I couldn't even remember the name of the party I was in. I never said the SP were involved in violence. 



> and btw re the violence - this is a very basic thing, the police do have a monopoly on the AUTHORISED use of the state violence. *they are the only force in society apart frm the secret serivces and the army that is allowed to use violence, if i beat someone to death i will be jailed andrightly so, if a policeman beats someone to death the chances are they will just get away with it*



I accept there is a bias in the legal system that mean the police are far more likely to get away with violence, but they have very few if any additional laws to enable their violence. Everyone has some recourse to legal violence in self-defence or to use reasonable force to remove a trespasser that has refused to leave your property.[/quote]



> police know that they get away with things (even if it is the right thing) that normal citizens wouldnt necessarily get away with



I agree they get away with things others wouldn't.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> That's true most are not violent people, unless they are attacking what they view as an instrument of the state.



that is complete fucking bollocks, you look at the (acutally often quite detailed and well analysed) reasons anarchists and the like criticise the SP and other Trot Groups, its because they dont take such a view of that, as being necessary or even necessarily OK (some criticisms which i agree have some merit tbh), and in fact view some - SOME - of the police as being capable to being won over to our side, a pov i agree with because i don't think cops can be viewed in such a simplisitc light 

as for anarchists, when was the last time you saw an anarchist attack "what they view as an instrument of the state" 
I dont mean defend themselves in a kettle, I dont mean chucking paint at a car, I dont mean smashing a widnow, I mean deliberately setting out to harm and kill policemen, politicians, and so on, i mean planting bombs, etc etc etc

IT NEVER HAPPENS DOES IT

whereas, through the centuries, how many people have been the victims of state / corprorate violence? how many people have small and vilified groups of anarchists, trots, or anyone else killed through deliberate, cold-blooded, calculated actions designed to hurt and kill compared to how many people capitalism and the state (in their various guises) have killed for the simple fact that they have the implied use of massive and deadly force on their side. Do you get what Im saying, and do you get why the two (as stupid and counterproductive as some of the violent protesters' actions occasionally are) can NOT be compared. 


I find it really objectionable that you are trying to slander protesters - of whatever political persuasion - and then separate them from everyone else by describing them as "violent" and feigning concern for people who have their "futures wrecked" etc, we all know who the real violence is being carried out by, the economic and physical violence - and your attempt to introduce some sort of false moral equivalency by deflecting attention from the actions of the police at the behest of party which you support and is now in government is utterly disgraceful. without this lot (and i mean the labour party as it behaved in gov't as well btw) there would be no need for any protests 



> blah


yo usaid, "I know how socialists operate" (like some sort of right wing ex leftie whose seen the light) and then some bollocks about violence, so its no surprise some of us became angry because we know this not to be the case, and i find it really objectionable that you describe people in those terms when you know for a fact it simply isnt true, again im not talking about the sp im talking generally, you know that most anarchists etc wont hurt a fly, and yet you keep making insinuations about violence, you mention violence and then say that because you used to be a socialist it means that you know how these groups are, so who and what the fuck did you mean then? 

ive got no problems with people making criticisms of anything - in fact as you can see from my posts i always try (altho i don't always succeed) to be even handed and balanced about everything - but theyve got to make damned fucking sure it is accurate 

either you didnt mean what you said or you meant to say something else (in which case you should think about what you say a bit more) or you did mean it and are now embarassed at saying it


----------



## dennisr (Dec 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> And getting shouted at by the SWP



 - yep, that bits fair enough - but 'stitched up by the swappies in a meeting down the road' would be more accurate


----------



## dennisr (Dec 16, 2010)

dp


----------



## dennisr (Dec 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> lol at preparing weapons for an uprising, like that would ever happen


 
you are obviously still at the cadet level - its like the freemasons - eventually you will be welcomed into the "inner ring" (oh er missis)


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I agree they get away with things others wouldn't.


 
Yeah and ?? by equating the protesters' "violence" against property, morally speaing, with the violence of Police Brutality, and implying that it has the same quality, the samae characteristics, the same, full weight, of the state, the justice system, the crimianl system, etc etc etc, as well as the fact the police are able to keep order be the IMPLIED use of force, if someone steps out of line, in a way that anyone else is not, dont you see how this is objectionable, not to mention incorrect


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

Look at the news today for example, the police said that protests would possibly be banned, and those will be prosecuted, who go on them, 

protesters have to apply for permission from the police to go to demos

can the protesters say that police will now be banned at protests unless they have permission to go from the demo organisers, and any police officer who came to a protest will be prosecuted? what would happen if they enforced this rule? not to go all anarcho on yo ass but ... 

Can you not seem the IMPLIED USE OF (LEGAL) FORCE here??? Its not a question of them "getting away" its a result of the whole way that the system is set up, you can argue whether it is right or wrong , but come on! 


THIS IS SO BASIC, how do you not get it


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

dennisr said:


> you are obviously still at the cadet level - its like the freemasons - eventually you will be welcomed into the "inner ring" (oh er missis)


 
aye fraid so


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I accept there is a bias in the legal system that mean the police are far more likely to get away with violence, but they have very few if any additional laws to enable their violence. Everyone has some recourse to legal violence in self-defence or to use reasonable force to remove a trespasser that has refused to leave your property.


 
thats not true, the social function of the police is to enforce the law, ie enforce what laws have been made, some are good, some not, the fact that they have that function means that they dont need many special laws authorising what they can and can't do as they are given by default that social function, since who enforces the enforcers?? ie very few (usually largely toothless) bodies, in fact, the prime minister is barely mentioned in british statutes, this means that because of his nebulous legal status there are in effect very few limitations if any on his power

i really don;'t want to be defending an "acab" stance, but this is why some socialists, anarchists and others have such a criticism of the role of the police, and the institution of the police in general, even if not individual officers, because they are responsible for enforcing laws made - so the arguement goes - by a ruling elite, and the only check on what they do is by default gona be another police institution

you're argueing like the main problem is that there aren't enough laws etc, and that the police if they commit crime are treated just the same as anyone else because there are also provisions for things like citizens arrests etc, but this isn;'t true


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 16, 2010)

ymu said:


> If it didn't happen, they can't stitch anyone up with it. If it did, they'll have to provide evidence. I can't see how anything would be any different with or without these claims being made.


 
You have to look at the claims as part of a spectrum of propaganda, rather than as a single issue. The balls, like the "policeman pulled from his horse and beaten" claim (you know, the _klutz_ whose tack slipped), the "class war activists" and the "street gangs" are pieces in a jigsaw of bullshit put out to rouse the media to the state's defence. The government and the police *know* they won't be able to provide evidence, but they hope (and it's usually the case) that by the time they're called to account for lying, people will no longer be interested in what happened, or why.


----------



## ymu (Dec 16, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You have to look at the claims as part of a spectrum of propaganda, rather than as a single issue. The balls, like the "policeman pulled from his horse and beaten" claim (you know, the _klutz_ whose tack slipped), the "class war activists" and the "street gangs" are pieces in a jigsaw of bullshit put out to rouse the media to the state's defence. The government and the police *know* they won't be able to provide evidence, but they hope (and it's usually the case) that by the time they're called to account for lying, people will no longer be interested in what happened, or why.



It is fairly clear from the videos that the copper was pushed off - not beaten, that was the horse - but he was pushed and they nabbed the people who pushed him at the time. I see no reason to deny that this happened. If the snooker balls are a myth, I don't really see how it makes any difference one way or the other. It doesn't alter the narrative on either side.

Anyways ... tech tools for activists (secure communications etc) looks to be a handy resource in these troubled times.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I'm not quite with you here. The protests here aren't BNP or EDL or whatever either even if people do try to piggyback - and I'll repeat that I'm not saying this instance is part of any sort of organised campaign, even if it's organised by an EDL supporter who tried to lie about its credentials, I'm making a general point that you can't just uncritically say "whoever".


 
Yeah Im not talking about all the anti-cuts protests, Im talking about this specific one, fair play if people still want to go and protest on the day despite the fact the edl may have organised etc tho but i think that and the strike thing is a different thing entirely, and im not uncritically saying "whoever" im saying that it is right to be cautious tbh even if that dont stop you going at the end of the day


----------



## revlon (Dec 16, 2010)

DJ Squelch said:


> I heard christmas tree baubles full of paint where thrown, isn't it possibility that someone mistook a flying bauble for a snooker ball.


 
i'm told to get the protestors hyped up before the demo the anarchist leaders showed everyone 'scum' the night before. I definitely heard at least two gangs from wood green shouting where ya tool.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 16, 2010)

If snooker balls were thrown they would have been displayed on the TV by the police.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 16, 2010)

TopCat said:


> If snooker balls were thrown they would have been displayed on the TV by the police.


 
Unfortunately they were thwarted as crack squads of snooker referees recovered the offending items and gave them a quick polish.












Louis MacNeice


----------



## JimW (Dec 16, 2010)

If you want to know the future, imagine a pair of white-gloved hands squeezing your balls forever.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 16, 2010)

In response to the right and far right filling up newspaper letters pages, & on the web comments sections and messagesboards here is a progressive letter from todays Northern Echo letters pages. 

Its important for activists to counter the right who give the misleading impression that there are more of them by their tactics aimed at the regional press. 

Instead of taking so much time talking 24/7 to the converted/each other on eg. U75, activists would better spend their time aiming their efforts at the general public in different arenas; 

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/letters/8741907.Student_protests/

HEAR All Sides, December 14, was a sorry mix of mostly right wing and reactionary nonsense.

Take Des Moore, a correspondent who knows nothing of what is happening on the left or in the universities.

Moore blames the Socialist Workers Party for the student protests, but the SWP is a spent force, a pale imitation of what it was. The emerging protest movement is clearly autonomous and anarchist inspired.

Further, Moore calls protestors “left wing fascists”, but he knows that the left fought against fascism and Nazism very effectively.

Lawrence McGowan bemoans the lack of “respect”, but lacking respect is not a criminal offence.

Certainly, the lying politicians and the police, who nearly killed a protestor with a truncheon blow to his skull, do not deserve any.

Finally, Nigel Boddy, whose limp calls for campaigners to support minor regional parties and the Greens totally fails to confront the crisis in legitimacy and democracy that lets the rich pay no tax and tries to make us pay for the crisis the banks caused.

Trevor Bark


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 16, 2010)

ymu said:


> It is fairly clear from the videos that the copper was pushed off - not beaten, that was the horse - but he was pushed and they nabbed the people who pushed him at the time. I see no reason to deny that this happened.


I've sen people pulled from the saddle before, and one thing that *never* happens is that the saddle's girth strap miraculously comes loose at exactly the same time. Have a look at the clips again. The copper's saddle is moving even before the protesters get anywhere near him. For all we know, the daft fuckers were trying to stop the mountie cunt falling.
There's just no way that the saddle would have slipped as a result of the copper being pushed/pulled from the horse, hence my insistence that he was the author of his own misfortune.


> If the snooker balls are a myth, I don't really see how it makes any difference one way or the other. It doesn't alter the narrative on either side.


It makes a difference because "the protesters" (you know, that big homogeneous mass who aren't at all a loose assemblage of heterogeneous individualists!) are then left trying to prove a negative in the eyes of "the public".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 16, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> In response to the right and far right filling up newspaper letters pages, & on the web comments sections and messagesboards here is a progressive letter from todays Northern Echo letters pages.
> 
> Its important for activists to counter the right who give the misleading impression that there are more of them by their tactics aimed at the regional press.
> 
> ...


 
Interesting. You screamed like a stuck pig when I posted your christian name and salutation while conversing with you on a thread, ranting about who could be reading it, and I graciously conceded to editing it out, and then you "out" yourself.

Hypocrite, much? Or are you just stupid?


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 16, 2010)

TIt head, as usual you don't get the game.  If you read the post again (carefully this time) I never said that it was mine. 

Thanks for less than nothing reactionary nonsense as usual. 



ViolentPanda said:


> Interesting. You screamed like a stuck pig when I posted your christian name and salutation while conversing with you on a thread, ranting about who could be reading it, and I graciously conceded to editing it out, and then you "out" yourself.
> 
> Hypocrite, much? Or are you just stupid?


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 16, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> In response to the right and far right filling up newspaper letters pages, & on the web comments sections and messagesboards here is a progressive letter from todays Northern Echo letters pages.
> 
> Its important for activists to counter the right who give the misleading impression that there are more of them by their tactics aimed at the regional press.
> 
> ...



Its very encouraging to see such a progressive letter and discover a new and innovative way to take the message directly to the heart of the public.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 16, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Its very encouraging to see such a progressive letter and discover a new and innovative way to take the message directly to the heart of the public.


 
indeed  - i guess the word is "challenging"


----------



## DRINK? (Dec 16, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've sen people pulled from the saddle before, and one thing that *never* happens is that the saddle's girth strap miraculously comes loose at exactly the same time. Have a look at the clips again. The copper's saddle is moving even before the protesters get anywhere near him. For all we know, the daft fuckers were trying to stop the mountie cunt falling.
> There's just no way that the saddle would have slipped as a result of the copper being pushed/pulled from the horse, hence my insistence that he was the author of his own misfortune.
> 
> It makes a difference because "the protesters" (you know, that big homogeneous mass who aren't at all a loose assemblage of heterogeneous individualists!) are then left trying to prove a negative in the eyes of "the public".



I would concur, looks about right


----------



## kabbes (Dec 16, 2010)

I can't see the videoclip but I agree with VP's assessment if it is how he describes it.  A girth doesn't just come undone if it is properly done up.  You have to get right next to the horse and pull the straps UP to unbuckle it.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 16, 2010)

kabbes said:


> I can't see the videoclip but I agree with VP's assessment if it is how he describes it.  A girth doesn't just come undone if it is properly done up.  You have to get right next to the horse and pull the straps UP to unbuckle it.


absolutely true. And given that saddling is such a basic skill, you'd have to wonder about the ability of a copper who can't even get that right.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The police are also subject to the law just like anyone else,


oh bollocks! Have you seen how much harder it is to get justice in the case of misconduct, than it is in the case of practically anyone else?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 16, 2010)

dennisr said:


> pm me the details of your membership - meetings - people (names of..) those you met.
> I'll check thias out for you and confirm - lets see if you are telling the truth.
> 
> Its a chance to prove your honesty. If you cannot you will - of course - be fucked.


Dennis, this clown wasn't sure if he was in the SP or SPGB!


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 16, 2010)

throw a fire extinguisher off a building - attempted murder

club a student so hard he has to have brain surgery - not even a manhunt

whack and push an unarmed man to the ground causing him to have a heart attack - ticking off at work

what's the view on this push?

38 seconds - protester is sent flying by a copper.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 16, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> throw a fire extinguisher off a building - attempted murder
> 
> club a student so hard he has to have brain surgery - not even a manhunt
> 
> ...




REally good shaman75 - the contradications in class struggles intensify. Here's Ian Bone on the troubles and troubles to come thinking somewhat similarly;

I went down to Scotland Yard yesterday in solidarity with Alfie Meadows. The overkill of cops was incredible……..tube stationexits closed, wall to wall riot van for a hundred yards.Top cop promising a ‘more robust approach’ – that’s more robust than nearly killing Alfie  and tipping Jody out of his wheelchair. More robust means snatch squads on demos, zero tolerance for mask wearers, using SUS laws to stop Cameron’s ‘feral’ ( black!)  youths arriving at demos,……….and on and on aided and abetted by a complaisant press. But the top cops know they can’t deliver on this. Last week a tiny demo by ‘youth March for jobs’ (groan) was similarly over policed.Everytime aa Facebook flash mob is promoted hundreds of cops are dispatched for fear of getting it wrong again……….hundreds more outside parliament yesterday. This is draining cops from local areas and costing an unsustainable fortune. The cops themselves are divided at the top – Sir Hugh Orde says the police ‘must not be seen as an arm of the state’ – when have they been anything fucking else? Some cops are wanting water cannon and a ban on marches while another on telly yesterday mused ‘Is nearly killing a young student for a few broken windows and graffitti worth it?’  These divisions will exacerbate under political pressure. Leave alone anything else happening – and it will – the run up to the massive TUC demo on March 26th will be greeted by an hysterical press. Over 500,000 on the TUC march maybe – how will they police that and the thousands of kids and shadowy anarchists lurking with intent on thhe fringes beyod control of the TUC stewards. You can forsee the evening Standard headlines and botched squat raids the days before even now. The quality of police intelligence is extremely low and comes mostly from monitoring websites but now without the political nous to distinguish what’s real and what aint. The shadow of March 26th is going to keep them jumpy – another fuck up here and heads will certainly role. Our strugle may take a breather over Christmas but will return in January.It’s still all to play for – and the monlith opposing us is cracking and creaking. Kick it till it breaks. The TUC must be shitting themselves – they’re about to organise the biggest riot in our history!!!!


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 16, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Its very encouraging to see such a progressive letter and discover a new and innovative way to take the message directly to the heart of the public.


 
You're only jealous cos I get mine published and yours end up in the trash


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 16, 2010)

dennisr said:


> indeed  - i guess the word is "challenging"


 
You're only jealous cos I get mine published and yours end up in the trash...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2010)

The black hand, there's bigger issues at play here. Cut this out.


----------



## winjer (Dec 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> if the legal observers at these protests were more concerned about methodological evidence collection then they could have had some good legal actions by now.


So, now you're libelling legal observers as well. Let's have it then, explain just how unconcerned we are with methodological evidence collection?


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 16, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> Everytime aa Facebook flash mob is promoted hundreds of cops are dispatched for fear of getting it wrong again……….hundreds more outside parliament yesterday. This is draining cops from local areas and costing an unsustainable fortune.



I wonder what would happen if everyone started creating protest events on facebook left, right and centre, with all the lists of people invited, attending etc... hidden from view?

How will they manage to cope with 20 or more protests which may or may not even happen, when their main intelligence seems to come from facebook?


----------



## moon23 (Dec 16, 2010)

dennisr said:


> - yep, that bits fair enough - but 'stitched up by the swappies in a meeting down the road' would be more accurate



Well I was about 17 and had gone along to the local town hall in a solidarity protest for some workers who were being unfairly sacked. There were 2 of us there from the Socialist Party, myself and my mate Johnny. We were heckled by the other 'Comrades' there from the SWP who called us splitters etc. I was just a kid, I didn't even know the bloody history of secularism amongst the left.

I despaired a bit after that, Johnny stormed off saying it was bollocks when there were only a handful of us and we couldn’t even protest together in solidarity. He had a good point.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 16, 2010)

So your experiences in the Socialist Party turned you into a Tory supporting Liberal? It happens I guess.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well I was about 17 and had gone along to the local town hall in a solidarity protest for some workers who were being unfairly sacked. There were 2 of us there from the Socialist Party, myself and my mate Johnny. We were heckled by the other 'Comrades' there from the SWP who called us splitters etc. I was just a kid, I didn't even know the bloody history of secularism amongst the left.
> 
> I despaired a bit after that, Johnny stormed off saying it was bollocks when there were only a handful of us and we couldn’t even protest together in solidarity. He had a good point.



They called you no such thing. And, you're making it up. No such thing took place.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 16, 2010)

It does sound rather sus eh? I have never heard SWP types calling anyone "splitters". Only time I have heard that expression was in the Life of Brian...


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

that sounds VERY unlikely moon


----------



## rekil (Dec 16, 2010)

More about the bloody history of secularism amongst the left please.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> that sounds VERY unlikely moon


 
What do you expect from someone who doesn't want their representatives to be honest; he's just emulating his role models.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm not saying most Tories cause violence, or that your particular bunch of tories are involved in stuff specifically. There are however some organised groups of Tories like the Lib Dem politicians who plan to cause trouble. Mainly they just want to break public services, and smash people out of their homes. Nothing major really.
> 
> Then again the protesters' violence was relatively minor and in proportion to what they faced.
> 
> I accept some protesters' tactics inflame the situation.


 
corrected for you


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2010)

copliker said:


> More about the bloody history of secularism amongst the left please.


 
Fuck you, i don't even believe in the existence of the _idea_ of god.


----------



## dylans (Dec 16, 2010)

> The TUC must be shitting themselves – they’re about to organise the biggest riot in our history!!!!



I've already booked the babysitter.


----------



## rekil (Dec 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Fuck you, i don't even believe in the existence of the _idea_ of god.


 
They learned you that in your fancypants colleague didn't they.


----------



## Weller (Dec 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well I was about 17 and had gone along to the local town hall in a solidarity protest for some workers who were being unfairly sacked. There were 2 of us there from the Socialist Party, myself and my mate Johnny. We were heckled by the other 'Comrades' there from the SWP who called us splitters etc. I was just a kid, I didn't even know the bloody history of secularism amongst the left.
> 
> I despaired a bit after that, *Johnny *stormed off saying it was bollocks when there were only a handful of us and we couldn’t even protest together in solidarity. He had a good point.



all very dramatic


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 16, 2010)

winjer said:


> So, now you're libelling legal observers as well. Let's have it then, explain just how unconcerned we are with methodological evidence collection?


 
Personally, I'd like to know what he means by "methodological evidence collection".

Does he mean collecting evidence of policing methodologies?

Does want to determine the various methodologies behind evidence collection in general (that could be a long one!)?

Does he mean that he wants to knows what method(s) of evidence collection the legal observers use?

Does he *actually* mean that he believes that legal observers should be more concerned with method*ical* evidence collection?

I could go on (and often do!)...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 16, 2010)

TopCat said:


> So your experiences in the Socialist Party turned you into a Tory supporting Liberal? It happens I guess.


 
I think that happens to some teenage Swappies too, mind.

And look at Mandelson. He was supposedly a member of the YC for a few minutes, wasn't he?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 16, 2010)

dylans said:


> I've already booked the babysitter.


 
crawling from my small town hovel for this one also.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> that sounds VERY unlikely moon


 
They were complaining about Militant splitting from the Labour party, at the time I didn't even know the history and that the Socialist Party had formed form Militant.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2010)

No they weren't you fucking loon. You're just making this shit up.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 16, 2010)

TopCat said:


> So your experiences in the Socialist Party turned you into a Tory supporting Liberal? It happens I guess.


 
I'm not Tory supporting though, I've just been delivering a Tory attack leaflet and the local party is in a coalition with Labour on the Council.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No they weren't you fucking loon. You're just making this shit up.


 
Why the fuck would I make up pretend stories about my time as a socialist? Ask Blagsta, he knew me a few years ago when I was a leftie living in Brighton.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2010)

Because you need to.

Because the SWP would not call the SP splitters for leaving labour. It's utterly ridiculous and fake. You might as well say arsenal fans wanted ferguson to leave after chelsea drew at west brom. It's meaningless ill-informed crap.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 16, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> REally good shaman75 - the contradications in class struggles intensify. Here's Ian Bone on the troubles and troubles to come thinking somewhat similarly;
> 
> I went down to Scotland Yard yesterday in solidarity with Alfie Meadows. The overkill of cops was incredible……..tube stationexits closed, wall to wall riot van for a hundred yards.Top cop promising a ‘more robust approach’ – that’s more robust than nearly killing Alfie  and tipping Jody out of his wheelchair. More robust means snatch squads on demos, zero tolerance for mask wearers, using SUS laws to stop Cameron’s ‘feral’ ( black!)  youths arriving at demos,……….and on and on aided and abetted by a complaisant press. But the top cops know they can’t deliver on this. Last week a tiny demo by ‘youth March for jobs’ (groan) was similarly over policed.Everytime aa Facebook flash mob is promoted hundreds of cops are dispatched for fear of getting it wrong again……….hundreds more outside parliament yesterday. This is draining cops from local areas and costing an unsustainable fortune. The cops themselves are divided at the top – Sir Hugh Orde says the police ‘must not be seen as an arm of the state’ – when have they been anything fucking else? Some cops are wanting water cannon and a ban on marches while another on telly yesterday mused ‘Is nearly killing a young student for a few broken windows and graffitti worth it?’  These divisions will exacerbate under political pressure. Leave alone anything else happening – and it will – the run up to the massive TUC demo on March 26th will be greeted by an hysterical press. Over 500,000 on the TUC march maybe – how will they police that and the thousands of kids and shadowy anarchists lurking with intent on thhe fringes beyod control of the TUC stewards. You can forsee the evening Standard headlines and botched squat raids the days before even now. The quality of police intelligence is extremely low and comes mostly from monitoring websites but now without the political nous to distinguish what’s real and what aint. The shadow of March 26th is going to keep them jumpy – another fuck up here and heads will certainly role. Our strugle may take a breather over Christmas but will return in January.It’s still all to play for – and the monlith opposing us is cracking and creaking. Kick it till it breaks. The TUC must be shitting themselves – they’re about to organise the biggest riot in our history!!!!


could you PLEASE break up this text to make it readable?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> They were complaining about Militant splitting from the Labour party, at the time I didn't even know the history and that the Socialist Party had formed form Militant.


whaaat? And you were in the SP? did it not strike you that a fair bit of reading up might be in order?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm not Tory supporting though, I've just been delivering a Tory attack leaflet and the local party is in a coalition with Labour on the Council.


virtually everything you've posted here could just as easily come from a tory; you've defended a tory-led coalition to the point of imbecility: you are totally a status quo-lover...in what way are you NOT the very essence of a modern 'enlightened' tory?


----------



## moon23 (Dec 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Because you need to.
> 
> Because the SWP would not call the SP splitters for leaving labour. It's utterly ridiculous and fake. You might as well say arsenal fans wanted ferguson to leave after chelsea drew at west brom. It's meaningless ill-informed crap.


 
It's what happened.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 16, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> whaaat? And you were in the SP? did it not strike you that a fair bit of reading up might be in order?


 
I was 17, I just wanted to do actions so no I hadn't read up all the history. I was very political niave (que joke about me still being)


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's what happened.


 
No it's not.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> They were complaining about Militant splitting from the Labour party, at the time I didn't even know the history and that the Socialist Party had formed form Militant.


 
The swappies aren't in the fucking labour party, why would they be complaining about a split that had nothing to do with them? And why did this persuade you that "socialism" was wrong?


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 16, 2010)

This thread is...long, and rapidly outliving its usefulness. There's a ukuncut protest in London on Saturday - head over this way if you fancy coming out: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/339657-More-UKUncut-action-against-tax-avoiders-18.12


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> whaaat? And you were in the SP? did it not strike you that a fair bit of reading up might be in order?


 
to be fair, i can believe it as he plainly knows nothing about the lib dems despite having joined them 12 months ago


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You might as well say arsenal fans wanted ferguson to leave after chelsea drew at west brom. It's meaningless ill-informed crap.


----------



## winjer (Dec 16, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Personally, I'd like to know what he means by "methodological evidence collection".


Shush, I was hoping he'd carry on with that!


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 16, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> This thread is...long, and rapidly outliving its usefulness. There's a ukuncut protest in London on Saturday - head over this way if you fancy coming out: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/339657-More-UKUncut-action-against-tax-avoiders-18.12


 
lol.  checked the link and it's a page ranting about blurring faces...


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 16, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> lol.  checked the link and it's a page ranting about blurring faces...


 
Well, you can bypass the usual urban bollocks if you like and go straight here: http://www.ukuncut.org.uk/


----------



## audiotech (Dec 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's what happened.



Those SWP petitions I took around to many Labour party constituency meetings and the posters fly-posted against the witch-hunt of Militant is what happened. You're spouting tosh.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

I love how a lib dem twat can bring two groups who normally hate each other together, united in the face of the common enemy  

I'm not a fan of the swappies but as anything, if you're going to criticise something you'd better make damned sure it was accurate.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

Ha I can't believe that moon has got me defending the SWP  Seriously though - didn't know that audiotech. Fair play


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think that happens to some teenage Swappies too, mind.
> 
> And look at Mandelson. He was supposedly a member of the YC for a few minutes, wasn't he?


 
hey, moon was also an anarchist, before you start feeling to smug


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> hey, moon was also an anarchist, before you start feeling to smug


 
No he wasn't.  He's always been a liberal.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> *I'm not Tory supporting though*, I've just been delivering a Tory attack leaflet and the local party is in a coalition with Labour on the Council.


But you are. It's the very essence of the coalition you're bending over backwards to defend. Remember it's what you had to do because the 'country' would not have forgiven you otherwise.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> No he wasn't.  He's always been a liberal.


 
Ah OK, I thought he had claimed to be though?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2010)

All of this happened  because you supported it moon.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 16, 2010)

If Clegg can tell a barefaced lie, then no surprise to see one of his minions doing the same.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Ah OK, I thought he had claimed to be though?


 
He did claim to be - he wasn't though.  He was (still is) a radical liberal.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

Isnt that most anarchists though


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Isnt that most anarchists though


 
shut it, trot 

Remember Kronstadt!


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

after so many years on this board not sure how i could forget it !


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 16, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Those SWP petitions I took around to many Labour party constituency meetings and the posters fly-posted against the witch-hunt of Militant is what happened. You're spouting tosh.


 
Yep, the Swappies made a fuss when Taaffe and the rest of the editorial board of the Militant were expelled from the Labour party, too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> hey, moon was also an anarchist, before you start feeling to smug


 
Buying a Crass CD and not washing for a year doesn't make someone an anarchist. Someone should tell moon that.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

goes a long way though


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 16, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> goes a long way though



Bloody Trots!!


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

you just can't handle _the truth_
*puts on tinfoil hat*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 16, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> He did claim to be - he wasn't though.  He was (still is) a radical liberal.


 
So, pretty much what could be classed as a neo-liberal, then?


----------



## cantsin (Dec 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> They were complaining about Militant splitting from the Labour party, at the time I didn't even know the history and that the Socialist Party had formed form Militant.


 
why would the SWP complain "about Militant splitting from the Labour party" ? can you explain that, as it makes precisely zero sense ?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 16, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> shut it, trot
> 
> Remember Kronstadt!


 
there was a bloody war on.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 16, 2010)

.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 16, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm not Tory supporting though, I've just been delivering a Tory attack leaflet and the local party is in a coalition with Labour on the Council.


 
Oh please.. Tory attack leaflet indeed....


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2010)

What did you attack the tories _for_ moon?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 16, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> virtually everything you've posted here could just as easily come from a tory; you've defended a tory-led coalition to the point of imbecility: you are totally a status quo-lover...in what way are you NOT the very essence of a modern 'enlightened' tory?


 
With this simple statement does the earth get piled upon the grave of moon23's analysis. © Bullies and dick waving bastards.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 17, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Seriously though - didn't know that audiotech. Fair play



Seriously from me too, the one thing that stands out in my memory from that time are the Militant supporters I approached refusing to sign the petition.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2010)

heh i knew this unity would be short lived  

i have no idea about that (genuinely) as i was only born in 1988 !!


----------



## belboid (Dec 17, 2010)

I remember trying to get Labourites to sign that petition too. The right-wingers pointed out that they hadn't interfered with half the SWP York branch being expelled, so we should bugger off. The Millies (ever so politely) asked whether we thought anyone in the Labour Party would give a flying fuck what the SWP said.


----------



## dennisr (Dec 17, 2010)

belboid said:


> The Millies (ever so politely) asked whether we thought anyone in the Labour Party would give a flying fuck what the SWP said.



Yep, that was the general view - "erm... yep... thanks, but why are you bothering?". 

Anyway back to the students protest...


----------



## moon23 (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Buying a Crass CD and not washing for a year doesn't make someone an anarchist. Someone should tell moon that.


 
No true, you have to also be middle class, sign-on and go around eating out of skips.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 17, 2010)

cantsin said:


> why would the SWP complain "about Militant splitting from the Labour party" ? can you explain that, as it makes precisely zero sense ?


 
I don't bloody know, that's what this bunch of people were going on about. Maybe they were winding me up or something.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What did you attack the tories _for_ moon?


 
The Local Lib/Lab coalition has been running a consultation on where cuts need to be made. The Tories said it was a waste of time, and one actually said the electorate don't know best. So we did a nice attack leaflet condeming the Tories for wanting to ignore the views of local people.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 17, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The Local Lib/Lab coalition has been running a consultation on where cuts need to be made. The Tories said it was a waste of time, and one actually said the electorate don't know best. So we did a nice attack leaflet condeming the Tories for wanting to ignore the views of local people.


 
Let's see it then.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## dennisr (Dec 17, 2010)




----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 17, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Oh please.. Tory attack leaflet indeed....


 
_real change_
_increasing social mobility_


*Tory attack leaflet*


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 17, 2010)

Doesn't matter how you say it, moon23, it's still a hilarious self-pwn.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

Latest lib-dem leaflet - f_uck the coalition!_

Desperate.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 17, 2010)

O ye of little faith. moon23's local libdem's are harvesting the commune. _Locally_ for _local people_! Isn't that what you lefties are always on about? You were when he was in some party he can't remember the name of or indeed, anything about, which makes his claim not suspicious in the least.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 17, 2010)

Meanwhile in Sheffield the Lib Dems are so committed to consultation that they've just abandoned it; consultation procedures much trumpeted in the authority's Sheffield Compact have been ditched, so that 15% cuts to the voluntary sector can be pushed through for the coming year (these are disproportionate to the 28% overall budget cuts handed down from central government over the next three years).

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

So they're salting the earth in expectation of their retreat next may. Nice.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 17, 2010)

louis macneice said:


> meanwhile in sheffield the lib dems are so committed to consultation that they've just abandoned it; consultation procedures much trumpeted in the authorities sheffield compact have been ditched so that 15% cuts to the voluntary sector can be pushed through for the coming year (these are disproportionate to the 28% overall budget cuts handed down from central government over the next three years).
> 
> Louis macneice



but he made a fucking leaflet and everything!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 17, 2010)

Refused as fuck said:


> but he made a fucking leaflet and everything!


 
We've yet to see any of these attack leaflets (part A4 , part pit bull cross); maybe they're as grounded in reality as the 'splitter' chanting SWPers?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## audiotech (Dec 17, 2010)

belboid said:


> I remember trying to get Labourites to sign that petition too. The right-wingers pointed out that they hadn't interfered with half the SWP York branch being expelled, so we should bugger off. The Millies (ever so politely) asked whether we thought anyone in the Labour Party would give a flying fuck what the SWP said.



I must point out that no one became abusive towards me.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2010)

that's good audiotech at least. Unlike you lot, chanting "splitters" at people


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I take it that's aimed in my direction?


It wasn't ... but if the cap fits ...



> Give Chief Constable Martin Richards a ring, i'm sure he'll explain why protesters were kettled before the demonstration even took place, & that he'll also explain why those who were kettled were arrested under Section 14.


I don't need examples of when containment is used before violence is used by a crowd - it's a _preventative_ measure, acknowledged as such by the Courts.  The clue is in the name ...

If you actually ready the history of the exchanges you would see that I was asking for examples of these many occasions on which the police started the violence (and note that we have since differentiated "violence" in it's theoretical definition (thus including any containment or cordon what has some (low) level of force implicit in it's existence) from "violence" in it's usually intended definition (i.e. throwing rocks, using batons).



> And drop the insults.


Like you've _never_ gratuitously insulted me ...


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 17, 2010)

> Originally Posted by moon23
> They were complaining about Militant splitting from the Labour party, at the time I didn't even know the history and that the Socialist Party had formed form Militant.



Point of order. Militant did not "split" from the Labour Party, they were first witch hunted and then expelled. Kinnock essentially did the bidding of Thatcher. 

Here's his infamous speech (I get the feeling that you've never seen this before)


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

revlon said:


> it's both factual and legally incorrect.


It isn't.

(I know it's the pantomime season ... but I'm sure everyone would prefer you to explain _why_ you think it's incorrect ... )


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2010)

Refused as fuck said:


> but he made a fucking leaflet and everything!


 
Exactly, what more do you lefties want?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Pantomime stuff.


I was using containment tactics, which involved preventing people leaving, holding them for extended periods of time (though not as long as some exmaples recently) and taking names / addresses / photographs as they were released, as long ago as the late 1980s.

Containment is nothing new.  The fact that you have invented a cool new name for it dosn't change that fact.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2010)

nino_savatte said:


> Point of order. Militant did not "split" from the Labour Party, they were first witch hunted and then expelled. Kinnock essentially did the bidding of Thatcher.
> 
> Here's his infamous speech (I get the feeling that you've never seen this before)




You can prove anything with facts


----------



## belboid (Dec 17, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Meanwhile in Sheffield the Lib Dems are so committed to consultation that they've just abandoned it; consultation procedures much trumpeted in the authority's Sheffield Compact have been ditched, so that 15% cuts to the voluntary sector can be pushed through for the coming year (these are disproportionate to the 28% overall budget cuts handed down from central government over the next three years).
> 
> Louis MacNeice



great, looks like I'll be looking forward to another nine months of unemploymeny and negotiating redundancies then. Marvellous


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

editor said:


> Out of curiosity, what are basing your opinions on here? What you've read in the papers or the words of the people who were actually there?


Combination of both.



> If the cops were using _excessive and unreasonable force_ then it is not a lawful use of force.


Indeed not.  And the Courts would be quick to rule it as such if that were the case on any well-documented and challenged occasion.  In the vast majority of cases they haven't - they have acknowledged the police have a lawful right (a _duty_ in fact) to collectively use force on a crowd which is, or which is about to be, violent.  It is acknowledged that this use of force by one group on another inevitably involves some _individual_ use of force on _individual_ members of the crowd who may themselves be acting lawfully.  

The interaction between this collective and individual justification is precisely the point where I say that there are concerns about the use of individual officer safety tactics in a public order collective use of force situation.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

You found that pink snooker ball yet?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Ban the pig.


Your dedication to freedom of speech is breathtaking ...

Prick.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 17, 2010)

do stalinists believe in freedom of speech?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> There was a lot of collective punishment on Thursday.


There was certainly a lot of collective use of force.  But there was also a clear justification for that at the collective level and it is simply impossible to deal _only_ with the individual violent individuals when they are hiding within the general mass of the protest.

It is inaccurate to portray it as collective _punishment_ unless there is no clear other justification for it.  (And it would be unlawful (Article 7 ECHR - No punishment without law) if there was not.  Pop along to the High Court if you think you have a case ...)


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

sherpa said:


> So there has to be an *inquiry* or investigation, before facts become facts? You don't know what you're talking about, do you?


No.  Facts are facts.  But before we can know what they are there has to be an inquiry or investigation unless we personally witnessed _everything_ of any relevance to the situation.



> And who decides who is independent?


Society, through politicians.  Usually the judiciary are appointed as that is what they are in their day jobs.



> The police are quite happy to arrest legal observers on demos, so who provides the impartiality?


Only if they commit an offence justifying arrest, otherwise they would be sued for unlawful arrest.  But they would not be "independent" anyway - they are evidence gatherers for one side.



> You lot? Don't make me laugh.


Where have I said the police should be independent.  In any challenge to the lawfulness of their actions they clearly are _anything but_ independent.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> do stalinists believe in freedom of speech?


 
Lol i love it when people act surprised when hard-liners come out with - well, hard lines ...


----------



## past caring (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> (I know it's the pantomime season


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> That wasn't what happened. The police used massive force to deny people their rights of assembly, protest and picket, well before any response from us on the picket line


If you are using the theoretical definition of "violence" then I would suggest that there was "violence" on the same level as the police using cordons, etc. by the protestors before those cordons were enforced by the use of force (i.e. the cordon was there and the use of force to break it came first).

If you are using the usual definition of "violence" then I would disagree that the imposition of cordons, etc. (which in and of itself involves no more than minimal force (pushing and shoving)) amounted to the police using "violence" first.  The protestors would be entitled to use a minimal level of force (pushing and shoving) in response ... but *not* to escalate that to the higher levels of violence which then resulted in the police defending themselves using batons and other more violent responses.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> It works so well that we have far more examples of police succumbing to the red mist under pressure than we do of soldiers, even when the soldiers are in situations that are far more dangerous.


Perhaps that is because there are millions more interactions between the police and the public than between soldiers and the public ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

sherpa said:


> You're DB's sock puppet, with added martyr complex, aren't you?


If you think that what gunneradt posts is the same as what I post then you are a bigger idiot than I thought ...


----------



## ymu (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Perhaps that is because there are millions more interactions between the police and the public than between soldiers and the public ...


In high pressure situations involving unrest? Really?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If you think that what gunneradt posts is the same as what I post then you are a bigger idiot than I thought ...


 
An insight into how you're viewed.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> How long before it's trotted out as an excuse for some pre-emptive head-bashing?


It's often the case that non-fatal force is used on the basis of information that _with hindsight_ turns out to be incorrect.

I have personally CS sprayed someone who I honestly believed was pulling a knife as they were being aggressive and non-compliant, had a hand in their pocket, were telling me they were going to stab me and then pulled out something which was about 6" long and had a metallic glint ... which turned out to be a mobile phone, held in a way that a knife would have been held.

You persistent failure to acknowledge that in the real world force _must_ be able to be used on incomplete information totally undermines your position.  You are arguing for something which is simply not possible.  And when confronted with the dilemma questions that demonstrate that you always duck out of them.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 17, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> that's good audiotech at least. Unlike you lot, chanting "splitters" at people



"You lot?"

As I've pointed out to you already, I left the SWeeP's around twenty years ago.

I can assure you, I've never chanted "splitters" at anyone, except when mimicking the specific Monty Python sketch your post mockingly alludes to.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

Barking_Mad said:


> Handy thing those "orders", even when illegal.


You _state_ that they are illegal.  That cannot be said short of on the basis of a Court decision.  The use of containment tactics _has_ been acknowledged by the courts as a lawful tactic, subject to certain guidance.  The consistent failure of those who argue against it to acknowledge that fact undermines their position fatally.  Containment is NOT illegal _per se_.  Legal fact.

And whilst I would agree that there is scope for individual officers to make individual decisions to let people out in _plainly_ exceptional circumstances, it is ridiculous to expect that anyone who asks nicely to leave should be allowed to do so as that would defeat the purpose of the containment.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

This series of tautologies is very revealing. Very apt in fact.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> In the mid '80s I drank in a boozer which got overrun by coppers, after an ex-copper took over the licence. The amount of boasting you'd hear about "scruffy students" and "wogs" having been given a kicking was quite nauseating.
> Obviously, these were either just "bad apples", or they were drunkenly telling lies to each other, because such a thing couldn't possibly be a standard mode of behaviour.


No-one who knew what they were talking about would argue that that was unusual *in the early-mid 80s*.

No-one who knew what they were talking about would seek to argue that nothing has changed.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2010)

ah yeah, sorry about that , you did indeed ... 
i hope they did chant splitters lol, that would be so funny


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Talk to any copper who's been in the job for a few years, one-on-one, and (in my personal and professional experience) the majority (I'd say 4/5ths) of them are alienated (in the psychological rather than the socio-economic sense of the word) from the people they're supposed to serve (except for detective-boy, obviously, because he's perfect!).


In dealing with some minority groups you have a point.

In dealing with college and university students you do not.  The vast majority of officers have been students / are students (part-time) / have children or close relatives who are students / have young children who are going to become students.

Again you take a valid point and extend it beyond breaking point.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> It's called personal testimony ...


I would acknowledge that ... if I thought for a moment that you included _my_ personal testimony as a valid source of evidence.

Which you, and many others here, patently do not.

But for personal testimony to be discussed / accepted by someone else it must include objective descriptions of what was seen / heard / done, not simply a statement of what was perceived by the person giving it.


----------



## ymu (Dec 17, 2010)

How can coppers possibly identify with students, regardless of whether they have been one (and they have all been school students) when they start on £25k fresh out of school. FFS! The only other students that start on that sort of money are doctors, and cunts who work in the city. They have no fucking idea what the real world looks like for most of us.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The swearing is making you look a bit silly.


Failing to understand patently obvious posts by me is making you look like a total idiot.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I was using containment tactics, which involved preventing people leaving, holding them for extended periods of time (though not as long as some exmaples recently) and taking names / addresses / photographs as they were released, as long ago as the late 1980s.
> 
> Containment is nothing new.  The fact that you have invented a cool new name for it dosn't change that fact.



Frankly, I'm not that bothered with your defence of police tactics, that are clearly raising concerns amongst a sizeable section of the populace. Specifically, people who would normally be supportive of the police.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No. * Facts are facts. * But before we can know what they are there has to be an inquiry or investigation unless we personally witnessed _everything_ of any relevance to the situation.
> 
> 
> *Society, through politicians.*  Usually the judiciary are appointed as that is what they are in their day jobs.
> ...


 
Facts, and particularly the sort of 'facts' you're trying to claim authority for, are observations seen from a certain perspective; your choice of perspective is consistently craven.

Laughable made no less so by your example; remember that leading light of the judiciary who thought that the retention of capital punishment would have solved some high profile miscarriages of justice?

This goes so far beyond naivety as to become bare faced lying; the only police officers ever to exceed their powers of arrest have been sued for doing so? Here were are back with your 'the police as a force never instigate violence' claptrap.

It's almost as if your every statement is made to make you look more ridiculous and undermine your defense of the police further.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Its a DB quote from the future...


Of course none of your perfect soliders have _ever_ fired or used any other force on the basis of something that, with hindsight, tunred out to be wrong have they ...

You just can't stop yourself having an anti-police / pro-soldier pop can you ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

big eejit said:


> Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson faces mounting pressure after footage emerged showing an officer policing Thursday's student protests not wearing identification.


So that is one example that has been publicised (despite hundreds of photographers and protestors with cameraphones just looking for the opportunity to get their pic / footage on YouTube) ... out of many thousands of officers on duty.

I think it proves that things have improved rather than being the basis for the Commissioner resigning ... :rolleyes


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ymu said:


> Naughty Guardian. But why wouldn't the Met want this link publicised? What is so secret about this link that they want to hide it from the public? Should we write and ask them what the problem with this link is?


Only a paranoid, conspiracy obsessed idiot could claim that a Press Release site to the media is somehow evidence of cover-up and conspiracy ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

revol68 said:


> jesus only the pigs would still be using windows media player for watching the videos.


They don't.  Moron.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2010)

says page not found


----------



## ymu (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Only a paranoid, conspiracy obsessed idiot could claim that a Press Release site to the media is somehow evidence of cover-up and conspiracy ...


Where on earth did I suggest that?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I would acknowledge that ... if I thought for a moment that you included _my_ personal testimony as a valid source of evidence.
> 
> Which you, and many others here, patently do not.
> 
> But for personal testimony to be discussed / accepted by someone else it must include objective descriptions of what was seen / heard / done, not simply a statement of what was perceived by the person giving it.



I'm quite happy to include your personal testimony in any discussion; what I'm not willing to do is to let you claim it as some sort of universal proof. With regard the discussion of the police instigating violence, you are trying to say this never happens (I don't have to post the quote yet again do I?); you include the oversight you gained as a senior officer to back up this universal claim. 

Myself and others have said this is not our experience; we are not trying to claim the universal position that the police always instigate violence, rather the acceptance that it does happen sometimes. You see how personal testimony is being used for two very different purposes; one to close down debate the other to open it up? 

Your trouble, as I pointed out previously, is that you start from a set of assumptions re. the police and then fit the evidence (or dismiss it) according to the demands of those assumptions; it's not really in the true spirit of detection.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Failing to understand patently obvious posts by me is making you look like a total idiot.


 

/\ /\
You see 'facts' are all about where you're looking from.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ddraig said:


> but it is perfectly acceptable as DB has kindly explained to us all
> makes me physically sick and again, fair play to the ambulance driver


No I haven't you lying prick.  

I have explained it is perfectly standard practice.  And that that practice is founded on the very sensible basis that it makes sense not to let two opposing factions gather together again in a fucking hospital when a bit of pre-planning means that they can be in entirely equivalent _different_ hospitals.  And that if someone with serious injuries turns up at the "wrong" one because of a fuck up they should of course be treated (as they invariably are).  

(And I note that there has been NOTHING to show that anything more than "You're at the wrong hospital mate" , "This guys really bad, he needs emergency treatment now", "OK then, lets have a look ... bring him through" happened here.  But then aagin, why let the truth get in the way of an urban myth ...)


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

19sixtysix said:


> I was wondering if the police action might also be complained about to the HSE as the police would have to justify their risk assessment for the event and if they've missed out well known research on crowds and reactions to kettles while this may not lead to prosecutions this time but in future demos they may be considered in breach of the act having not acted on scientific research if they go ahead in the same manner.


And the Health and Safety Risk Assessment of allowing rampaging mobs to do whatever they like ...


----------



## ymu (Dec 17, 2010)

> "The ambulance man took us to Chelsea and Westminster hospital. That [hospital] had been given over to police injuries and there was a standoff in the corridor. Alfie was obviously a protester and the police didn't want him there, but the ambulance man insisted that he stayed."
> 
> She said that he was then asked to take Alfie to another hospital. "The ambulance man was appalled and he said: 'I'm getting angry now, and I'm not going to do this.'
> 
> ...



Poor little piggies murdering cunts.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ymu said:


> Fire extinguisher.


You could have added "... necessary because the violent thugs in the protests attack firefighters called to extinguish fires they start, in the same way that the police now have to employ medics because the violent thugs in the protests attack paramedics called to deal with injured people (police or protestors)".

But you wouldn't ... because clearly any violence used against the firefighters and the paramedics is by the police, not the lickle, lambykins, peaceful protestors ...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No I haven't you lying prick.
> 
> ...I note that there has been NOTHING to show that anything more than "You're at the wrong hospital mate" , "This guys really bad, he needs emergency treatment now", "OK then, lets have a look ... bring him through" happened here.  But then aagin, why let the truth get in the way of an *urban myth* ...)



By the same token what you've written above could be described as a police myth, given that there's nothing to show that this is what happened.

These aren't facts DB, and you trying to claim them as such - or to dismiss them as myth - makes you look narrow minded and desperate.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

useless eater said:


> Yes there are a million ways but protest marches aren't the way. <snip rambling conspiraloon bollocks>


Just what this place needs ... another conspiraloon.


----------



## ymu (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You could have added "... necessary because the violent thugs in the protests attack firefighters called to extinguish fires they start, in the same way that the police now have to employ medics because the violent thugs in the protests attack paramedics called to deal with injured people (police or protestors)".
> 
> But you wouldn't ... because clearly any violence used against the firefighters and the paramedics is by the police, not the lickle, lambykins, peaceful protestors ...


Wut?


----------



## 8ball (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Just what this place needs ... another conspiraloon.


 
Fortunately you're not in charge of the admissions policy.

Though if it ever came to that I can't say I'd object to a 'one conspiraloon in, one pig out' rule on the door.


----------



## dylans (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You could have added "... necessary because the violent thugs in the protests attack firefighters called to extinguish fires they start,".
> 
> But you wouldn't ... because clearly any violence used against the firefighters and the paramedics is by the police, not the lickle, lambykins, peaceful protestors ...


 
Do you have any evidence of firefighters being attacked.? I ask because the same was said following the poll tax riot and was shown to be false. 



> in the same way that the police now have to employ medics because the violent thugs in the protests attack paramedics called to deal with injured people (police or protestors)



Oh yes. We have seen the police medics in action.






Perhaps he was merely applying anaesthetic but from the angle of that arm swing I think it is pretty clear where he is about to apply his medical expertise. Please explain to me where in the hippocratic oath it allows for medics to beat the shit out of people. Here is a copy to help you out.




> I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
> I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
> I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
> I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that *warmth, sympathy, and understanding *may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug. (or the policeman's club)
> ...


----------



## ymu (Dec 17, 2010)

They're not doctors dylans - just thugs with some first aid training.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 17, 2010)

Looking at it positively (from the pig's point of view), at least you'll get a basic level of medical attention after you get pulled out of your wheelchair and throttled with a baton.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Just what this place needs ... another conspiraloon.


 
You don't do irony then?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## dylans (Dec 17, 2010)

Here are two more "medics" about to administer "anaesthetic"on patients I am truly humbled by their commitment to patient care.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2010)

they were only beating them to calm them down though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2010)

ymu said:


> Poor little piggies murdering cunts.


 
what they need's a damn good whacking.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Dec 17, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> they were only beating them to calm them down though.



Na. Its job creation

Beat one
Mend one
Beat one
Mend one 
Beat ....


----------



## revlon (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You _state_ that they are illegal.  That cannot be said short of on the basis of a Court decision.  The use of containment tactics _has_ been acknowledged by the courts as a lawful tactic, subject to certain guidance.  The consistent failure of those who argue against it to acknowledge that fact undermines their position fatally.  Containment is NOT illegal _per se_.  Legal fact.
> 
> And whilst I would agree that there is scope for individual officers to make individual decisions to let people out in _plainly_ exceptional circumstances, it is ridiculous to expect that anyone who asks nicely to leave should be allowed to do so as that would defeat the purpose of the containment.


 
at the same time the only real justification for depriving someone of their liberty, their freedom of assembly and association under these circumstances is breach of the peace (or indeed fear of breach of the peace). 

Breach of the peace is neither a crime nor a piece of judical legislation, it is in fact a situation. 

A copper trying to hide behind the law to justify police operational tactics is on very shaky ground indeed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No true, you have to also be middle class, sign-on and go around eating out of skips.


 
Hmm, I'm not middle class, I don't sign on and I've never eaten out of a skip.

Prejudiced, much?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

You've mistaken the future he's planned for you - for everyone - with the present.


----------



## rekil (Dec 17, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> they were only beating them to calm them down though.


This one's so calmed down he's fallen into snoozyland. The officers are going to take him home and tuck him in.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2010)

To be fair my housemate's brother's flatmate was an anarchist who did just that - he was also an art student though and went around smashing cars up in the names of "art" 

dunno how serious he was about his anarchism though, from all acounts he just used it as an excuse to nick things


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2010)

copliker said:


> This one's so calmed down he's fallen into snoozyland. The officers are going to take him home and tuck him in.


 
How nice of them


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Perhaps that is because there are millions more interactions between the police and the public than between soldiers and the public ...


 
So, given the context of the post this is in reply to, you're claiming that it's the volume of police/public interactions that make the police less able to control the red mist, then?

Or did you mean to say something less ill-judged, but failed?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Perhaps that is because there are millions more interactions between the police and the public than between soldiers and the public ...


 
but police are supposed to serve the public and soldiers are supposed to kill them. how can you explain the relative lack of casualties per thousand encounters between the army and the public compared to the number of encounters between the police and the public?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's often the case that non-fatal force is used on the basis of information that _with hindsight_ turns out to be incorrect.
> 
> I have personally CS sprayed someone who I honestly believed was pulling a knife as they were being aggressive and non-compliant...


A fairly standard response, as any 1st-year psychology student can show you (especially if you're chasing them).


> had a hand in their pocket, were telling me they were going to stab me and then pulled out something which was about 6" long and had a metallic glint ... which turned out to be a mobile phone, held in a way that a knife would have been held.


In other words, you *reacted* in a manner consonant with self-preservation. So far, so understandable. 
Not consonant with the example I gave, though, so not really like with like.


> You persistent failure to acknowledge that in the real world force _must_ be able to be used on incomplete information totally undermines your position.


I haven't "failed to acknowledge" anything of the sort. I'm well aware that force has to be used on incomplete information. I'm concerned with the *degree* of force, which *should*, if you're (i.e. the police officer) not in a state of over-arousal, be consonant with the threat. 
To fail to acknowledge that licences the use of excessive force purely on the off-chance of a physical threat. 


> You are arguing for something which is simply not possible.


Actually, I wasn't arguing the point you're attributing to me at all.  


> And when confronted with the dilemma questions that demonstrate that you always duck out of them.


Only in d-b world. I always answer your posts pertinently, and you almost always hone in on a single sentence, de-contextualise it, and then reply to that de-contextualised point.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> In dealing with some minority groups you have a point.
> 
> In dealing with college and university students you do not.  The vast majority of officers have been students / are students (part-time) / have children or close relatives who are students / have young children who are going to become students.
> 
> Again you take a valid point and extend it beyond breaking point.


 
So they're neither temporally or ideologically alienated, the institutional culture of their job has exerted no effects at all that have assisted in alienating them?

I'd love to see the basis for your claim explicated beyond "they're not alienated from students because they've been students, know students or are related to students", if you wouldn't mind taking the podium.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> So they're neither temporally or ideologically alienated, the institutional culture of their job has exerted no effects at all that have assisted in alienating them?
> 
> I'd love to see the basis for your claim explicated beyond "they're not alienated from students because they've been students, know students or are related to students", if you wouldn't mind taking the podium.


 
vp

he's fucked in the head


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

dylans said:


> Here are two more "medics" about to administer "anaesthetic"on patients I am truly humbled by their commitment to patient care.


 
Interesting photo.
Check out the faces of the uniforms as compared to the civvies. What do you see?


----------



## IC3D (Dec 17, 2010)

My theory is police medics are really psychopathic nutters the more wimpy cops hang around for protection when they get a bit roughed up by protesters.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> they were only beating them to calm them down though.


 
If I tried that on Greebo, she'd divorce me, and rightly too!


----------



## ymu (Dec 17, 2010)

IC3D said:


> My theory is police medics are really psychopathic nutters the more wimpy cops hang around for protection when they get a bit roughed up by protesters.


 
They get lots of volunteers for big public order demos, and presumably there's a guaranteed number of 'medics' included. They probably take the first aid course to improve their chances of being paid to beat people up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You've mistaken the future he's planned for you - for everyone - with the present.


 
So I'm going to be signing on and eating out of skips, and as a further insult, I'll also be middle class? 

A true Dystopia awaits!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

copliker said:


> This one's so calmed down he's fallen into snoozyland. The officers are going to take him home and tuck him in.


 
I see they're keeping scores on their helmets.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> vp
> 
> he's fucked in the head


 
I'm not disputing that, but I'd like to see whether he does actually know what he's talking about, or whether he's blarneying on the subject of alienation. 

I've just checked out wikipedia etc, so I can tell if he's been cribbing.


----------



## IC3D (Dec 17, 2010)

ymu said:


> They get lots of volunteers for big public order demos, and presumably there's a guaranteed number of 'medics' included. They probably take the first aid course to improve their chances of being paid to beat people up.


 
I really can believe that that theory, obviously its preventative medicine.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> Brightened up version of that video


"So you admit you have tampered with this footage.  Members of the jury, you can no longer rely on anything in this footage as it has, by admission, been changed"

(I know that is bollocks actually, but that is to quote from a defence barrister at the Old Bailey where all that had been done was brighten the footage ... )

Unfortunately this footage also misses the actual unseating of Jody from his wheelchair so it remains tha case that on the basis of the information in the public domain it seems unlikely that there is any lawful reason for the use of force ... but there are gaps in what is know to be filled before you can reach a definitive conclusion ...


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 17, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> to be fair, i can believe it as he plainly knows nothing about the lib dems despite having joined them 12 months ago


very true!


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ska invita said:


> possibly agent provocateurs at the demo? this video piece is too short to be sure either way I think, but nonetheless:
> http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/12/agents-provocateurs.html


Good plan.  Ignore the plain issues which need to be challenged / discussed / addressed and wander off on some conspiraloon flight of fancy ...


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> If I tried that on Greebo, she'd divorce me, and rightly too!


 
it works on horses supposedly, so why not people too?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

belboid said:


> ... the raising of utterly irrelevant crap ('you wrote on the internet you believe in revolution!!!) and the repetition of questions already answered showed clearly where Brown was coming from.


It's not "utterly irrelevant crap" as it demonstrates to any observer where he is coming from ... whereas they _may_ be under the impression he was some random disabled bloke who just happened to be there / wouldn't be involved in any front line activity, etc.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

TopCat said:


> The practice of the press and tv in giving up all their footage to the Met police when asked might have something to do with the attitude.


They don't.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ymu said:


> I think it's worth looking into.


So let's get this straight ... you DON'T want the police to be able to use any force at all defending themselves, or the occupants of any bulding deemed a target by the protestors from attack ... but you DO want the police to use force to defend protestors from attack by other protestors ...

You really do need to sort your head out.  You are becoming a laughing stock wanting everything for yourself and those you sympathise with and fuck all for anyone else ...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 17, 2010)

Absent for five days on this thread, only to resurface to throw insults at everyone. No surprise there then.

Go fuck yourself.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

scalyboy said:


> Also, does anyone remember a report about a group going round randomly attacking people with sticks, inside the kettle, and the police doing nothing? Maybe the same people?


You need to remember that where there is large scale disorder it is frequently impossible for police to intervene in any particular incident that they witness, even though in the normal course of events they would be expected to do so.  (It happens at football disorder and events like Notting Hill Carnival quite often).

That said, the comments by the police officer are inappropriate, even if they did have no practicable way of preventing the attack ... and they certainly should have intervened if they were able to.


----------



## dylans (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's not "utterly irrelevant crap" as it demonstrates to any observer where he is coming from ... whereas they _may_ be under the impression he was some random disabled bloke who just happened to be there / wouldn't be involved in any front line activity, etc.


 
No it is random irrelevant crap. Demonstrating is a democratic right as is the right to hold whatever political views you choose. Being a revolutionary is not a reason for being beaten up by the cops and neither is demonstrating a justification for being dragged out of your wheelchair and dragged across the road by a power crazy thug in uniform.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> It could of been young rozzers just got off duty.


It _could_ have been the fucking Pope ...


----------



## ymu (Dec 17, 2010)

Another thread sacrificed on the altar of d-b's ego.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 17, 2010)

ymu said:


> Another thread sacrificed on the altar of d-b's ego.


 
Bollocks to him


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

killer b said:


> this paragraph especially:


Clarification that the police collective use of force was (a) entirely justified and (b), if this quote is to be believed, fairly successful in preventing an entirely unlawful, determined attempt to invade Parliament with relatively few injuries ...



> If the police hadn’t been at parliament square last night, and if they hadn’t been prepared to act brutally, parliament would have been stormed ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

dylans said:


> The velvet glove is slipping


The aim of the legislation is to allow protests to be banned if they cannot be facilitated without serious disorder.  

It is an acknowledgement of the fact that (a) the organisers of these demonstrations, whilst entirely peaceful and cooperative in themselves, have absolutely no control over the demonstrators and that (b) other groups, including non-protestors, have now taken to using the protests as cover for serious violence and crime.

If people are saying that they will not restrict themselves to broadly lawful protest (witness the quote a couple of posts above this) what do you expect the police and the Courts to do?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

moon23 said:


> In any case, preserving the Queen's Peace is what they are supposed to do, and the Queen's Peace includes freedom of assembly and protest. So I'd say it is their duty to deal with criminals who attach themselves to marches *in order to preserve the rights of protesters to protest.*


If the evidence was that those using excessive violence were not involved with the main protest I would agree.  But it doesn't and I don't.

What IS plain is that if the genuine protestors want to have the right to protest _they_ should (a) make sure that their own activities are broadly lawful and (b) that _they_ make it plain to those amongst them who are not genuine protestors that they should fuck off and point them out to the police if they don't (as has been demonstrated on some occasions by portestors (mainly teenage girls) seeking to protect property from attack).


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 17, 2010)

We're gathering momentum as solidarity grows & we're not going to go away. Fuck your Courts & fuck your laws.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The aim of the legislation is to allow protests to be banned if they cannot be facilitated without serious disorder.
> 
> It is an acknowledgement of the fact that (a) the organisers of these demonstrations, whilst entirely peaceful and cooperative in themselves, have absolutely no control over the demonstrators and that (b) other groups, including non-protestors, have now taken to using the protests as cover for serious violence and crime.
> 
> If people are saying that they will not restrict themselves to broadly lawful protest (witness the quote a couple of posts above this) what do you expect the police and the Courts to do?


 
So?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

copliker said:


> Lies. Here's the police cavalry charge. The line was static at that point and this attack inflamed the crowd.


Provided there was some justification for moving the crowd back (or, rather, to one side of the road), that was a perfectly reasonable use of horses - the advance was controlled and there was ample room for people to move away into.

Personally I think that could have been achieved by the police line moving people back ... but that may have been tried and failed and it may have been impossible along such a length of road without the use of horses.

(ETA:  As appears may well have been the case



moon23 said:


> This bit of footage does take place after a sustained period of protestor violence having pushed back police lines. You can see the missles and paint bombs on the road.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 17, 2010)

Fuck this shit. Onward to the next demo and an opportunity for revenge. The police need to be reminded of their limitations in enforcing shit on people.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

Whose police? Our police!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 17, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Fuck this shit. Onward to the next demo and an opportunity for revenge. The police need to be reminded of their limitations in enforcing shit on people.


 
Too right.


----------



## ymu (Dec 17, 2010)

This is ominous.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

revlon said:


> Oddly breaking out of a kettle is not unlawful (even when using reasonable force) because kettling people in this way the police are creating a breach of the peace.
> 
> You are wrong on so many levels it's frightening.


And so are you.  Breaking out of a containment would amount to assaulting a police officer in the execution of their duty (provided that the Court found the containment lawful), no matter how little force was used.

Congratulations on providing inaccurate legal advice to people which may result in their getting a criminal conviction ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> The idea isn't to stop the marchers, mate. It's to be able to criminalise them. If the protest marches are banned, then anyone undertaking a protest march is guilty of a (IIRC) civil offence in law.


Rarely have I seen so much ignorance demonstrated in so few words.  If (as you erroneously claim) it is a "civil offence" how would it be used to "criminalise" them.

You _do_ understand the difference between the criminal law and the civil law, don't you?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> So, implements that are defensive in nature, like helmets and shields (look up the definitions of the word "shield" in a dictionary sometime) somehow transmute into implements of offence, brought purely to "push and break police lines"?


More ignorance.  ANYTHING (including shields and helmets) intended for use in unlawful violence (such as pushing through a lawful police cordon) would have an offensive, as well as their original defensive, purpose.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep, flying wedge is a standard cavalry assault formation deployed in order to split a static mass into two or more more manageable portions.


The police are not the fucking cavalry...   



> It's not a tactic you'd employ in response to pushing and shoving, or even to strengthen lines elsewhere.


Yes it is.



> Its purpose is to cause chaos.


Only to the extent of allowing a police line to take advantage of that chaos and move forward or re-locate (as plainly visible here).


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

revlon said:


> if it's said on the internet it must be true


Are you saying that there are NOT organised attempts to defeat police tactics?  You're fucking deluded if you are ...


----------



## moon23 (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If the evidence was that those using excessive violence were not involved with the main protest I would agree.  But it doesn't and I don't.
> 
> What IS plain is that if the genuine protestors want to have the right to protest _they_ should (a) make sure that their own activities are broadly lawful and (b) that _they_ make it plain to those amongst them who are not genuine protestors that they should fuck off and point them out to the police if they don't (as has been demonstrated on some occasions by portestors (mainly teenage girls) seeking to protect property from attack).



The news was filled with live reports from protestors condemning the violence of some of the protestors. Rather than seek to ban the protests, which is illiberal and unpractical the police have a duty to investigate the trouble makers and charge them with offenses.

I agree with what Hari says in the Indy today, that the "police should arrest anyone who commits an act of violence instead of mass imprisonment on everyone present"

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...right-to-protest-is-under-threat-2162493.html


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

Spion said:


> Round and round in circles. Posters who have a clue argue with someone who clearly has no idea what the cops do at demos.


And posters who have a clue about the police perspective argue with someone who clearly has no idea why the police do what they do and has absolutely no intention whatsoever of accepting _any_ reason for the police to stop protestors doing _exactly_ what they like with no restrictions as all ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> 3): Snooker balls. Have any actually been presented as evidence, or televised by the Met like they do when they've seized caches of "weapons"? Nah - because they were talking out of their arses, like you.


You have absolutely _no_ idea whether snooker balls were thrown or not as (despite your plain delusion that you are fucking God Almighty) you are not omnipresent.  And yet you feel able to dismiss out of hand the accounts of people who were. (including a friend of mine who was hit on the helmet by one ... strangely enough he didn't then spend twenty minutes looking for it and securing it as "evidence" to convince pricks like you (who, to be honest, wouldn't believe it even it you were struck hard around the head by one in a sock).

How fucking arrogant can you get?


----------



## moon23 (Dec 17, 2010)

Just for balance, here is a picture of a policeman knocked unconscious by a missle (whilst wearing his helmet)


----------



## sherpa (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If you think that what gunneradt posts is the same as what I post then you are a bigger idiot than I thought ...


 
It's got fuck all to do with what you and gunneradt post, and everything to do with whinging and martyr complexes, as butchersapron observed, stupid.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Good plan.  Ignore the plain issues which need to be challenged / discussed / addressed and wander off on some conspiraloon flight of fancy ...


 
Because _agents provocateurs_ have never been used by either the police or the intelligence services, and that long list of former police officers and intelligence operatives who've said otherwise, they're just bad apples and plain fibbers, aren't they?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

Spion said:


> The police barred their way for no good reason. The police could have just stayed at home and let people protest as is their right but they keep coming out and battering people and imprisoning them in kettles.


Naive bollocks.

You are not really suggesting that if there had been no police presence at all no unlawful activity would have happened at all are you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Absent for five days on this thread, only to resurface to throw insults at everyone. No surprise there then.



Quite. We'd all have been startled if he hadn't dished out his usual portion of cursing and eye-rolling.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Apart from the last time a student protest was left to it's own ends they ended up trashing the HQ of a democratic political party a number of entirely unconnected businesses whcih happened to be in the same building (or the neighbouring one) as the HQ of a democratic political party.


Corrected for you ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> There is, however, plenty of evidence that shows people using physical direct action, both as an offensive measure *after* police violence, and as a defensive measure *during* police violence.


No there isn't.  There's lots of evidence of people using violence against the police ... which apologists like you _state_ (but are never able to prove) was in response to "police violence".  You're quick enough to gob off about other people making unsubstantiated claims, how about you do for once, eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The aim of the legislation is to allow protests to be banned if they cannot be facilitated without serious disorder.



So in effect somebody will decide, probably on the basis of intelligence (with all the implications that has, in terms of the honesty and accuracy of intelligence in the hands of politically-motivated people and organisations) whether or not a protest can go ahead?

I think we can all see how this one will pan out.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ymu said:


> It wouldn't actually be very surprising if there were snooker/pool balls deployed. Every SU and a lot of school/college common rooms have a pool table, and they usually have red and yellow balls instead of proper pool balls. I don't really understand why people are making such a big deal out of this one point. If you're trying to prove that everyone there was intent on an entirely peaceful protest ... well, they weren't, and thank fuck for that, quite frankly.


Oh dear!  You _do_ realise that you're going to be drummed out of The Collective for this.  EVERYONE _knows_ that the protestors were _entirely_ peaceful and that _none_ brought _any_ weapons, especially not snooker balls (which, for some reason, would obviously be v.v.bad ...)


----------



## moon23 (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Naive bollocks.
> 
> You are not really suggesting that if there had been no police presence at all no unlawful activity would have happened at all are you?


 
Yea because that worked well at Millbank where there wasn't much of a police presence.


----------



## ymu (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Oh dear!  You _do_ realise that you're going to be drummed out of The Collective for this.  EVERYONE _knows_ that the protestors were _entirely_ peaceful and that _none_ brought _any_ weapons, especially not snooker balls (which, for some reason, would obviously be v.v.bad ...)


 
You're such a fucking moron.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Rarely have I seen so much ignorance demonstrated in so few words.


So you don't proof-read your own posts, then? 


> If (as you erroneously claim) it is a "civil offence" how would it be used to "criminalise" them.
> 
> You _do_ understand the difference between the criminal law and the civil law, don't you?


 
Yes, and if you'd read on a few posts, you'd have seen that I acknowledged my error, but you're too busy trying to score points, aren't you?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Because the reported use of snooker balls is a long standing ground-preparing move before attempting to stich someone up, quite important to realise that and to get it understood. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard this bollocks.


"Long-standing"?  

You're fucking deluded mate.  I have _never_ heard of snooker balls being used in protests (as opposed to pub fights) before.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> they have a monopoloy on LAWFUL violence though


No they don't.  There are circumstances in which everyone can use force lawfully.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> if i beat someone to death what sentence will i get?
> 
> if a policeman beats someone to death what sentence will they get? (if they get sentenced at all)


In the same circumstances, exactly the same.

Come on this is basic stuff ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The police are not the fucking cavalry...


No, they're not, and I didn't claim they were. The point I was making, which obviously sailed over your head, was that it's a standard tactic used by mounted forces (what used to be known as cavalry once upon a time) to do exactly what I said it did.



> Yes it is.



Let me get this straight, you're claiming that a flying wedge charge is a standard tactic against people pushing, and to reinforce lines?



> Only to the extent of allowing a police line to take advantage of that chaos and move forward or re-locate (as plainly visible here).


Chaos is chaos. You don't cause "chaos only to the extent of...". You cause it, full-stop, and if you do, you should then take responsibility for the consequences.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> More ignorance.  ANYTHING (including shields and helmets) intended for use in unlawful violence (such as pushing through a lawful police cordon) would have an offensive, as well as their original defensive, purpose.


 
Says it all, but thanks for confirming it.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> "Long-standing"?
> 
> You're fucking deluded mate.  I have _never_ heard of snooker balls being used in protests (as opposed to pub fights) before.



He didn't say they've been _used_ in protests. He said they've long been _reported_ to have been used in protests, in order to throw the full force of the law at those arrested or spotted as troublemakers.


----------



## revlon (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> And so are you.  Breaking out of a containment would amount to assaulting a police officer in the execution of their duty (provided that the Court found the containment lawful), no matter how little force was used.
> 
> Congratulations on providing inaccurate legal advice to people which may result in their getting a criminal conviction ...


 
 

i can guarantee nobody has been or will ever be charged with the offence of assaulting a copper in the execution of his duty for breaking out of a kettle. 

Keeping pushing through those police lines kids. Use shields, wear helmets, if its cold wear something to cover your and nose and mouth. Wear padding. All good sound legal advice. 

 i don't think you ever made it past your desk and out of the street did you. Not even in the 80s.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

TopCat said:


> If snooker balls were thrown they would have been displayed on the TV by the police.


Why?  They are no more or less dangerous than the many other things that were shown on live fucking TV.

You and the rest of The Collective may have invested them with some sort of mythic relevance ... but no-one else is fucking bothered one way or the other.

It.  Makes.  No.  Difference.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> In the same circumstances, exactly the same.
> 
> Come on this is basic stuff ...


 
this simply doesn't run true to history. I remind you of the vast gulf in between what menezes killers claimed went on and the accounts of everyone else.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 17, 2010)

revlon said:


> *i can guarantee nobody has been or will ever be charged with the offence of assaulting a copper in the execution of his duty for breaking out of a kettle. *
> 
> Keeping pushing through those police lines kids. Use shields, wear helmets, if its cold wear something to cover your and nose and mouth. Wear padding. All good sound legal advice.
> 
> i don't think you ever made it past your desk and out of the street did you. Not even in the 80s.


 

a board member was nicked for just that. Nothing came of it, but they were nicked for it...


----------



## nosos (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> You are not really suggesting that if there had been no police presence at all no unlawful activity would have happened at all are you?


What do you think would have happened if the police hadn't been there?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> ... while another on telly yesterday mused ‘Is nearly killing a young student for a few broken windows and graffitti worth it?


Which cop was that?


----------



## revlon (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> More ignorance.  ANYTHING (including shields and helmets) intended for use in unlawful violence (such as pushing through a lawful police cordon) would have an offensive, as well as their original defensive, purpose.


 
this is a tautology. Unlawful violenec is by its nature unlawful. Lawful violence is by its nature lawful. 

Pushing through police lines is not unlawful violence. Although i'm happy to see any legal ruling for the offence of 'trying to go home'.


----------



## revlon (Dec 17, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> a board member was nicked for just that. Nothing came of it, but they were nicked for it...


 
i was nicked for it as well. 

Had to be dropped.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You have absolutely _no_ idea whether snooker balls were thrown or not



Nor do you, you fuckin' arrogant inconsistent prick. You're a fuckin' joke.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No they don't.  There are circumstances in which everyone can use force lawfully.


 
that's not the same as a monopoly


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You have absolutely _no_ idea whether snooker balls were thrown or not...


Oh, I have a fair idea. I've scrutinised a couple of hundred pictures and over a hundred clips (one of the benefits of pain-based insomnia), and I haven't, even using a 21" screen been able to discern a single snooker, billiard or pool ball. Plenty of baubles and some balloons, all of which broke on impact, though.


> as (despite your plain delusion that you are fucking God Almighty) you are not omnipresent.


Hmm, I'm deluded and have a G-d complex, do I? What are your psychology and psychiatry qualifications, d-b? Are you a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists? Of the British Psychological Society, perhaps?
Or are you just being abusive because you can't bear being gainsaid?


> And yet you feel able to dismiss out of hand the accounts of people who were. (including a friend of mine who was hit on the helmet by one ... strangely enough he didn't then spend twenty minutes looking for it and securing it as "evidence"...


Not that your friend would have been talking bollocks, either, because nobody does that.
He wouldn't have been able to find it anyway. The gun/snooker ball/knife nearly always disappears.



> to convince pricks like you (who, to be honest, wouldn't believe it even it you were struck hard around the head by one in a sock).
> 
> How fucking arrogant can you get?


Nowhere near as arrogant as you, apparently. 

All that name-calling, and I'm still not going to report you on the same basis that you report other posters, because you're sheer comedy gold.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ymu said:


> In high pressure situations involving unrest? Really?


Yes

Please link to all the examples of soldiers policing football, protests, large public event such as NYE and Notting Hill Carnival before gobbing off any more ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> An insight into how you're viewed.


It's _actually_ an insight into your stupidity and prejudice.

But you're too stupid and prejudiced to realise that ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No there isn't.  There's lots of evidence of people using violence against the police ... which apologists like you _state_ (but are never able to prove) was in response to "police violence".  You're quick enough to gob off about other people making unsubstantiated claims, how about you do for once, eh?



What, you mean substantiate to the same degree you do?
Okay.
"I fucking say so, so there, cunts!"
Satisfied?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Frankly, I'm not that bothered with your defence of police tactics, that are clearly raising concerns amongst a sizeable section of the populace. Specifically, people who would normally be supportive of the police.


If you actually bothered reading my detailed critique of the containment tactic you would know that I have criticised _how_ it has been used in a number of ways since before G20, with many of my concerns being reflected in the HMIC report "Adapting to Protest" too.

The vast majority of the public would have no particular problem with the tactic of containment and would see, if the media were responsible enough to explain how and when it's use may be appropriate, to realise that it has a time and place when it's use is entirely justifable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Oh dear!  You _do_ realise that you're going to be drummed out of The Collective for this.  EVERYONE _knows_ that the protestors were _entirely_ peaceful and that _none_ brought _any_ weapons, especially not snooker balls (which, for some reason, would obviously be v.v.bad ...)


 
I'd ask you to post up any post on this thread that claims that the protesters were entirely peaceful, but we both know you can't.

And please learn to spell "protesters" correctly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

ymu said:


> You're such a fucking moron.


 
The depressing thing is that he isn't.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Facts, and particularly the sort of 'facts' you're trying to claim authority for, are observations seen from a certain perspective; your choice of perspective is consistently craven.


Bollocks.  Facts are facts.  This snooker ball was thrown.  That officer hit that protestor with a baton.  Perspective is irrelevent (unless you are pompous clown, obviously ...)



> Laughable made no less so by your example; remember that leading light of the judiciary who thought that the retention of capital punishment would have solved some high profile miscarriages of justice?


What the *fuck* are you chatting about, you lying prick.  I have NEVER supported capital punishment.  Never.  Ever.  Fucking liar.  

Don't bother responding to any of my posts again, or attemtping to engage me in any way.

I don't waste my time with bare-faced liars.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> "Long-standing"?
> 
> You're fucking deluded mate.  I have _never_ heard of snooker balls being used in protests (as opposed to pub fights) before.


 
Another one of those pesky cases of almost everyone except you being deluded, eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Bollocks.  Facts are facts.  This snooker ball was thrown.  That officer hit that protestor with a baton.  Perspective is irrelevent (unless you are pompous clown, obviously ...)
> 
> 
> What the *fuck* are you chatting about, you lying prick.  I have NEVER supported capital punishment.  Never.  Ever.  Fucking liar.
> ...


 
What snooker ball? What officer? How do you know this?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Bollocks.  Facts are facts.  This snooker ball was thrown.



You'd said in a previous post that you'd seen a pink snooker ball in a photo. Present your evidence that it was thrown, or fuck off chatting shit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> this simply doesn't run true to history. I remind you of the vast gulf in between what menezes killers claimed went on and the accounts of everyone else.


 
Everyone else were fucking deluded lying pricks, obviously.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Nor do you, you fuckin' arrogant inconsistent prick. You're a fuckin' joke.


 
Oh, he does, because his friend was hit on the helmet by one.

What a copper thought he was doing with his knob out in the middle of a protest, I don't know!


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

dylans said:


> Do you have any evidence of firefighters being attacked.?


Yes.  One of the MayDays around 2000.  Not sure which.  When trying to get to a fire started against the door of a shop in Oxford Street which was extinguished by use of equipment from the store and a neighbouring one.  That is one example from personal experience.  I am aware of others from colleagues (inlcuding one at the Poll Tax disturbances).



> Please explain to me where in the hippocratic oath it allows for medics to beat the shit out of people. Here is a copy to help you out.


He's a police officer with medic training, not a fucking doctor.  He hasn't taken the fucking Hippocratic Oath you moron.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oh, he does, because his friend was hit on the helmet by one.
> 
> What a copper thought he was doing with his knob out in the middle of a protest, I don't know!


 
lol


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes.  One of the MayDays around 2000.  Not sure which.  When trying to get to a fire started against the door of a shop in Oxford Street which was extinguished by use of equipment from the store and a neighbouring one.  That is one example from personal experience.  I am aware of others from colleagues (inlcuding one at the Poll Tax disturbances).
> 
> 
> He's a police officer with medic training, not a fucking doctor.  He hasn't taken the fucking Hippocratic Oath you moron.


 
Compelling.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

revlon said:


> at the same time the only real justification for depriving someone of their liberty, their freedom of assembly and association under these circumstances is breach of the peace (or indeed fear of breach of the peace).
> 
> Breach of the peace is neither a crime nor a piece of judical legislation, it is in fact a situation.


It is a Common Law concept and the police (and everyone else for that matter) have well-established powers to stop one which is happening and to prevent one which is anticipated.  It is inextricably linked to the concept of the maintenance of the Queen's Peace, which is at the heart of public order policing - the "Peace" is the same in each case. 



> A copper trying to hide behind the law to justify police operational tactics is on very shaky ground indeed.


Absolute complete and utter bollocks.  I suggest you go and read some law and some cases ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Bollocks.  Facts are facts.  This snooker ball was thrown.  That officer hit that protestor with a baton.  Perspective is irrelevent (unless you are pompous clown, obviously ...)
> 
> 
> What the *fuck* are you chatting about, you lying prick.  I have NEVER supported capital punishment.  Never.  Ever.  Fucking liar.
> ...


 
He didn't say that you'd ever supported capital punishment. He was referring to a "leading light of the judiciary", and as I doubt that you're one...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> So, given the context of the post this is in reply to, you're claiming that it's the volume of police/public interactions that make the police less able to control the red mist, then?


No, idiot.  As you well know.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Only in d-b world. I always answer your posts pertinently, and you almost always hone in on a single sentence, de-contextualise it, and then reply to that de-contextualised point.


And, as here, you almost always post a whole load of irrelevant shite and avoid the actual point.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Compelling.


 
Wasn't the whole "firefighters attacked by rioters at Poll Tax demo" thing disproved back in the '90s?


----------



## moon23 (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oh, he does, because his friend was hit on the helmet by one.



This copper says he saw them being thrown, either way he was hit by a pretty heavy missle to knock him out with his helmet on. 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...epared-says-policeman-hurt-in-student-riot.do


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

No, not either way. And no he wasn't.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

dylans said:


> No it is random irrelevant crap. Demonstrating is a democratic right as is the right to hold whatever political views you choose. Being a revolutionary is not a reason for being beaten up by the cops and neither is demonstrating a justification for being dragged out of your wheelchair and dragged across the road by a power crazy thug in uniform.


I didn't say it was though, did I?  Please _try_ and understand what I _actually_ post ... It's quite easy really ... especially as I have already posted that the use of force (on the second occasion he was removed from his wheelchair at least) appears unjustifiable ...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Wasn't the whole "firefighters attacked by rioters at Poll Tax demo" thing disproved back in the '90s?


 
There's a list longer than coppers convicted of deaths in custody of false claims like this.

Snooker balls. FFS.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No, idiot.  As you well know.


 
See, this is your problem, you assume that everything is an attack on you, when most of the time you've not explained yourself very well, and people are merely seeking confirmation of your meaning.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 17, 2010)

as mythical as the hail of bottles raining down on the medics scraping tomlinson of the tarmac


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's not "utterly irrelevant crap" as it demonstrates to any observer where he is coming from ... whereas they _may_ be under the impression he was some random disabled bloke who just happened to be there / wouldn't be involved in any front line activity, etc.


I thought personally the whole town of Brown's approach was arrogant, hectoring and unpleasant, typical i'm-a-top-beeb-presenter-call-me-god-you-peasants approach


----------



## rekil (Dec 17, 2010)

Oops, got something wrong. The charge happened after the copper got trampled by his own horse. I crave forgiveness for my error.



detective-boy said:


> Provided there was some justification for moving the crowd back (or, rather, to one side of the road), that was a perfectly reasonable use of horses - the advance was controlled and there was ample room for people to move away into.
> 
> Personally I think that could have been achieved by the police line moving people back ... but that may have been tried and failed and it may have been impossible along such a length of road without the use of horses.
> 
> (ETA:  As appears may well have been the case


 Nah, bollocks, the cavalry achieved fuck all except for making people very angry and your gang lost. Personally I think it's just unfortunate that there wasn't a line of 9 foot long poles to discourage them and give the mounted hooligans a bloody good poking. Anyhow, may I refer you to post 198.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ymu said:


> Another thread sacrificed on the altar of d-b's ego.


What the _fuck_ are you talking about?   YOU are the one starting an irrelevant derail slagging me off (as usual) whilst _I_ am answering the myriad substantive points made which I have a view on ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I didn't say it was though, did I?  Please _try_ and understand what I _actually_ post ... It's quite easy really ... especially as I have already posted that the use of force (on the second occasion he was removed from his wheelchair at least) appears unjustifiable ...


 
Why should anyone put themselves out to understand you, when you clearly can't be arsed to try and understand *their* posts? What makes you a special case, worthy of something you deny others?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ymu said:


> This is ominous.


Why?  I would have thought that you would have liked the idea of convicted violent criminals being prohibited by a post-conviction ASBO from attending any more "peaceful" protests and thus giving trhe thug police an excuse to beat up all the nice lickle students ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

moon23 said:


> This copper says he saw them being thrown, either way he was hit by a pretty heavy missle to knock him out with his helmet on.
> 
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...epared-says-policeman-hurt-in-student-riot.do


 
So, we've had friend of detective-boy and this copper claiming to have seen/been hit by snooker balls, many column inches and much screen-time given over to the idea that they were used, but how much actual proof?
Were any found post-protest? During the protest? When the street-cleaners got to work?
Or did the snooker ball fairies come along, sprinkle star-dust in everyones' eyes, and spirit the snooker balls away to the land of the Sidhe?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why should anyone put themselves out to understand you, when you clearly can't be arsed to try and understand *their* posts? What makes you a special case, worthy of something you deny others?


 
Maybe because his head is so firmly lodged up his police apologist arse?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I agree with what Hari says in the Indy today, that the "police should arrest anyone who commits an act of violence instead of mass imprisonment on everyone present"


(a) that is simply impracticable

(b) that suggests that the police have no role in _preventing_ serious crime, which is absolutely at odds with the basis of the UK police (prevention being their _primary_ purpose).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> There's a list longer than coppers convicted of deaths in custody of false claims like this.


Not difficult, that. 


> Snooker balls. FFS.


I know.


Pool balls are cheaper.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Wasn't the whole "firefighters attacked by rioters at Poll Tax demo" thing disproved back in the '90s?


totally. 100%. I had a pretty good view, it never happened, if anything people were trying to be considerate towards firefighters


----------



## rekil (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> I know.
> 
> 
> Pool balls are cheaper.


 
They don't grow on trees.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because _agents provocateurs_ have never been used by either the police or the intelligence services, and that long list of former police officers and intelligence operatives who've said otherwise, they're just bad apples and plain fibbers, aren't they?


There is no "long list" as you know ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> as mythical as the hail of bottles raining down on the medics scraping tomlinson of the tarmac


 
Hey, one (plastic) bottle can seem like a hail (of glass bottles) if you see it coming from a multitude of viewpoints!


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> So in effect somebody will decide, probably on the basis of intelligence (with all the implications that has, in terms of the honesty and accuracy of intelligence in the hands of politically-motivated people and organisations) whether or not a protest can go ahead?


Avoiding the difficult question again, I see ....

So just answer this yes or no.  If there are substantial grounds for believing that a protest will result in serious violence and disorder should the police be able to apply for it to be banned?

Yes or no.

Just one of those words.  

No need for some rambling evasion.  Just yes or no.  Come on, show us what you _actually_ think instead of just slagging off people who try and maintain the peace, eh?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, and if you'd read on a few posts, you'd have seen that I acknowledged my error, but you're too busy trying to score points, aren't you?


No you didn't.  You made _no_ mention of failing to recognise the difference between criminal and civil law ... and you did not need to look at the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (that's _criminal_ law, by the way - I know there's a clue in the title but you can never be sure you've grasped it ...) recently to know the difference anyway.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Says it all, but thanks for confirming it.


It's fucking basic, you moron.  Just because something has a defensive purpose doesn't mean it can't be used for an offensive purpose.

Would you claim that a police officer using his (defensive) round shield to strike a protestor across the head with it's edge would be using it in a "defensive" - of course you fucking wouldn't.


----------



## ymu (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Why?  I would have thought that you would have liked the idea of convicted violent criminals being prohibited by a post-conviction ASBO from attending any more "peaceful" protests and thus giving trhe thug police an excuse to beat up all the nice lickle students ...


 
That's because you are a moron.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> He didn't say they've been _used_ in protests. He said they've long been _reported_ to have been used in protests, in order to throw the full force of the law at those arrested or spotted as troublemakers.


Come on then, link to some examples.

And explain why alleging the use of snooker balls makes things worse when there is patent evidence of bricks, bottles, sticks, metal poles and Christ knows what else being thrown ...


----------



## revlon (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It is a Common Law concept and the police (and everyone else for that matter) have well-established powers to stop one which is happening and to prevent one which is anticipated.  It is inextricably linked to the concept of the maintenance of the Queen's Peace, which is at the heart of public order policing - the "Peace" is the same in each case.


 
and of course the police, by their actions, can also create a breach of the peace.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

revlon said:


> i can guarantee nobody has been or will ever be charged with the offence of assaulting a copper in the execution of his duty for breaking out of a kettle.


They already have been you dickhead.

And more will be being convicted as a result of what happened the other day.

You are a dangerous fucking fool.  Someone on the side of the protestors should tell you to wind your fucking neck in before you seriously misinform too many people.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Come on then, link to some examples.
> 
> And explain why alleging the use of snooker balls makes things worse when there is patent evidence of bricks, bottles, sticks, metal poles and Christ knows what else being thrown ...


 
Irrelevant to the claim that you made.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> this simply doesn't run true to history. I remind you of the vast gulf in between what menezes killers claimed went on and the accounts of everyone else.


Yes it does.

There was no "vast gulf".  And even if there was it was for the CPS/Courts to decide which account they believed and then made their judgment on.


----------



## rekil (Dec 17, 2010)




----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> They already have been you dickhead.
> 
> And more will be being convicted as a result of what happened the other day.
> 
> You are a dangerous fucking fool.  Someone on the side of the protestors should tell you to wind your fucking neck in before you seriously misinform too many people.


 
Police kettles will soon be a dirty trick of the past when your ilk get a battering - & they will. We've had enough of your kettles & we're preparing to breach them.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If you actually bothered reading my detailed critique of the containment tactic you would know that I have criticised _how_ it has been used in a number of ways since before G20, with many of my concerns being reflected in the HMIC report "Adapting to Protest" too.
> 
> The vast majority of the public would have no particular problem with the tactic of containment and would see, if the media were responsible enough to explain how and when it's use may be appropriate, to realise that it has a time and place when it's use is entirely justifable.



Still not bothered.

On reflection, was this the right time (late in the day and many hours in freezing cold weather) and place (Westminster Bridge) do you think?

Next you'll being trying to blame the media for not explaining clearly enough to the public how and when it may be appropriate to haul a disabled man out of his wheelchair and drag him across the road? You're not doing this are you, because if you are, I doubt very much the "vast majority" seeing this has having a "time and place" ever?

What is really happening (you chose not to see it) is that this, along with the "containment" issue, is being condemned outright by significant numbers of the general public, who are appalled by what they see.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

nosos said:


> What do you think would have happened if the police hadn't been there?


Parliament would have been ransacked.  As would the Treasury and other State buildings.  Maybe even burned down.  Hundreds of thousands, maybe many millions of pounds worth of danage would have been caused.

People would have been seriously injured, maybe died.

More shops, especially those belonging to identifiable "enemies of the people" would have been looted.

Whay do _you_ think would have happened?  The students would have politely delivered a petition to the doorkeeper at the House of Commons.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

copliker said:


>


 
Look at all them snooker balls.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

revlon said:


> Pushing through police lines is not unlawful violence.


Yes, it is.  (So long as the police line is in place for a lawful purpose).

To claim otherwise is irresponsible bollocks.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Look at all them snooker balls.


 
And they were thrown!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> There is no "long list" as you know ...


 
Depends what you take to constitute "long". There's certainly a long enough list of credible people to give pause.
When you get people from the entire spectrum of police and intelligence grades admitting that it happens (and that it's happened for most if not all of the 20th century, as well as all of the 21st, so far), then I tend towards a provisional acceptance of their claims, because writing off the claims of former Directors and Commissioners, field and desk officers, constables and higher ranks as pie in the sky, conspiracy or the acts of people who are wonko (except Shayler, obviously) would  be mesing with Occam's Razor.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes, it is.  (So long as the police line is in place for a lawful purpose).
> 
> To claim otherwise is irresponsible bollocks.


 
Bollocks to the so-called lawful purposes. It means nothing anymore. Nothing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes it does.
> 
> There was no "vast gulf".  And even if there was it was for the CPS/Courts to decide which account they believed and then made their judgment on.


 
and true to form, everyone else was wrong.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not that your friend would have been talking bollocks, either, because nobody does that.


He was there.  He was hit on the head by a snooker ball.  He has no reason to lie, not least because in the big scheme of things it was of no particular concern to him.

But you feel able to say he is lying on the basis of watching a bit of fucking video.

Prick. 



> All that name-calling, and I'm still not going to report you on the same basis that you report other posters, because you're sheer comedy gold.


I've _never_ reported _anyone_ for "name-calling" you lying tosser.


----------



## revlon (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> They already have been you dickhead.
> 
> And more will be being convicted as a result of what happened the other day.
> 
> You are a dangerous fucking fool.  Someone on the side of the protestors should tell you to wind your fucking neck in before you seriously misinform too many people.


 
you're going to have to give me a list off all the people charged with criminal offences for the last 4 student demos.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Another one of those pesky cases of almost everyone except you being deluded, eh?


Go on them - link to all these historic reports going back centuries ...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Parliament would have been ransacked.  As would the Treasury and other State buildings.  Maybe even burned down.  Hundreds of thousands, maybe many millions of pounds worth of danage would have been caused.
> 
> People would have been seriously injured, maybe died.
> 
> ...


 
Lots of people are ready for that. That's the fuckin' reality!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Avoiding the difficult question again, I see ....


You didn't ask a question.


> So just answer this yes or no.  If there are substantial grounds for believing that a protest will result in serious violence and disorder should the police be able to apply for it to be banned?
> 
> Yes or no.
> 
> ...



*If* there are *SUBSTANTIVE* (as opposed to "substantial") grounds, then yes.

In other words, good evidence, not rumour wot some guy down the boozer dun told yer.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's fucking basic, you moron.  Just because something has a defensive purpose doesn't mean it can't be used for an offensive purpose.
> 
> Would you claim that a police officer using his (defensive) round shield to strike a protestor across the head with it's edge would be using it in a "defensive" - of course you fucking wouldn't.


 
You truly don't get it, do you?

Fucking brilliant!


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> You'd said in a previous post that you'd seen a pink snooker ball in a photo.


More misrepresentation.  I said I had seen something which _appeared_ to be a snooker ball in a photo.  It was a photo.  I have absolutely no way of knowing whether it was or not (and so I would be careful about not doing so ... unlike you lot who seem willing to draw all sorts of unsubstantiable conclusions from a few seconds of video or a still photo ... ).

I have since spoken to a police officer friend of mine who was there and who was hit on the helmet by one.  Which is somewhat more convincing than a blurry photo anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Go on them - link to all these historic reports going back centuries ...


 
Link to your snooker balls. Right now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No you didn't.  You made _no_ mention of failing to recognise the difference between criminal and civil law ... and you did not need to look at the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (that's _criminal_ law, by the way - I know there's a clue in the title but you can never be sure you've grasped it ...) recently to know the difference anyway.


 
So you missed the post where another poster corrected me, and I acknowledged it, then?

Would you like the post number? It's #2762.

Now you'll no doubt tell me that what I said doesn't mean what I claim it says.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

moon23 said:


> This copper says he saw them being thrown, either way he was hit by a pretty heavy missle to knock him out with his helmet on.


There is no way in a million years that a snooker ball would knock you out if you were wearing a NATO helmet.  That's the main thing I do not understand about the fuckwits focus on the issue - it really makes no fucking difference at all ... 

(unless, of course, they are using it in an attempt to show that the police are lying about something (however inconsequential) so as to distract attention from the _blatant_ violence used by _many_ protesters and shown live on fucking BBC News 24and thus something that even _they_ cannot deny ...)


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I've _never_ reported _anyone_ for "name-calling" you lying tosser.



Time for another good ole fashioned d_b flounce?


----------



## audiotech (Dec 17, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Time for another good ole fashioned d_b flounce?


 
Has he gone orf to storm parliament?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Link to your snooker balls. Right now.


 
But his friend was hit by one. Nuff said.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> There is no way in a million years that a snooker ball would knock you out if you were wearing a NATO helmet.  That's the main thing I do not understand about the fuckwits focus on the issue - it really makes no fucking difference at all ...
> 
> (unless, of course, they are using it in an attempt to show that the police are lying about something (however inconsequential) so as to distract attention from the _blatant_ violence used by _many_ protesters and shown live on fucking BBC News 24and thus something that even _they_ cannot deny ...)


 
lol


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> I had a pretty good view, it never happened, ...


Were you in a helicopter?  Hovering over the whole demonstration the whole time?

This is where the problem occurs:  YOU didn't see it hence it DIDN'T happen.  Strangely in mass disorder no one individual sees everything ... 

Just because YOU didn't see something doesn't mean it didn't fucking happen ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

revlon said:


> and of course the police, by their actions, can also create a breach of the peace.


Yes.  Of course they can.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> But his friend was hit by one, a pink one at that. Nuff said.


 
6 points for a copper.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Irrelevant to the claim that you made.


So that's a no then ... you have _no_ evidence to back up your claim.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 17, 2010)

Did you see it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> He was there.  He was hit on the head by a snooker ball.  He has no reason to lie, not least because in the big scheme of things it was of no particular concern to him.
> 
> But you feel able to say he is lying on the basis of watching a bit of fucking video.


That's right, "a bit of fucking viideo". 


> Prick.



Smiler, you really should mind your blood pressure. You blow up _a la_ "Scanners" if you're not careful.



> I've _never_ reported _anyone_ for "name-calling" you lying tosser.


 
So all that whining about people abusing you (name-calling to any noobs out there), and how you'd reported them was bull, was it? All that weeping and moaning about persecution that led to Crispy wielding the banhammer, that wasn't about name-calling?

And that's without going into your claims that the phrases "drama queen" and "little miss hissy fit" constitute homophobic abuse if used toward you.

And you call ME a lying tosser!


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Still not bothered *to read what you've actually posted*.


Corrected for you.

If you had you'd know that I have raised concerns over the length of the containment and the fact that it was on Westminster Bridge.  But hey, why actually bother reading what I _actually_ post instead of implying that I will have posted what your prejudices suggest I will have done ..  



> Next you'll being trying to blame the media for not explaining clearly enough to the public how and when it may be appropriate to haul a disabled man out of his wheelchair and drag him across the road? You're not doing this are you, because if you are, I doubt very much the "vast majority" seeing this has having a "time and place" ever?


You are wrong.  The vast majority wouldn't be so patronising as to think that just because someone was in a wheelchair they could never be in a situation in which it was appropriate for force to be used against them.



> What is really happening (you chose not to see it) is that this, along with the "containment" issue, is being condemned outright by significant numbers of the general public, who are appalled by what they see.


I see it ... but I am concerned that they are doing so on the basis of no sensible debate about the issues.  Given the facts I am sure the vast majority would agree with the use of containment ... though there would be a spectrum of agreement about issues such as how long it shoud be for, providing water, etc. and other collateral issues.  By arguing against the use of containment you are risking the police abandoning it because of public criticism and resorting to other, far more aggressive (and far less effective) tactics (such as dispersal as used in the Poll Tax disorder).  When it happens, just remember that it is because of YOU and YOUR arguments against containment.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> 6 points for a copper.



PC147.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Go on them - link to all these historic reports going back centuries ...


 
What does your reply have to do with my post, oh wonky-eyed one?

Besides fuck-all, that is.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So that's a no then ... you have _no_ evidence to back up your claim.


 
Where is this pink snooker ball you know was thrown? Where are any snooker balls thrown?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Depends what you take to constitute "long".


Any list, to be honest.

There is no credible evidence of agent provocateurs being used in the UK to precipitate disorder in ordinary public order situations.  Link to the evidence of some if you assert otherwise.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> More misrepresentation.  I said I had seen something which _appeared_ to be a snooker ball in a photo.  It was a photo.  I have absolutely no way of knowing whether it was or not (and so I would be careful about not doing so ... unlike you lot who seem willing to draw all sorts of unsubstantiable conclusions from a few seconds of video or a still photo ... ).
> 
> I have since spoken to a police officer friend of mine who was there and who was hit on the helmet by one.  Which is somewhat more convincing than a blurry photo anyway.


 
Memory is a very tricky thing. You as a former police officer should know how easy it is for someone to accidentally replace reality with a false memory, especially if they're traumatised.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> and true to form, everyone else was wrong.


That is the way our justice system works ... or do you not subscribe to the view that someone is innocent until proven guilty?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> *If* there are *SUBSTANTIVE* (as opposed to "substantial") grounds, then yes.


What do you mean by "substantive"?



> In other words, good evidence, not rumour wot some guy down the boozer dun told yer.


Are you saying _all_ information from any human source is unreliable?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> So you missed the post where another poster corrected me, and I acknowledged it, then?


No.  It;s the one I was referring to.

As usual it says something other than that which you are now claiming ... you really _can't_ stick to your story can you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Any list, to be honest.
> 
> There is no credible evidence of agent provocateurs being used in the UK to precipitate disorder in ordinary public order situations.  Link to the evidence of some if you assert otherwise.


 
Half a dozen from the top of my head:

Tony Lundy (former superintendent, I believe.
John Stalker (former ACC or DCC)
Kenneth Newman (former Commissioner of the Met)
Peter Wright (former MI5 field officer)
Kathy Massiter (former MI5 desk officer)
Stella Rimington (former Director, MI5)

Pick up the autobiography of any of these people (and many more like them, and they all have the _agent provocateur_ theme in common.

Now, they're the ones I came up with in three minutes of browsing the less than a third of the bookshelves in my flat, and my book database (to check the book themes), but I'd say they're a representative sample.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> And that's without going into your claims that the phrases "drama queen" and "little miss hissy fit" constitute homophobic abuse if used toward you.


YOU might dismiss homophobically offensive abuse, used deliberately as "name calling".  I don't.

And complaints about obsessive stalking and thread-to-thread off topic trolling are _not_ complaints about "name calling" either.

I have NEVER done any of the things I complain of others doing.  And you will never find any evidence of me doing otherwise.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Memory is a very tricky thing. You as a former police officer should know how easy it is for someone to accidentally replace reality with a false memory, especially if they're traumatised.


That's the fucking point: they _weren't_ fucking traumatised.  It was an entirely trivial incident.  It is no big thing.  Why the _fuck_ are you obsessing about these fucking snooker balls.

As I said pages ago:

It.  Makes.  No.  Fucking.  Difference.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> What do you mean by "substantive"?


Based in confirmable fact, not in rumour.



> Are you saying _all_ information from any human source is unreliable?


 
No, why do you believe I am?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> That's the fucking point: they _weren't_ fucking traumatised.  It was an entirely trivial incident.  It is no big thing.  Why the _fuck_ are you obsessing about these fucking snooker balls.
> 
> As I said pages ago:
> 
> It.  Makes.  No.  Fucking.  Difference.


 
What snooker balls?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Tony Lundy (former superintendent, I believe.


No mention in anything I've ever seen attributed to him.


> John Stalker (former ACC or DCC)


Likewise.  And having read quite a lot he has written I would be extremely surprised if he had mentioned any such thing elsewhere.


> Kenneth Newman (former Commissioner of the Met)


Absolutely not.


> Peter Wright (former MI5 field officer)


He's a fucking spy.  What the fuck would he know about police tactics relating to ordinary public order policing?


> Kathy Massiter (former MI5 desk officer)


Ditto.


> Stella Rimington (former Director, MI5)


Ditto

[quotePick up the autobiography of any of these people (and many more like them, and they all have the _agent provocateur_ theme in common.[/quote]
Not in the context of ordinary public order policing they don't.  And that is what I have been careful to define what we are talking about from the start (though you have probably omitted to notice that ... )


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> That's the fucking point: they _weren't_ fucking traumatised.  It was an entirely trivial incident.  It is no big thing.



Well, that answers one question I had. You may be a former police officer, but you've got  little idea about memory or about trauma. 



> Why the _fuck_ are you obsessing about these fucking snooker balls.
> 
> As I said pages ago:
> 
> It.  Makes.  No.  Fucking.  Difference.


 
I'm not obsessing about them, I'm replying to your somewhat frenzied posts about them. If they make no difference, then why the vehemence on your part?
Is it because bearing the shining Mag-Lite of Truth in this pit of iniquity is tiring your arm?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Based in confirmable fact, not in rumour.


So you are saying if something cannot be corroborated then it should not be acted upon?

And you are implying that anything told to you by an informant is to be treated as "rumour".

You are basically setting absolutely impracticable rules for the real world.  You are demanding proof where proof cannot exist.

So you are obviously against any banning of potentially violent demonstrations.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What snooker balls?


Obsessive moron.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No mention in anything I've ever seen attributed to him.
> 
> Likewise.  And having read quite a lot he has written I would be extremely surprised if he had mentioned any such thing elsewhere.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I thought we were talking about _agents provocateurs_ being deployed at sites of possible public disorder, not about "ordinary public order policing".

Silly me.

So much for your "I have been careful to define what we are talking about".


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Obsessive moron.


 
lol


----------



## dylans (Dec 17, 2010)

> YOU might dismiss homophobically offensive abuse, used deliberately as "name calling". I don't.



This I agree with. I've said it before. If DB was black, racist abuse wouldn't be tolerated. Even if his attempted defence of the disgraceful behaviour of the police is laughable.

Homophobic abuse shouldn't be tolerated on here. Just as pulling disabled people out of wheelchairs or threats to ban demonstrations shouldn't be defended. 

As far as the latter is concerned. Go ahead. Ban demonstrations. I guarantee this will be responded to with the most violent demonstration you have ever seen. Bring it on.


----------



## ymu (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Obsessive moron.


Self-awareness _really_ isn't your strong point, is it.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well, that answers one question I had. You may be a former police officer, but you've got  little idea about memory or about trauma.


Now what the fuck are you wittering on about?  I am saying that getting hit on the head by a fucking snooker ball when you are wearing a NATO helmet is NOT a traumatising incident.  And so there is no reason why recollection of the incident should be marred in any way.  Are you saying that it is?   



> I'm not obsessing about them, I'm replying to your somewhat frenzied posts about them.


You SO fucking are.  I couldn't give a fucking toss whether there were any snooker balls thrown or not.  ALL I did was comment when editor asked if anyone had seen any evidence of them that I had seen a photo with what appeared to be a pink one in it.  You, butchersapron and the rest are obsessing ...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Now what the fuck are you wittering on about?  I am saying that getting hit on the head by a fucking snooker ball when you are wearing a NATO helmet is NOT a traumatising incident.  And so there is no reason why recollection of the incident should be marred in any way.  Are you saying that it is?
> 
> 
> You SO fucking are.  I couldn't give a fucking toss whether there were any snooker balls thrown or not.  ALL I did was comment when editor asked if anyone had seen any evidence of them that I had seen a photo with what appeared to be a pink one in it.  You, butchersapron and the rest are obsessing ...


 
What snooker balls. Especially what pink one.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So you are saying if something cannot be corroborated then it should not be acted upon?


No, I'm saying that the balance of probabilities should be in your favour.


> And you are implying that anything told to you by an informant is to be treated as "rumour".


No, I'm not. 
I'm *stating* that rumour is rumour unless it's supportable. In the case of your informant, if he/she regularly gives you good information, then the balance of probabilities weighs in your favour. If a bloke down the pub tells you, or a cabbie passes on something he heard in the back of his cab, then they don't. It depends on your informant.


> You are basically setting absolutely impracticable rules for the real world.  You are demanding proof where proof cannot exist.


If proof cannot exist, then why would the police involve themselves? Wouldn't that _ipso facto_ mean that any action they took was purely speculative?


> So you are obviously against any banning of potentially violent demonstrations.


I've said this many times before to you, but it obviously isn't getting through, so I'll repeat my request:

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I'm against banning any potentially violent demonstrations where the potential isn't supported by decent intelligence. Partly because of the potential for political abuse of any possibilities for banning, and partly because I don't trust the upper echelons of *any* police service to not act politically in such a situation. Decent intelligence that establishes a threat as within the balance of probabilities - fine. Without that - they can fuck off.


----------



## sherpa (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Parliament would have been ransacked.  As would the Treasury and other State buildings.  Maybe even burned down.  Hundreds of thousands, maybe many millions of pounds worth of danage would have been caused.
> 
> ............
> 
> More shops, especially those belonging to identifiable "enemies of the people" would have been looted.






			
				Emmeline Pankhurst said:
			
		

> There is something that Governments care for far more than human life, and that is the security of property, and so it is through property that we shall strike the enemy. Be militant each in your own way. I incite this meeting to rebellion.



People are angry; get used to it, because this is just the beginning. It's not ordinary people who have started this, but I'd like to think we'll finish it. 

You're part of the problem, not the solution.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> YOU might dismiss homophobically offensive abuse...


Surely something that is "homophobically offensive" is something offensive to homophobes?


> ...used deliberately as "name calling".  I don't.


One poster called you a "drama queen" by way of highlighting your flair for on-thread melodrama, another poster ran with that.
Another poster accused you of having thrown a hissy fit.
Now, I can't pretend that "some of my best friends are homosexuals", but from those gay men (and lesbians for that matter) that I *do* know, none of them, when questioned after your original tizzy, thought that such phrases were homophobic, or even more than mildly abusive. perhaps they're insensitive, though.


> And complaints about obsessive stalking and thread-to-thread off topic trolling are _not_ complaints about "name calling" either.


No?


> I have NEVER done any of the things I complain of others doing.  And you will never find any evidence of me doing otherwise.


Of course I won't.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 17, 2010)

dylans said:


> This I agree with. I've said it before. If DB was black, racist abuse wouldn't be tolerated.



If "hissy fit" and "drama queen" are homophobia-motivated abuse, then he was abused.
If, on the other had, they're everyday terms that, when applied to people *regardless* of their sexual preferences, mean "fit of temper" and "melodramatic twit" respectively, then he wasn't abused.

I know which horse *I'd* bet on, but then I'm apparently one of this collective of obsessive stalkers who are constantly trying to do d-b down, so I would, wouldn't I?


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 17, 2010)

drama queen is hardly a nigger in the woodpile


----------



## rekil (Dec 17, 2010)

No snooker ball? 

Anyway, I spotted this banner on a report of a greek demo from a couple of days ago. That was nice of them wasn't it.


----------



## sherpa (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You have absolutely _no_ idea whether snooker balls were thrown or not as (despite your plain delusion that you are fucking God Almighty) you are not omnipresent.  And yet you feel able to dismiss out of hand the accounts of people who were. (including a friend of mine who was hit on the helmet by one ... strangely enough he didn't then spend twenty minutes looking for it and securing it as "evidence" to convince pricks like you (who, to be honest, wouldn't believe it even it you were struck hard around the head by one in a sock).
> 
> How fucking arrogant can you get?


 
You really are a strange little man.

You present an argument, based on indirect experience of a situation, that you imply is factual, yet when others present an argument, based on first hand personal experience, you dismiss it out of hand.

I would go and find some ball-breaking evidence to support my assertions, but to be fair, I'm not going to _spend twenty minutes looking for it and securing it as "evidence" to convince pricks like you (who, to be honest, wouldn't believe it even it you were struck hard around the head by one in a sock)._.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 17, 2010)

sherpa said:


> You really are a strange little man.
> 
> You present an argument, based on indirect experience of a situation, that you imply is factual, yet when others present an argument, based on first hand personal experience, you dismiss it out of hand.
> 
> I would go and find some ball-breaking evidence to support my assertions, but to be fair, I'm not going to _spend twenty minutes looking for it and securing it as "evidence" to convince pricks like you (who, to be honest, wouldn't believe it even it you were struck hard around the head by one in a sock)._.


----------



## sherpa (Dec 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> That's the fucking point: they _weren't_ fucking traumatised.  It was an entirely trivial incident.  It is no big thing.  Why the _fuck_ are you obsessing about these fucking snooker balls.



False memory doesn't rely on someone being traumatised, although shock, which would be perfectly understandable if, for instance, someone had been knocked out, can also cause false memory. As ViolentPanda says, the memory is a tricky thing.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

copliker said:


> No snooker ball?
> 
> Anyway, I spotted this banner on a report of a greek demo from a couple of days ago. That was nice of them wasn't it.


1000 of them went to the parliament. Fantastic - took their snooker balls too.


----------



## sherpa (Dec 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> took their snooker balls too.



Good job they remembered.......


----------



## Ground Elder (Dec 18, 2010)

Evidence?


----------



## ymu (Dec 18, 2010)




----------



## shaman75 (Dec 18, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> says page not found


 
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/8646/metnewsrelease.jpg


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 18, 2010)

Why's it been "embargoed"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 18, 2010)

sherpa said:


> You really are a strange little man.
> 
> You present an argument, based on indirect experience of a situation, that you imply is factual, yet when others present an argument, based on first hand personal experience, you dismiss it out of hand.



Yes, but you have to understand that d-b is a better class of person than we are. He's totally honest, and so are all his friends. Therefore *his* indirect experience represents plain fact, whereas the personal experience of the likes of you are the mutterings of a lying scumbag.

HTH.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 18, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Why's it been "embargoed"?



No idea.  I'm guessing it's so the article hits as many publications as possible on the same day.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 18, 2010)

Ground Elder said:


> Evidence?


 
That's us snookered, then!


----------



## strung out (Dec 18, 2010)

of course there weren't any snooker balls. what kind of idiot would either go out and buy a set of snooker balls, or nick them from their local club?  it's not even a little bit credible. now pool balls are easy, you just go and nick them from your local pub for a quid.


----------



## belboid (Dec 18, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Why's it been "embargoed"?


 
So every media ewstablishment thinks/knowsthey are being treated equally.  They'll all have got the piece on the saturday, and given the opportunity to write it up neatly before any deadlines. If there were no embargo tho, someone would be claiming to have got it first, and to have a scoop, and so they'd piss all the other papers off, which wouldn't please the Met as they want all the journo's to think they're equal.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 18, 2010)

Ah OK.


----------



## revlon (Dec 18, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You _state_ that they are illegal.  That cannot be said short of on the basis of a Court decision.  The use of containment tactics _has_ been acknowledged by the courts as a lawful tactic, subject to certain guidance.  The consistent failure of those who argue against it to acknowledge that fact undermines their position fatally.  Containment is NOT illegal _per se_.  Legal fact.
> 
> And whilst I would agree that there is scope for individual officers to make individual decisions to let people out in _plainly_ exceptional circumstances, it is ridiculous to expect that anyone who asks nicely to leave should be allowed to do so as that would defeat the purpose of the containment.


 
i'm going to have to pick you up on this. Kettling has only been tested once through the courts - Mayday 2001. And although it was ruled containing people in oxford circus didn't breach article 5 human rights act - right to liberty, the judgement could only be specific to that incident. 

And the judges bent over backwards to say the legal justification for kettling in this instance could apply only to the very unique and very specific things that happened on mayday 2001. 

They were
- the demonstration was not 'official' (formally organised with and recognised by the police)
- literature beforehand promoted violence and encouraged disorder 
- the reason it took so long to release people because the kettle wasn't preplanned therefore took time to organise dispersal

None of these apply to any of the student demos. In fact the opposite. The judgement made specific note on the fact if these things weren't in place on mayday 2001 then maybe,_ just maybe_ it would have been an unlawful detention.

So to conclude: kettling as a police tactic is only justified in law under very specific circumstances. Those circusmtances weren't met during the kettling of the 3 previous student protests.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 18, 2010)

Ground Elder said:


> Evidence?


 
I think you should blur his face.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Dec 18, 2010)

> - the reason it took so long to release people because the kettle wasn't preplanned therefore took time to organise dispersal



Well I hate to disapoint the judge, could the judge explian why there were 'police t.v. cameras' from the top of the buildings filming everyone with close up shots? They didn't just appear in a couple of hours. They were always there from the start. Also it tracked and followed an undercover personel going around taking pictures of everyone pretending to be a rebel. I still remember her rotton face on the other side talking to a senior copper.


----------



## revlon (Dec 18, 2010)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Well I hate to disapoint the judge, could the judge explian why there were 'police t.v. cameras' from the top of the buildings filming everyone with close up shots? They didn't just appear in a couple of hours. They were always there from the start. Also it tracked and followed an undercover personel going around taking pictures of everyone pretending to be a rebel. I still remember her rotton face on the other side talking to a senior copper.


 
aye, *we all know *it was preplanned. But imagine a very senior police officer in front of high court judges explaining why it took over 8 hours to disperse the protest. 

It was almost as if someone had given him a story to recite in court in order to justify the kettle


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 18, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Bollocks.  Facts are facts.  This snooker ball was thrown.  That officer hit that protestor with a baton.  Perspective is irrelevent (unless you are pompous clown, obviously ...)
> 
> 
> What the *fuck* are you chatting about, you lying prick.  I have NEVER supported capital punishment.  Never.  Ever.  Fucking liar.
> ...


 
1. Where's the snooker ball?

2. Perspective is absolutely relevant, was the baton strike offensive or defensive, proportionate or not.

3. My point wasn't that you supported capital punishment; go back,read it again and stop trying to avoid some uncomfortable 'facts' re. your pretended naivety.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## sherpa (Dec 18, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes, but you have to understand that d-b is a better class of person than we are. He's totally honest, and so are all his friends. Therefore *his* indirect experience represents plain fact, whereas the personal experience of the likes of you are the mutterings of a lying scumbag.
> 
> HTH.



It helps no end, and I'm much obliged to you. I'm practicing some _bare faced_ lies as it happens, and aim to be an altogether better class of dishonest scumbag in the future.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 18, 2010)

129 page post match analysis! I'm surprised Shearer and Hanson haven't been on yet.

Anyone remember what the demo was about, or was that of secondary importance?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 18, 2010)

yes I'm sure everyone has forgotten that it was a protest against the hike in tuiton fees, I mean, people really are that short sighted. You holier than thou tagnut.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 18, 2010)

sherpa said:


> It helps no end, and I'm much obliged to you. I'm practicing some _bare faced_ lies as it happens, and aim to be an altogether better class of dishonest scumbag in the future.


 
Glad to have been of service. I myself have also been busy practicing bare-faced lies and total and utter fictions. I'm currently riffing on how a mounted copper fell off his horse because his tack slipped, and how that could only happen if he hadn't fastened it properly. A steamer of a brazen lie IMHO.

Oh, hold on....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 18, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> 129 page post match analysis! I'm surprised Shearer and Hanson haven't been on yet.
> 
> Anyone remember what the demo was about, or was that of secondary importance?


 
Only to you, it seems.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 18, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Only to you, it seems.


 
 Indeed.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 18, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> yes I'm sure everyone has forgotten that it was a protest against the hike in tuiton fees, I mean, people really are that short sighted. You holier than thou tagnut.



Lighten up Dave Spart, twas only a gentle piss take.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 18, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Lighten up Dave Spart, twas only a gentle piss take.


 
It was a pathetic dig. 

As is this post.

You've been on another thread, all high and mighty about the intimidating nature of politics threads yet here you are bandying pathetic insults, totally unprovoked and totally content-free.


----------



## ymu (Dec 18, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Lighten up Dave Spart, twas only a gentle piss take.


Looked a lot more like you being a bit of a twat, tbh.


----------



## revlon (Dec 18, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> 129 page post match analysis! I'm surprised Shearer and Hanson haven't been on yet.
> 
> Anyone remember what the demo was about, or was that of secondary importance?


 
you'l never win anything with kids


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 18, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Lighten up Dave Spart, twas only a gentle piss take.


 
Dottie is about as Spart as my Tory older brother.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Bollocks.  Facts are facts.  This snooker ball was thrown.  That officer hit that protestor with a baton.  Perspective is irrelevent (unless you are pompous clown, obviously ...)
> 
> 
> What the *fuck* are you chatting about, you lying prick.  I have NEVER supported capital punishment.  Never.  Ever.  Fucking liar.
> ...


 
haha 

the mask slips and the reality of the scarred mind's revealed


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 18, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Dottie is about as Spart as my Tory older brother.


 
i'd laugh if he joined them though


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 18, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It was a pathetic dig.
> 
> As is this post.
> 
> You've been on another thread, all high and mighty about the intimidating nature of politics threads yet here you are bandying pathetic insults, totally unprovoked and totally content-free.


Some people can't resist.

WRT the Sparts, we can only hope that the state doesn't decide to treat the students the way the Weimar state treated the Spartakists


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2010)

revlon said:


> you'l never win anything with kids


 
the fa youth cup?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 18, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> i'd laugh if he joined them though


 
It would be funny, wouldn't it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 18, 2010)

revlon said:


> you'l never win anything with kids


 
A cardinal's hat in the RC church?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2010)

revlon said:


> you'l never win anything with kids


 
a baby-modelling contest? www.thecutekid.com


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 18, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> It would be funny, wouldn't it?


 
Anyone joining the sparts is funny but especially if he joined


----------



## rekil (Dec 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> 1000 of them went to the parliament. Fantastic - took their snooker balls too.


 
This young lady lost her snooker ball on a demo in France earlier this year and the police are helping her to find it I reckon.


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 18, 2010)

you don't really like cops, do you?


----------



## audiotech (Dec 18, 2010)




----------



## TopCat (Dec 18, 2010)

ymu said:


> This is ominous.


 
Mental!


----------



## Sean (Dec 18, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Mental!


 
Pair of twats, but what applies to "extremists" of one kind will be applied to "extremists" of the other kind soon enough too. Crazy times.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Dec 18, 2010)

copliker said:


> This young lady lost her snooker ball on a demo in France earlier this year and the police are helping her to find it I reckon.


 

My heart is quite warmed by the fact that at least two of those cops seem to be in the process of stopping the others, batons drawn, from beating her....the pic could be deceiving on so many levels though..


----------



## winjer (Dec 18, 2010)

revlon said:


> i can guarantee nobody has been or will ever be charged with the offence of assaulting a copper in the execution of his duty for breaking out of a kettle.


You can't guarantee that, because it's a load of old toot.



moon23 said:


> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...epared-says-policeman-hurt-in-student-riot.do


Ironic t-shirt: model's own. 



detective-boy said:


> No you didn't.  You made _no_ mention of failing to recognise the difference between criminal and civil law ... and you did not need to look at the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001


You've been here long enough to know that when someone says 'CJA' they mean the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. There was a clue in the "since the 1990s" part too. Not that it really matters either way of course, as it's the Public Order Act 1986 which contains the power in question.



revlon said:


> And the judges bent over backwards to say the legal justification for kettling in this instance could apply only to the very unique and very specific things that happened on mayday 2001.


No they didn't. The conditions attached were that kettling or other restrictions "must be resorted to in good faith, that they must be proportionate and that they are enforced for no longer than is reasonably necessary."



> The judgement made specific note on the fact if these things weren't in place on mayday 2001 then maybe,_ just maybe_ it would have been an unlawful detention.


Can you quote where they specifically noted that please, because I can't find it.


----------



## rekil (Dec 18, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> you don't really like cops, do you?


They're alright. It's just the few bad apples, a couple of dozen tops, that get on my wick.



Rutita1 said:


> My heart is quite warmed by the fact that at least two of those cops seem to be in the process of stopping the others, batons drawn, from beating her....the pic could be deceiving on so many levels though..


All I know is that it's from October's protests in Lyon and French coppers are a notorious shower of batonhappy fecks.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 18, 2010)

There's something Tintoretto like about that photo.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 18, 2010)

copliker said:


> They're alright. It's just the few bad apples, a couple of dozen tops, that get on my wick.



Apparently, "capitalism pays our dole, & if we hate capitalism so much why don't we move to Russia", were the words from one of them to me today.

I can see why that shit gets on your wick


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 19, 2010)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2010)

copliker said:


> They're alright. It's just the few bad apples, a couple of dozen tops, that get on my wick.


Per station? That's a bit excessive, I'd say. Probably no more than a dozen.



> All I know is that it's from October's protests in Lyon and French coppers are a notorious shower of batonhappy fecks.


 
Thing is, you know where you stand with the CRS. They're the SS of the riot cop world. They'd smash your head in as soon as look at you. They're probably waiting for that young lady in the picture to stand up, just so that they can knock her down again, such is their cuntitude.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Apparently, "capitalism pays our dole, & if we hate capitalism so much why don't we move to Russia", were the words from one of them to me today.
> 
> I can see why that shit gets on your wick


 
The bellend did realise that Russia is, like, hyper-capitalist, right?

Actually, stupid question, really.


----------



## rekil (Dec 19, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Apparently, "capitalism pays our dole, & if we hate capitalism so much why don't we move to Russia", were the words from one of them to me today.


So alienated, he's gone back in time.



ViolentPanda said:


> Thing is, you know where you stand with the CRS. They're the SS of the riot cop world. They'd smash your head in as soon as look at you. They're probably waiting for that young lady in the picture to stand up, just so that they can knock her down again, such is their cuntitude.


 Arguing over whose turn it is to whack her is my guess.


----------



## revlon (Dec 19, 2010)

winjer said:


> You can't guarantee that, because it's a load of old toot.
> 
> 
> Ironic t-shirt: model's own.
> ...


 
1. simple practicalities. If the cps were going to charge someone it would be for common assault - Nicking someone on the day the copper would have to explain how is actions were keeping the peace, notirously difficult, as burden is on the copper to justify the legal nature of his actions. 
Coppers maintaining a kettle cannot arrest people there and then. Therefore any kettling arrest would involve a post-offence arrest. That would involve the copper in the executon of his duty seeking out the indvidual that assaulted him and arresting him. 

toot all want but reality is kettling isn't a tool to increase the crime statistics, it wasn't devised or managed for that purpose. Breaking out of  kettle is an operational failure not a criminal activity.

2. 





> The appellant submits that it is plain that she was deprived of her right to liberty. She says that the reason why the cordon was put in place and kept there for so long is irrelevant. If she is right, she must succeed in this appeal. If she is wrong, the judge’s findings are against her. They show conclusively that the sole purpose of the cordon was to maintain public order, that it was proportionate to that need and that those within the cordon were not deprived of their freedom of movement arbitrarily... etc


house of lords
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090128/austin-1.htm

there is then four pages which justifies why austin failed in article 5. Those were very specific factors. Take away those specific factors and austin case would have succeeded.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The black hand, there's bigger issues at play here. Cut this out.



Hi Butch, you're funny, I have been the one stressing the totality previously. 

Anyway what happened was - I post something positive together with a critique of fetishised behaviour, and the resulting negativity coming from the ultra left on U75 gets the contempt it deserves in reply from me, then you chip in for some unknown reason.

That is what happened in this case and any genuinely independent reader would draw the same descriptive conclusions (i invite readers to look from post 2858 & further down page 115 of this thread to see the truth of what I have just said). 

Your (ultra left) mirror is totally introverted and uncritical, backing each other up in an intellectually compromised self referential manner... But then, that has been the behaviour for such a long time its embarrasing. BUT how long for the bubble to burst (it will do one day) the question is only when...


----------



## ymu (Dec 19, 2010)

> A senior doctor has warned that police risk repeating a Hillsborough-type tragedy if they continue with tactics deployed during the recent tuition fee protests.
> 
> The anaesthetist from Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, who gave medical assistance to the protesters, said that officers forced demonstrators into such a tight "kettle" on Westminster Bridge that they were in danger of being seriously crushed or pushed into the freezing River Thames.
> 
> ...


.


----------



## winjer (Dec 19, 2010)

revlon said:


> 1. simple practicalities. If the cps were going to charge someone it would be for common assault - Nicking someone on the day the copper would have to explain how is actions were keeping the peace, notirously difficult, as burden is on the copper to justify the legal nature of his actions. Coppers maintaining a kettle cannot arrest people there and then. Therefore any kettling arrest would involve a post-offence arrest.


The charge would be (and indeed has been) assaulting a cop in the execution of their duty, police maintaining kettle can and do arrest people there and then, and those outside the immediate kettle line can even more easily arrest someone who has got out, who they believe to have just assaulted a cop.



> That would involve the copper in the executon of his duty seeking out the indvidual that assaulted him and arresting him.


It so totally would not. Please stop posting pub law, it helps nobody except the police.



> there is then four pages which justifies why austin failed in article 5. Those were very specific factors. Take away those specific factors and austin case would have succeeded.


Your quotation doesn't provide anything approaching a set of specific factors, if you had read that paragraph properly you would have noticed that it depends on Article 5(1) not being engaged by kettling, not that this specific case was justified under Article 5(2).

From Lord Hope's final para "This was not the kind of arbitrary deprivation of liberty that is proscribed by the Convention, so article 5(1) was not applicable in this case."


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, I'm saying that the balance of probabilities should be in your favour.


What are you arguing about then?  That is pretty much the state of affairs as the law is now.  Marches aren't banned just on the basis of some fucking rumour ... and the decision is subject to judicial review if anyone can be arsed taking proceedings ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Now, I can't pretend that "some of my best friends are homosexuals", but from those gay men (and lesbians for that matter) that I *do* know, none of them, when questioned after your original tizzy, thought that such phrases were homophobic, or even more than mildly abusive. perhaps they're insensitive, though.


That's because you haven't explained what fucking happened accurately.  I would _guarantee_ that they _would_ consider it homophobically offensive if you actually bothered to tell them the truth: that (a) the phrase "drama queen" was used in a hostile manner by someone who knew me to be gay in the first instance; (b) my response was to politely explain that I found that use of the phrase by that person to be offensive and to please not do so again"; and (c) they, intead of desisting, repeatedly used the same phrase, in the same context and clearly deliberatly intending to aim at my sexual orientation and, when called again and again, resorted to using other ambiguous phrases such as "You're batty".

Why don't you fucking try it instead of pontificating and belittling my experience as the victim of homophobically offensive abuse, allowed to go unchallenged by the fucking mods?    

As always, it's be fucking illuminating for you if you replaced all the sexual orientation references with race or colour references and then tried to argue that what is happening isn't racially offensive ... 



> Of course I won't


No.  You fucking won't.  Not put up or shut the fuck up.

Prick.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> If "hissy fit" and "drama queen" are homophobia-motivated abuse, then he was abused.
> If, on the other had, they're everyday terms that, when applied to people *regardless* of their sexual preferences, mean "fit of temper" and "melodramatic twit" respectively, then he wasn't abused.


IF (and I'm NOT) I was arguing that the fucking terms were homophobic _per se_ then you would have a point.  But I'm NOT.  And I wouldn't seek to argue that they are.

I AM arguing that they are being used in a homophobically offensive way by one fucking poster, who knows exactly what he is fucking doing and, as a gay man himself, he should know fucking better.

Now how about thinking about the fucking issue and learning something instead of gobbing off about something your clearly do not understand, you ignorant cunt.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 19, 2010)




----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

sherpa said:


> You really are a strange little man.


Not as fucking strange as an idiot who claims that if he didn't see something during a massive, long-term and wide-ranging demonstration then it didn't happen anywhere in connection with the demonstration at any time. 

If you're fucking stupid enough to believe that then, to be honest, you're too fucking stupid to bother with ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> Hi Butch, you're funny, I have been the one stressing the totality previously.
> 
> Anyway what happened was - I post something positive together with a critique of fetishised behaviour, and the resulting negativity coming from the ultra left on U75 gets the contempt it deserves in reply from me, then you chip in for some unknown reason.
> 
> ...


 
Here we go again!


----------



## xes (Dec 19, 2010)

you are a drama queen though. (seriously, read that post from someone who's just joined the coversation, and only read this last page, you're banging on about the phrase drama queen, in the most dramatically queenly way possible. I picture you throwing your hands in the air, whilst typing it out)

you great big drama queen.

I'm allowed to say it, cos i'm also a big cock sucking homo  

oooooh the drama


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2010)

ymu said:


> .


 
What does he know? he's only a fucking doctor, you idiot!


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

revlon said:


> So to conclude: kettling as a police tactic is only justified in law under very specific circumstances. Those circusmtances weren't met during the kettling of the 3 previous student protests.


Well done for missing the basic premise of UK law that something is lawful unless it is specifically made unlawful.

Containment is NOT unlawful.

Containment has been acknowkledged by the Courts to be lawful in some circumstances.  They have NOT restricted it's use to any particular circumstances.


----------



## xes (Dec 19, 2010)

crushing people is unlawful, though.

(sorry, i would have thought, i'm sure it can be "justified" in copper land)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 19, 2010)

Detention without charge is also unlawful.

d-b would make a shit lawyer.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> What are you arguing about then?  That is pretty much the state of affairs as the law is now.
> Marches aren't banned just on the basis of some fucking rumour ... and the decision is subject to judicial review if anyone can be arsed taking proceedings ...


As usual with your festivals of eye-rolling, you  fail to assemble the pieces of the jigsaw. It's a hazard of your insistence on selectively editing posts and taking single lines out of context.

If you were as on-the-ball as you believe yourself to be, you'd have realised that the issues of substantiveness and the concerns about _agents provocateurs_ are part of the same theme. Instead, you're so obsessed with proving yourself right, that the point often sails right over your pointy little head.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

Rutita1 said:


> ....the pic could be deceiving on so many levels though..


No, no ... not at all.

The picture _always_ tells the whole story.  Always.

There's dozens of pricks here who post to that effect regularly so it must be true ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 19, 2010)

Fuck off, d-b.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

revlon said:


> If the cps were going to charge someone it would be for common assault - Nicking someone on the day the copper would have to explain how is actions were keeping the peace, notirously difficult, as burden is on the copper to justify the legal nature of his actions.
> Coppers maintaining a kettle cannot arrest people there and then. Therefore any kettling arrest would involve a post-offence arrest. That would involve the copper in the executon of his duty seeking out the indvidual that assaulted him and arresting him.


Absolute bollocks you fucking moron.  Officers in cordons will sometimes arrest people there and then if they do not desist in their assaults.  There are invariably officers behind the line able to arrest people trying to break through (or, even more obviously, who actually do break through).  And snatch squad tactics can be used to dive into crowds and arrest identified principal offenders.  And the offence would be assaulting a police officer in the execution of their duty.  Enforcing a cordon as part of an overall public order strategy would be _entirely_ within the remit of their fucking duty.

Please stop gobbing off about something you clearly do not understand.  It is embarassing for you.  And fucking tedious to keep correcting the bollocks you are chatting.   

Oh, and well done for quoting what is clearly part of the argument of the appellant (or, at best, part of the judges reciting the arguments) in the belief that it is the actual judgement of the fucking court setting out the law for the future.  Thick cunt.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

ymu said:


> It was the most disturbing thing I've ever seen – it must have been what Hillsborough was like.


Yeah ... course it was ... cos, er, loads died just like at, er, Hillsborough ...



> I was a doctor and that this was a serious health and safety risk


Oh well, if you're a doctor they should have immediately lifted the whole fucking containment ... 



> "The sides of the bridge were only waist high and all it would have taken is one stumble and someone could have gone over the side.


Waist high?  For a fucking nine foot tall person maybe ...  cos people (including drunks on New Years Eve) "stumble" and go over the fucking side all the fucking time ... 

Hysterical nonsense.

Quoted with approval by a prejudiced hysteric ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 19, 2010)

I've had enough of this. 

Fuck off this thread. 

In fact, I'm reporting you for this. It is not an acceptable way to engage with a thread.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

xes said:


> I'm allowed to say it, cos i'm also a big cock sucking homo


No.  You're allowed to say it because you haven't used it in a way which is intended to specifically offend me by reference to my being gay.  And I haven't politely asked you to stop doing so.  And you haven't ignored that.

The fact you are gay is irrelevant.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

xes said:


> crushing people is unlawful, though.
> 
> (sorry, i would have thought, i'm sure it can be "justified" in copper land)


If the crush was as bad as the doctor reports then it would not be something that I would expect to be upheld as lawful in Court.  But the footage which has previously b een shown does not show that to be the case (though obviously things may have differed in other parts of the containment).  Containment as a tactic must be fairly tight to be effective (otherwise people within it ramage around and gain momentum to attack and break through the lines containing them).


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Detention without charge is also unlawful.


No.  It isn't, you fucking idiot.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 19, 2010)

xes said:


> you are a drama queen though. (seriously, read that post from someone who's just joined the coversation, and only read this last page, you're banging on about the phrase drama queen, in the most dramatically queenly way possible. I picture you throwing your hands in the air, whilst typing it out)
> 
> you great big drama queen.
> 
> ...


no, no you're not. You've obviously not read the point in DB's post where he makes it clear that the poster calling him a drama queen is himself gay, and therefore is knowingly using it as a term of homophobic abuse.

so apparently as a gay person you using it is evidence of homophobic intent, and you therefore must also be a raging homophobic cock sucking homo.

the mans logic as always is impeccable, and I for one say that it is an outrage that the mods on this site haven't acted on his complaints by banning all homosexual posters using the term drama queen for being homophobic, while allowing straight posters to use the term drama queen as often as they like.


----------



## editor (Dec 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> fucking moron...Thick cunt.


There really is no need for this kind of personal abuse to make your point, and there's no excuse for the homophobic stuff that's been posted by others.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I've had enough of this.
> 
> Fuck off this thread.
> 
> In fact, I'm reporting you for this. It is not an acceptable way to engage with a thread.


What, actually explaining what the law _is_, you mean ... 

Anyway, you're the one posting abuse without any attempt to engage with the fucking issues ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 19, 2010)

I did not abuse you. I told you to fuck off because you were being completely out of order and ruining an important thread with your bile.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

editor said:


> There really is no need for this kind of personal abuse to make your point, and there's no excuse for the homophobic stuff that's been posted by others.


Fair enough.  You will notice that that was within the context of a substantive post though.

Unlike this:


littlebabyjesus said:


> Fuck off, d-b.


 
So I look forward to you isuing a similar warning to the grass ...


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 19, 2010)

Oh FFS - thread after thread descends into this shit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 19, 2010)

'Fuck off' is not abuse.

It is an instruction.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

free spirit said:


> the mans logic as always is impeccable


My logic is fine.

Your ignorance needs to be addressed.


----------



## editor (Dec 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Fair enough.  You will notice that that was within the context of a substantive post though.
> 
> Unlike this:
> 
> ...


Don't try and drag me into your pathetic squabbles.

I've asked* all *posters to stop the abusive personal stuff. 

You can either ignore that warning and carry on and get banned, or go back to *arguing the topic* instead of throwing around infantile potty mouthed abuse. It's really up to you now.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'Fuck off' is not abuse.
> 
> It is an instruction.


Fuck off then ...

(Note to editor:  this is NOT a challenge to your authority - it is simply testing the theory proposed by littlebabyjesus ... is this abuse (in which case I will not use it again and I will expect littlebabyjesus not to either) ir is it not (in which case I expect to be allowed to use it just as they are) ...)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> That's because you haven't explained what fucking happened accurately.  I would _guarantee_ that they _would_ consider it homophobically offensive if you actually bothered to tell them the truth: that (a) the phrase "drama queen" was used in a hostile manner by someone who knew me to be gay in the first instance;
> (b) my response was to politely explain that I found that use of the phrase by that person to be offensive and to please not do so again"; and (c) they, intead of desisting, repeatedly used the same phrase, in the same context and clearly deliberatly intending to aim at my sexual orientation and, when called again and again, resorted to using other ambiguous phrases such as "You're batty".


On the Two arrested for murder after hunt supporter's death thread, we have longdog (a notorious Urbanite homosexual) calling you "she", and being accused of making a "homophobically offensive" post (because, obviously, he's not remarking on your flair for melodrama, he's actually a homosexual homophobe) by you. I mention all this on the above thread, too, but you choose to believe that your interpretation is the only valid one. 


> Why don't you fucking try it instead of pontificating and belittling my experience as the victim of homophobically offensive abuse, allowed to go unchallenged by the fucking mods?


The mods let it go unchallenged, did they?
Want to post up a link to the thread substantiating your claim?
I ask, because I believe what you actually mean is that the mods didn't react in the way you wanted them to.
As for your victimhood, tough fucking luck. I've been a "victim" of anti-Semites all my life, including from a few halfwits on this board. I'm not crying about it. Rather than rant at them I use reasoned argument.


> As always, it's be fucking illuminating for you if you replaced all the sexual orientation references with race or colour references and then tried to argue that what is happening isn't racially offensive ...


Except that the two situations aren't analogous. You're gay. Your sexuality isn't manifest in your skin colour, the type of hair you have, or what your nose looks like. You only manifest your sexuality externally as you wish to. People of other "races" don't have that opportunity. Even some "white" people with distinctive ethnic characteristics don't.

So, you're not so much illuminated, as blind.



> No.  You fucking won't.  Not put up or shut the fuck up.
> 
> Prick.



Please don't order me around, there's a good Tourette's sufferer.

Or, as you'd put it.

Shut up, you pontificating fucking ignorant cunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2010)

editor said:


> Don't try and drag me into your pathetic squabbles.
> 
> I've asked* all *posters to stop the abusive personal stuff.
> 
> You can either ignore that warning and carry on and get banned, or go back to *arguing the topic* instead of throwing around infantile potty mouthed abuse. It's really up to you now.


 
My apologies for posting up my reply after you'd posted this warning. Didn't see it until I'd already posted.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yeah ... course it was ... cos, er, loads died just like at, er, Hillsborough ...
> 
> 
> Oh well, if you're a doctor they should have immediately lifted the whole fucking containment ...



have you actually seen the footage of the incident in question?

one line of police across one end of westminster bridge while another line of police sweep all the protestors across the bridge towards the other line, and keep pushing them inwards even when there is no space left for them to move into, at which point they send in the horses.

IMO the various videos of this incident combine to create a clear set of evidence that the police at this point failed in their duty of care towards the protesters within the kettle. The use of horses in particular could easily have been enough to have set off a stampede situation in which hundreds of people would have been at risk of serious injury or death.

areal footage of the bridge showing the police lines moving in on each other


footage from in front of one of the police lines as the protesters are forced in backwards into a crush situation despite protesting that there is nowhere for them to go, no room, asking where they want them to go etc. at which point the police horses are seen to force their way into the crowd with mild panic ensuing. (horses move in at around 5.20 on the clip)


Do you not agree that this is clear evidence of the police wrecklessly endangering the lives of protesters that they owed a duty of care to? If not, please justify your position.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Except that the two situations aren't analogous. You're gay. Your sexuality isn't manifest in your skin colour, the type of hair you have, or what your nose looks like. You only manifest your sexuality externally as you wish to.


So there is a hierarchy of hate is there?

So I have less rights to protection from hatred on the basis of my sexual orientation than you have to protection from hatred on the basis of your religion (you could, after all, choose to bother some other God anyway, couldn't you ...) or race ...

This is an _entirely_ discredited argument and those who deploy it are now generally considered homophobes.

So goodbye.  Do not expect to engage with me until you accept that you are wrong and you apologise.

Homophobe.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 19, 2010)

This thread isn't about you, copper.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

free spirit said:


> have you actually seen the footage of the incident in question?


Yes.  I have commented on it specifically.  The footage shows that the containment was tight but nowhere near as tight as suggested by the hysterical comments of the "Aberdeen doctor".  And the use of horses was controlled and the fact that the crowd were moved back in response demonstrates that there _was_ somewhere for them to move back to.  As I have said, containment as a tactic only works if it is pretty tight.



> Do you not agree that this is clear evidence of the police wrecklessly endangering the lives of protesters that they owed a duty of care to? If not, please justify your position.


No.  I have commented that the containment was for a longer period than I would have expected to be justifiable and that I personally consider it unwise to have it on a bridge over the Thames.  But no-one was hurt by the action and thus there is no _prima facie_ evidence that any duty of care has been breached, let alone "clear evidence" of that.

If anyone thinks it was they are entitled to take action in the Courts and, having heard _all_ the evidence (including _why_ the containment was used and what was believed may happen if it was not used) and not just the bits whcih happen to be in the public domain, they will decide if it was justified or not.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 19, 2010)

"I'm gay so how dare you bring my sexuality into it."


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This thread isn't about you, copper.


I'm not claiming it is.

Why are you so determined to make it so?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

stephj said:


> "I'm gay so how dare you bring my sexuality into it."


Thank you for your meaningless drivel ...


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 19, 2010)

And over the head it goes....


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 19, 2010)

stephj said:


> "I'm gay so how dare you bring my sexuality into it."


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I did not abuse you. I told you to fuck off because you were being completely out of order and ruining an important thread with your bile.


As opposed to ruining it by posting numerous content-free posts pursuing your own sad vendetta instead of engaging with the topic, you mean ...


----------



## revlon (Dec 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If anyone thinks it was they are entitled to take action in the Courts and, having heard _all_ the evidence (including _why_ the containment was used and what was believed may happen if it was not used) and not just the bits whcih happen to be in the public domain, they will decide if it was justified or not.


 
equally if and when a copper arrests someone for assault pc in execution of his duty while breaking out of a kettle we will get access to all the juicy top table operational orders and decisions about kettling in order to justify the pc belief he was acting in the execution of his duty. 

But of course this, i can guarentee, will never happen


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So there is a hierarchy of hate is there?


Where have I either stated or implied that?
I merely said that your analogy isn't sound because while your differentiator can be hidden, those of people with visible differentiators can't hide theirs.


> So I have less...


It's "fewer". 


> ...rights to protection from hatred on the basis of my sexual orientation than you have to protection from hatred on the basis of your religion (you could, after all, choose to bother some other God anyway, couldn't you ...) or race ...


Actually, Jewishness doesn't proceed from the practice of Judaism, and we're not a race, we're a culture.
Anyway, I haven't said you have fewer rights, as we both know. Even undertaking your usual practice of selective quotation, it's impossible to draw such an inference from my post.
In fact I challenge *any* poster on this thread to do so, and welcome any analyses.


> This is an _entirely_ discredited argument and those who deploy it are now generally considered homophobes.
> 
> So goodbye.  Do not expect to engage with me until you accept that you are wrong and you apologise.
> 
> Homophobe.


 
How thoroughly typical of your behaviour that you spout an accusation and run away. I'd post an eye-rolling smiley, but you're not worth one.


----------



## winjer (Dec 19, 2010)

revlon said:


> equally if and when a copper arrests someone for assault pc in execution of his duty while breaking out of a kettle we will get access to all the juicy top table operational orders and decisions about kettling in order to justify the pc belief he was acting in the execution of his duty.
> 
> But of course this, i can guarentee, will never happen


You can't, because it's complete bullshit. People have been arrested, tried and convicted for assault PC when breaking out of kettles. Please stop lying.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This thread isn't about you, copper.


 
He's not a copper, he's a former copper attempting to present an alternative view.
Unfortunately, it's generally a view riddled with apologia and excuses.

From a quasi-academc POV, it's going to be interesting to see, over the coming months, how the various narratives on the protests consolidate, and how many gaps are filled with post-event misinformation from both sides of the argument (one of the reasons I'm storing as much of the coverage as possible, as it is produced/has been produced).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2010)

stephj said:


> And over the head it goes....


 
Like a snooker ball over the heads of the student protesters....


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The picture _always_ tells the whole story.  Always.



But to be fair, you did say pages back (in response to me) that the Westminster Bridge kettle was wrong. So tbf it was unlawful if you thought it wrong?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2010)

revlon said:


> But of course this, i can guarentee, will never happen



What makes you believe this to be the case?


----------



## winjer (Dec 19, 2010)

free spirit said:


> footage from in front of one of the police lines as the protesters are forced in backwards into a crush situation despite protesting that there is nowhere for them to go, no room, asking where they want them to go etc. at which point the police horses are seen to force their way into the crowd with mild panic ensuing. (horses move in at around 5.20 on the clip)


This second video isn't from the bridge kettle, or even on Westminster Bridge, it's somewhere on Whitehall.

At the time it says it was shot Westminster Bridge was empty - I cycled across it at a quarter-to-six, the bridge kettle started around half-eight.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes.  I have commented on it specifically.  The footage shows that the containment was tight but nowhere near as tight as suggested by the hysterical comments of the "Aberdeen doctor".  And the use of horses was controlled and the fact that the crowd were moved back in response demonstrates that there _was_ somewhere for them to move back to.  As I have said, containment as a tactic only works if it is pretty tight.
> 
> 
> No.  I have commented that the containment was for a longer period than I would have expected to be justifiable and that I personally consider it unwise to have it on a bridge over the Thames.  But no-one was hurt by the action and thus there is no _prima facie_ evidence that any duty of care has been breached, let alone "clear evidence" of that.
> ...


nobody actually needs to have been injured to demonstrate that the duty of care was breached, otherwise companies would only be able to be prosecuted after someone had been injured rather than simply for operating in an unsafe manor. But then you're well aware of this.

In a tight over crowded situation such as this on a bridge, in the dark, where there the crowd is 100% contained on both sides with no clear space to move into, the use of horses clearly amounts to wrecklessly endangering the lives of the people inside the kettle who the police had a duty of care for at the time.

You're aware that the major danger in a situation such as this is from a stampede, particularly given that there are presumably raised pavements, central reservations and other hidden trip hazards, and that every effort should be made by those in control of the situation to avoid doing anything that may provoke such a stamped - ie not sending in horses.

this was a major incident waiting to happen, and it's been a major incident waiting to happen since mayday 2000 when I first witnessed this tactic, and got myself arrested rather than being forced into such an obviously dangerous situation.

The HSE and/or IPCC need to urgently investigate this before people actually do get killed.


----------



## dylans (Dec 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes.  I have commented on it specifically.  The footage shows that the containment was tight but nowhere near as tight as suggested by the hysterical comments of the "Aberdeen doctor".  And the use of horses was controlled and the fact that the crowd were moved back in response demonstrates that there _was_ somewhere for them to move back to.  As I have said, containment as a tactic only works if it is pretty tight.
> 
> 
> No.  I have commented that the containment was for a longer period than I would have expected to be justifiable and that I personally consider it unwise to have it on a bridge over the Thames.  But no-one was hurt by the action and thus there is no _prima facie_ evidence that any duty of care has been breached, let alone "clear evidence" of that.
> ...



This flippant "noone died so it was fine" bollocks really pisses me off. Several weeks ago I spent a terrified weekend waiting for news from my sons family in Cambodia after nearly 400 people were suffocated to death in a Bridge in Phnom Penh. In almost exactly the same circumstances as the police kettle. People on a Bridge being pushed from both sides  towards an increasingly packed centre by police at both ends of the bridge. 
400 people.
Ok, no one died in London thank goodness, but they could easily have and people in that kettle were distraught and terrified that they could If, in a future incident people do die, you will have to hang your head in shame for treating the potential dangers with such glib indifference. Hysterical indeed. 

(cue for db to start swearing at me)


----------



## free spirit (Dec 19, 2010)

winjer said:


> This second video isn't from the bridge kettle, or even on Westminster Bridge, it's somewhere on Whitehall.
> 
> At the time it says it was shot Westminster Bridge was empty - I cycled across it at a quarter-to-six, the bridge kettle started around half-eight.


I stand corrected.

It still doesn't look like a particularly safe situation, but it's obviously not so obvious how much of a problem it was, or how much justification there was for using the horses without the overhead footage / knowing what else was going on around it.


----------



## revlon (Dec 19, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> What makes you believe this to be the case?


 
execution of duty relies on the officer being legally entitled to behave the way he is doing - hitting people over the head with his baton, thrusting the side of his shield into the faces of children, holding people for over eight hours in a kettle. That individual officer must be able to justify his actions.

All this will have to be played out in court - specially as the legality of kettling is being openly questioned. So every case of a copper arresting someone for assault execution of  duty while breaking out of a kettle will be a criticism of the kettling process, with lots of intersting facts emerging about that the acpos would rather we didn't know. 

The whole operation will have to be exposed.


----------



## where to (Dec 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If anyone thinks it was they are entitled to take action in the Courts and, having heard _all_ the evidence (including _why_ the containment was used and what was believed may happen if it was not used) and not just the bits whcih happen to be in the public domain, they will decide if it was justified or not.


 
can i ask you to speculate as to why it would ever be necessary or gainful for the Police to hold 1000+ people in a tight space on a bridge for several hours at that time of night, in that sort of weather?

genuinely, what possible purpose can that have served?

i can't help but wonder if they weren't wishing someone would jump into the Thames and do themselves in. totally bizarre tactics.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2010)

revlon said:


> execution of duty relies on the officer being legally entitled to behave the way he is doing - hitting people over the head with his baton, thrusting the side of his shield into the faces of children, holding people for over eight hours in a kettle. That individual officer must be able to justify his actions.
> 
> All this will have to be played out in court - specially as the legality of kettling is being openly questioned. So every case of a copper arresting someone for assault execution of  duty while breaking out of a kettle will be a criticism of the kettling process, with lots of intersting facts emerging about that the acpos would rather we didn't know.
> 
> The whole operation will have to be exposed.


 
You're presupposing the case would get to court.

That's one of the things about our criminal justice *system* - one hand often washes the other.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 19, 2010)

Just out. Informative video by an independent journalist looking at police tactics and its effects on protesters on the day.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2010)

where to said:


> can i ask you to speculate as to why it would ever be necessary or gainful for the Police to hold 1000+ people in a tight space on a bridge for several hours at that time of night, in that sort of weather?


Perverse sexual gratification?


> genuinely, what possible purpose can that have served?


Perverse sexual gratification?


> i can't help but wonder if they weren't wishing someone would jump into the Thames and do themselves in. totally bizarre tactics.


Not if you'd get perverse sexual gratification from someone doing that.


----------



## dylans (Dec 19, 2010)

where to said:


> can i ask you to speculate as to why it would ever be necessary or gainful for the Police to hold 1000+ people in a tight space on a bridge for several hours at that time of night, in that sort of weather?
> 
> genuinely, what possible purpose can that have served?
> 
> i can't help but wonder if they weren't wishing someone would jump into the Thames and do themselves in. totally bizarre tactics.


 
The purpose is clear. Demoralisation. It is to ensure a significant number of demonstrators don't demonstrate again. For this reason it is fundamentally undemocratic.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 19, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Just out. Informative video by an independent journalist looking at police tactics and its effects on protesters on the day.




Good video.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

revlon said:


> But of course this, i can guarentee, will never happen


It happens all the bloody time, you moron.

I have actually attended court myself and explained why I directed officers to cordon a particular area, and the basis and purpose for my order, to establish that they were acting in the execution of their duty when assaulted by some prick (who had no doubt read shite such as that post and was gobbing off about "knowing his rights" ...).


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> So tbf it was unlawful if you thought it wrong?


No.  Despite all the infantile posts implying otherwise what I think is not law.  I thought it ill-advised and over long.  That is simply the opinion of one person.  Unlike the majority of posters on this thread I am not arrogant enough to make pronouncements on the lawfulness or otherwise of any particular thing.  

I think if it is challenged the police are likely to encounter difficulties.  Not about it's location as no-one fell in the Thames and the Courts will not be concerned over what might have been and do not see it as their role to direct the police as to how deploy officers in controlling public disorder or any other role.  But, if anything, about the length of time that it was maintained.  The Courts are likely to draw parallels with the general law of breach of the peace and it is now clear and fairly settled law that detention of an individual in order to prevent a breach of the peace must finish as soon as the opportunity for the breach of the peace has passed.  I think that the Courts will take some convincing that continued containment was necessary late into the night after everyone else had gone home ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

free spirit said:


> nobody actually needs to have been injured to demonstrate that the duty of care was breached, otherwise companies would only be able to be prosecuted after someone had been injured rather than simply for operating in an unsafe manor. But then you're well aware of this.


Insofar as the HSE are concerned, yes.  (And it is a matter for them whether they institute an investigation into any possible breach of H&S law).

Insofar as the Courts are concerned (other than in relation to a H&S prosecution), no.



> The HSE and/or IPCC need to urgently investigate this before people actually do get killed.


I have commented on the use of various tactics.  I do not consider the use of containment to be amongst the more dangerous.  It is _far_ more likely that a demonstrator will be killed by a baton strike to the head (it almost happened here), a blow to the head from a shield edge or by a high speed mounted police advance into a crowd (NOT as seen in the footage from last week, but as seen in footage from the middle one of the demonstrations which got no mainstream publicity).


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

dylans said:


> In almost exactly the same circumstances as the police kettle.


Situation 1:  No-one suffocates (or even comes close).  No-one dies from any cause.  No serious injuries of any sort are caused.
Situation 2:  400 people dies, many from suffocation.

Yeah mate.  Almost _exactly_ the same ... 

You really _don't_ help your argument by drawing hysterical and ridiculous parallels.  If I drew parallels between what we have seen this week and, say, the major inner city disorder of the 80s (mobs running amok, vehicles being attacked at random, premises being looted ...) you'd quite rightly say I was talking bollocks.  

Take a look at yourself ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

where to said:


> genuinely, what possible purpose can that have served?


Containment could only be justified if it were necessary to control a crowd which there are reasonable grounds to suspect was likely to cause significant violence or disorder.

The location would be largely irrelevant and driven by where the need arose and where the crowd were.  I suspect the bridge was used as it has two sides already contained (which makes the containment easier to activate and maintain operationally).

I have already commented that I see significant downsides of using a bridge and personally do not consider it was a wise thing to do unless there was no alternative.

I have also commented on how I think the police may have difficulty if challenged in the Courts, in justifying the length of the containment.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Just out. Informative video by an independent journalist looking at police tactics and its effects on protesters on the day.


* Starts watching "independent" report. *

* Gives up after a couple of minutes when the "independent journalist" discounts violent acts by protestors for the third or fourth time and continually describes the police tactics as "stupid". *

I am afraid his commentary provides absolutely no confidence that his editing of his footage will be at all balanced.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Situation 1:  No-one suffocates (or even comes close).  No-one dies from any cause.  No serious injuries of any sort are caused.
> Situation 2:  400 people dies, many from suffocation.
> 
> Yeah mate.  Almost _exactly_ the same ...
> ...



Would you agree that kettling, given an unlucky set of not-ever-so-unlikely circumstances, has the _potential_ to cause injuries or much, much worse to a bunch of people who cannot possibly ALL be troublemakers?


----------



## killer b (Dec 19, 2010)

You could have used the multiquote function. Although you'd be limited to 5 rolleyes, so perhaps not.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It happens all the bloody time, you moron.
> 
> I have actually attended court myself and explained why I directed officers to cordon a particular area, and the basis and purpose for my order, to establish that they were acting in the execution of their duty when assaulted by some prick (who had no doubt read shite such as that post and was gobbing off about "knowing his rights" ...).


 


detective-boy said:


> No.  Despite all the infantile posts implying otherwise what I think is not law.  I thought it ill-advised and over long.  That is simply the opinion of one person.  Unlike the majority of posters on this thread I am not arrogant enough to make pronouncements on the lawfulness or otherwise of any particular thing.
> 
> I think if it is challenged the police are likely to encounter difficulties.  Not about it's location as no-one fell in the Thames and the Courts will not be concerned over what might have been and do not see it as their role to direct the police as to how deploy officers in controlling public disorder or any other role.  But, if anything, about the length of time that it was maintained.  The Courts are likely to draw parallels with the general law of breach of the peace and it is now clear and fairly settled law that detention of an individual in order to prevent a breach of the peace must finish as soon as the opportunity for the breach of the peace has passed.  I think that the Courts will take some convincing that continued containment was necessary late into the night after everyone else had gone home ...


 


detective-boy said:


> Insofar as the HSE are concerned, yes.  (And it is a matter for them whether they institute an investigation into any possible breach of H&S law).
> 
> Insofar as the Courts are concerned (other than in relation to a H&S prosecution), no.
> 
> ...


 


detective-boy said:


> Situation 1:  No-one suffocates (or even comes close).  No-one dies from any cause.  No serious injuries of any sort are caused.
> Situation 2:  400 people dies, many from suffocation.
> 
> Yeah mate.  Almost _exactly_ the same ...
> ...


 


detective-boy said:


> Containment could only be justified if it were necessary to control a crowd which there are reasonable grounds to suspect was likely to cause significant violence or disorder.
> 
> The location would be largely irrelevant and driven by where the need arose and where the crowd were.  I suspect the bridge was used as it has two sides already contained (which makes the containment easier to activate and maintain operationally).
> 
> ...


 


detective-boy said:


> * Starts watching "independent" report. *
> 
> * Gives up after a couple of minutes when the "independent journalist" discounts violent acts by protestors for the third or fourth time and continually describes the police tactics as "stupid". *
> 
> I am afraid his commentary provides absolutely no confidence that his editing of his footage will be at all balanced.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Would you agree that kettling, given an unlucky set of not-ever-so-unlikely circumstances, has the _potential_ to cause injuries or much, much worse to a bunch of people who cannot possibly ALL be troublemakers?


Yes.

Would _you_ agree that dispersing a crowd intent on violence and damage has the _potential_ to cause injuries or much, much worse to members of the public, NONE of whom are troublemakers?

Or that allowing a crowd intent on violence and damage to go exactly where it likes has the _potential_  to cause injuries or much, much worse to members of the public, NONE of whom are troublemakers?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 19, 2010)

killer b said:


> You could have used the multiquote function. Although you'd be limited to 5 rolleyes, so perhaps not.


I could.

Where my responses are to a number of posts on the same subject I try to.

But where they are to different posters on different subjects I find it confuses, rather than clarifies, the issue.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 20, 2010)

hahahahahahaha


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 20, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes.
> 
> Would _you_ agree that dispersing a crowd intent on violence and damage has the _potential_ to cause injuries or much, much worse to members of the public, NONE of whom are troublemakers?
> 
> Or that allowing a crowd intent on violence and damage to go exactly where it likes has the _potential_  to cause injuries or much, much worse to members of the public, NONE of whom are troublemakers?



It's back to intent. Prove intent. You can't. Why shouldn't a crowd go where it likes? Arrest if there's a crime, sure. But trapping a load of people or stopping them going where they want _in case_...is bullshit.


----------



## dylans (Dec 20, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Situation 1:  No-one suffocates (or even comes close).  No-one dies from any cause.  No serious injuries of any sort are caused.
> Situation 2:  400 people dies, many from suffocation.
> 
> Yeah mate.  Almost _exactly_ the same ...
> ...



Would you agree that forcing up to a thousand people into an ever tightening containment on a bridge from both ends _and then releasing horses_ into that situation has the _potential _ to lead to tragedy? 

You take a look at yourself. You have managed to piss off almost everyone on here, including me (who has spoken out in your defence on more than one occasion) with your derogatory, abusive and dismissive posts. As I said before (and conveniently ignored by you) I have never, not once abused or insulted you. Quite the opposite. I have always treated you with respect. (not least because of your kind words in the past via pm) and tried to reply only to the content of  your posts.I at least expect to be treated with the same courtesy and respect in return. Perhaps if you cut out the almost deranged tendency to swear and insult everyone who disagrees with you then you wouldn't be treated with the amount of hostility and derision you are at the moment. Just a thought.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 20, 2010)

dylans said:


> Would you agree that forcing up to a thousand people into an ever tightening containment on a bridge from both ends _and then releasing horses_ into that situation has the _potential _ to lead to tragedy?
> 
> You take a look at yourself. You have managed to piss off almost everyone on here, including me (who has spoken out in your defence on more than one occasion) with your derogatory, abusive and dismissive posts. As I said before (and conveniently ignored by you) I have never, not once abused or insulted you. Quite the opposite. I have always treated you with respect. (not least because of your kind words in the past via pm) and tried to reply only to the content of  your posts.I at least expect to be treated with the same courtesy and respect in return. Perhaps if you cut out the almost deranged tendency to swear and insult everyone who disagrees with you then you wouldn't be treated with the amount of hostility and derision you are at the moment. Just a thought.


 
He thinks that the hostility and derision he encounters is entirely due to his having been an employee of HM Constabulary, and has hardly anything to do with his winning personality and friendly nature.


----------



## scifisam (Dec 20, 2010)

I would have thought that the Dusiberg Love Parade disaster would be ample recent precedent for not confining large numbers of people in a small area and only letting them trickle out. That wasn't kettling as a method for containing a protest, but it employed the exact same methods, and 21 people died.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Dec 20, 2010)

skyscraper101 said:


> Shippy?
> 
> http://inapcache.boston.com/univers...gpicture/londonprotest_12_10/l08_26264559.jpg


 
in a coat?


----------



## BigTom (Dec 20, 2010)

dylans said:


> Would you agree that forcing up to a thousand people into an ever tightening containment on a bridge from both ends _and then releasing horses_ into that situation has the _potential _ to lead to tragedy?



Just to be clear, Horses were not used on the Westminster Bridge Kettle.. FS got mixed up with videos earlier - horses were used on the whitehall push (which is where FS's second video is from) and around westminster abbey, on the other side of parl. sq.  but they were not used on the bridge.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 20, 2010)

I have to say, when you look at the report into the policing of the G20 protest, and it's recommendations, I can't really see any change in policing style at all.  How on earth are they going to manage the Olympics?



> A blueprint for wholesale reform of British policing to create a service "anchored in public consent" was unveiled today by the inquiry prompted by Scotland Yard's controversial handling of the G20 protests in London.
> 
> Denis O'Connor, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, used his report to demand wide-ranging reforms and a return to an ideal of policing based on "approachability, impartiality, accountability and … minimum force".
> 
> ...


----------



## revlon (Dec 20, 2010)

> Through the ranks, there was a failure to understand the law on policing protests.



fundamental


----------



## skyscraper101 (Dec 20, 2010)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> in a coat?


 
You don't _do_ coats?


----------



## 19sixtysix (Dec 20, 2010)

skyscraper101 said:


> You don't _do_ coats?


 
As far as I understand he doesn't do long trousers either.

And in this weather. Makes me feel chilled just thinking about it.


----------



## peterkro (Dec 20, 2010)

Doesn't do long sleeves either.


----------



## little_legs (Dec 20, 2010)

Oh well ... http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/702577 

This is the guy who was arrested last year for writing on the pavement with a chalk.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 20, 2010)

19sixtysix said:


> As far as I understand he doesn't do long trousers either.
> 
> And in this weather. Makes me feel chilled just thinking about it.


 
You shouldn't wear shorts in this weather, you'll get sunburnt.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 20, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> * Starts watching "independent" report. *



"Independent Journalist" = Some crusty arts student from Bristolw ith mobile phone who occasionally posts on Indymedia.


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 20, 2010)

Fuck off moon.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 20, 2010)

don't make him not write a leaflet!


----------



## 8ball (Dec 20, 2010)

moon23 said:


> "Independent Journalist" = Some crusty arts student from Bristolw ith mobile phone who occasionally posts on Indymedia.


 
Ignore the haters.  Remember, you've got a song.  
Jupiter hasn't got one.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> It's back to intent. Prove intent. You can't. Why shouldn't a crowd go where it likes? Arrest if there's a crime, sure. But trapping a load of people or stopping them going where they want _in case_...is bullshit.


You can't prove that containment has any potential to cause injury ... on the basis of your argument "It's back to intent.  Prove intent.  You can't.  Why shouldn't the police use containment?  Ban it is there's injury caused, sure.  But preventing the police using a tactic intended to prevent crime and disorder _in case_ injury is caused ... is bullshit?

Double standards anyone ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> Would you agree that forcing up to a thousand people into an ever tightening containment on a bridge from both ends _and then releasing horses_ into that situation has the _potential _ to lead to tragedy?


Try reading the thread.

I already have.

(Not that there is _any_ evidence that horses were "released" into the containment on the bridge ... that was a made up by some other ranter ... 



> You have managed to piss off almost everyone on here, including me (who has spoken out in your defence on more than one occasion) with your derogatory, abusive and dismissive posts.


If you actually engaged sensibly with the discussion, read what had already been posted and sought to understand what was _actually_ being said instead of making stuff up then I wouldn't need to be "derogatory, abusive and dismissive" would I?  I reserve the right to be "derogatory, abusive and dismissive" with fuckwits, liars and idiots.



> ...and insult everyone who disagrees with you.


As I have said a million times, it is _nothing_ to do with whether someone disagrees with me or not.  It is _always_ about lies and fuckwittedness - style not content.  Go back and read carefully and you will see ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

scifisam said:


> ... but it employed the exact same methods, and 21 people died.


Seeing as precisely, er, no-one died on Westminster Bridge (and no-one has died or been significantly injured as a result of _any_ use of the containment tactic) it patently obviously _wasn't_ "the exact same methods", was it?

(If you actually bothered to find out what the fuck you were talking about you would know that what happened there was that a large crowd heading in one direction and entering the site was suddenly stopped and turned round ... so crowds were heading in different directions in the confined tunnel).


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

BigTom said:


> Just to be clear, Horses were not used on the Westminster Bridge Kettle..


It's too late now ... as soon as it's posted on the internet everyone* (a) believes it and (b) believes that any denial is a "cover-up" ... 

(* well, all the fuckwits anyway ...)


----------



## TopCat (Dec 21, 2010)

Did you get this experience in excusing police actions including killing people on the job piggy?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> I have to say, when you look at the report into the policing of the G20 protest, and it's recommendations, I can't really see any change in policing style at all.  How on earth are they going to manage the Olympics?


They _did_ change.

The first protest was policed in a far more relaxed way ... and Millbank happened.

Partly that was due to police fuck-up.  Primarily it was due to some people within the crowd demonstrating that protestors today simply cannot be trusted to demonstrate peacefully.

Sadly (and largely because the target was the fucking Tory scum headquarters) the politicians and the media went large on slagging the police off for "losing control" and the country-bumpkin prick of a Commissioner came out to say that it was an "embarassment" and that "the game has changed" ... and so the pendulum swung instantly back to robust and interventionist G20 tactics.

I have been pushing the same line in the media stuff I have done as I have been posting here:  we (society) needs to grow up and decide what we want from protest.  If we want relative freedo to do so then we need to grow up and realise that that will involve some smashed windows, graffiti and other minor crime and disorder because there will _always_ be some protestors who go a bit daft and the police, if they are using hands-off tactics, will lose "control" from time to time.  If, on the other hand (and as the media and the politicians seem to think), we want protest but no smashed windows, graffiti, etc. and the police to remain in total contrtol at all times then we will have to expect them using the sort of preemptive containment and other tactics we have seen.

There are unavoidable dilemmas in the policing of protest - protestors have the right to do so ... but (and equally) those who disagree with them, or who have no particular view, have a right to go about their business unmolested.  The police have to strike a balance.  The debate about where that balance lies, and what is acceptable and not acceptable (in both directions) needs to be had in public, in the media.  It hasn't happened and the media have shown absolutely no interest in pursuing it.

In dealing with individual incidents (like Sgt Smellie; Ian Tomlinson; Jody McIntyre, Alfie Meadows, etc.) is dealing with the symptoms and will change _nothing_.  We need to deal with the _cause_.  The prevention of minor crime and disorder is simply not worth the death of a protestor.  The protection of the freedom to protest is simply not worth the death of a police officer or other perdson (such as someone in a randomly attacked and ransacked Waterstones or whatever).  Either (or both) of these things could happen at any stage ... and could have happened already but for fate.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Did you get this experience in excusing police actions including killing people on the job piggy?


* Waits for mods to come and tell TopCat to pack in the content-free abuse *

* Doesn't hold breath *

* Gets threatened with a ban by mods, for derailing threads by having the temerity to challenge trolling by members of The Collective ... *

(You heard it here first ...)


----------



## revlon (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You can't prove that containment has any potential to cause injury ... on the basis of your argument "It's back to intent.  Prove intent.  You can't.  Why shouldn't the police use containment?  Ban it is there's injury caused, sure.  But preventing the police using a tactic intended to prevent crime and disorder _in case_ injury is caused ... is bullshit?
> 
> Double standards anyone ...


 
ironically someone who has been arrested on suspicion of actually comitting a criminal offence has more rights than a protestor contained in the kettle for over 8 hours - toilet facilities, a degree of warmth and semblance of comfort, at least one hot meal, access to solicitors and a copy of pace to read [and depending which nick you're in, free from arbitrary and intermittent physical beatings].

Kettling is both a form collective punsihment and a deterrent.

In fact from personal experience the punishment ends when the arrest starts and the the legal process takes over.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

revlon said:


> Kettling is both a form collective punsihment and a deterrent.


If it is intended as either of those it would be illegal (assuming you mean a deterrent to lawful protest - it acting as a deterrent to _unlawful_ protest would be a lawful intent).

It is intended to be a preventative measure to prevent crime and disorder.  It is inevitable that a lawful containment will be perceived as a collective punishment and as a deterrent ... but if it is lawful the fact that it is perceived by people in that way will not automatically render it unlawful.  And _lots_ of other things could be argued to be perceived as "collective punishments" and "deterrents" too.

The Courts will decide whether or not they are satisfied that this particular one was (they have already accepted that containment is lawful in principle).  I have already commented that I think there will be some difficulty in persuading them that the length of this particular containment was justifiable.


----------



## xes (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> * Waits for mods to come and tell TopCat to pack in the content-free abuse *
> 
> * Doesn't hold breath *
> 
> ...


 






save the drama for yo' mamma


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

xes said:


> save the drama for yo' mamma


Merely an observation ...


----------



## rekil (Dec 21, 2010)

Garment workers strike in Bangladesh last week. 3 killed. 











Can't see any snooker balls here sadly. The search continues.


----------



## magneze (Dec 21, 2010)

Why do you bother d-b?


----------



## revlon (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If it is intended as either of those it would be illegal (assuming you mean a deterrent to lawful protest - it acting as a deterrent to _unlawful_ protest would be a lawful intent).
> 
> It is intended to be a preventative measure to prevent crime and disorder.  It is inevitable that a lawful containment will be perceived as a collective punishment and as a deterrent ... but if it is lawful the fact that it is perceived by people in that way will not automatically render it unlawful.  And _lots_ of other things could be argued to be perceived as "collective punishments" and "deterrents" too.
> 
> The Courts will decide whether or not they are satisfied that this particular one was (they have already accepted that containment is lawful in principle).  I have already commented that I think there will be some difficulty in persuading them that the length of this particular containment was justifiable.


 
and this is the problem. The demonstration was entirely lawful, it wasn't an unlawful protest. If people were committing criminal acts those individuals would be acting unlawfully, the protest would remain entirely lawful.

We know their are already provisions in place "to prevent serious public disorder, serious criminal damage or serious disruption to the life of the community", that the police can impose - this would be their legal duty rather than simply an operational one. 

There are legal sanctions in place, kettling is simply a police tactic.


----------



## xes (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Merely an observation ...


 
like your "observation" that containment has no potential for injury?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> * Waits for mods to come and tell TopCat to pack in the content-free abuse *
> 
> * Doesn't hold breath *
> 
> ...


 
Fuck off fat piggy...


----------



## editor (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> * Waits for mods to come and tell TopCat to pack in the content-free abuse *
> 
> * Doesn't hold breath *
> 
> ...


Here's what is so fucking annoying about you - you regularly trash threads by throwing around unwarranted and over the top personal abuse, and then when someone gives you some back, you peddle out the persecution complex and lose all sympathy from the mods. 

Seeing as you were too busy whining about how unfair the mods were to report this post, I've only just seen it.

I think I can speak for all of the mods when I say we're utterly fed up with your near-hysterical over-reaction to posts. You seem to take general points as a personal affront, and post up some quite incredibly patronising or insulting material in return.

The sad thing is that in amongst all the bile and the ranting, your sensible posts are often much appreciated by many posters, but you really have to learn to calm the fuck down because each time you start off, the downward spiral begins and I'm fed up seeing important threads trashed this way. 

Equally, the kind of childish abuse thrown about by others here is equally unacceptable ("piggy" is particularly pathetic) so you all have to collectively decide if you want to have a debate at all, or if you just want to throw around endless insults. If it's the latter, then I'm afraid you can expect bans to follow and NO ONE will be exempt from that.

There is a very important discussion to be had here. All of the contributors have interesting points to make but if all the insults, slurs and sweary stuff continues to pile on, there's no point for this thread to exist any more - and you've all played a part in fucking it up.

So it's up to you. If I come back and find the insults are still flying, or people are trying to engage me with smart arse points then I'm just going to hit the ban button because I REALLY can't be fucked with any more of this.

Last chance.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's too late now ... as soon as it's posted on the internet everyone* (a) believes it and (b) believes that any denial is a "cover-up" ...
> 
> (* well, all the fuckwits anyway ...)



Yeah, but if I say it people will believe me because they know I'm not an apologist for the police.



detective-boy said:


> I have been pushing the same line in the media stuff I have done as I have been posting here:  we (society) needs to grow up and decide what we want from protest.  If we want relative freedo to do so then we need to grow up and realise that that will involve some smashed windows, graffiti and other minor crime and disorder because there will _always_ be some protestors who go a bit daft and the police, if they are using hands-off tactics, will lose "control" from time to time.  If, on the other hand (and as the media and the politicians seem to think), we want protest but no smashed windows, graffiti, etc. and the police to remain in total contrtol at all times then we will have to expect them using the sort of preemptive containment and other tactics we have seen.



I actually agree with a lot of this, but what it fails to recognise is that pre-emptive containment actually leads to more violence/property damage as people are (potentially illegally) and definitely uncomfortably contained - and most of them are held for no reason other than the belief that they might have an intention to do something.. 
I don't have an answer to this, except that I think like you seem to that some broken windows are acceptable in the context of freedom to protest.  I'd be inclined towards police protecting high profile targets but otherwise acting reactively to trouble and letting demonstrators wander as they please as a compromise.  Obv. there are alot of high profile targets that make such a thing at least difficult for police.



> In dealing with individual incidents (like Sgt Smellie; Ian Tomlinson; Jody McIntyre, Alfie Meadows, etc.) is dealing with the symptoms and will change _nothing_.  We need to deal with the _cause_.  The prevention of minor crime and disorder is simply not worth the death of a protestor.  The protection of the freedom to protest is simply not worth the death of a police officer or other perdson *(such as someone in a randomly attacked and ransacked Waterstones or whatever)*.  Either (or both) of these things could happen at any stage ... and could have happened already but for fate.


 
Bit in bold - are you referring to some actual incident that has happened in the past or is this just hyperbolic nonsense?


----------



## dylans (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If you actually engaged sensibly with the discussion, read what had already been posted and sought to understand what was _actually_ being said instead of making stuff up then I wouldn't need to be "derogatory, abusive and dismissive" would I?  I reserve the right to be "derogatory, abusive and dismissive" with *fuckwits, liars and idiots.*
> .


 
Ok so in your opinion, I and almost every other poster who has engaged in a discussion with you is a "fuckwit, liar and an idiot." If you have such a low opinion of posters here it begs the question why you post here at all? I mean seriously, If I was a member of discussion board and I held its members in such contempt I think I would seriously consider leaving and finding a site where I had a better opinion of its members.

On a personal level. I am genuinely sorry you have such a low opinion of me, not least because I used to respect you. The pm conversation we had a while ago was very valuable and touching to me and you came across as a compassionate and decent person. I liked that guy.  Your posts on here could be from a different person. Oh well, seeing this is your opinion of me. I think it best that I no longer engage in discussion with you. Please do the same with my posts.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 21, 2010)

DB posts here in order to derail any reasonable examination of police tactics, police actions, and police brutality. That's his role and MO.


----------



## magneze (Dec 21, 2010)

TopCat said:


> DB posts here in order to derail any reasonable examination of police tactics, police actions, and police brutality. That's his role and MO.


Definitely, but why does he bother, that's what puzzles me.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 21, 2010)

magneze said:


> Definitely, but why does he bother, that's what puzzles me.


 
Is he paid to do so?


----------



## xes (Dec 21, 2010)

Is DB a paid police mole type thing? 

Don't be silly  

I agree with your post #3361, though.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 21, 2010)

The security services have a huge budget and spend a lot of money infiltrating groups and organisations in order to subvert them, divert them, and lead them up the garden path. I speculate that this in the modern age includes operatives who do the same on influential message boards and similar. Is DB one of them? I don't know. Does he follow an identical agenda. Yes he does.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2010)

TopCat said:


> The security services have a huge budget and spend a lot of money infiltrating groups and organisations in order to subvert them, divert them, and lead them up the garden path. I speculate that this in the modern age includes operatives who do the same on influential message boards and similar. Is DB one of them? I don't know. Does he follow an identical agenda. Yes he does.


 
Yep. I've often wondered whether he is paid to disrupt this place. A nice little side-earner.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Avoiding the difficult question again, I see ....
> 
> So just answer this yes or no.  If there are substantial grounds for believing that a protest will result in serious violence and disorder should the police be able to apply for it to be banned?
> 
> ...


you need to amplify that though, in the cuurent climate - what 'substantial grounds', sez who, based on what evidence, in what likely scenario etc etc. "take our word for it, sonny' simply won't do anymore.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2010)

magneze said:


> Definitely, but why does he bother, that's what puzzles me.


nevertheless, he's perfectly within his rights to use here to defend/justify police conduct, or to generally fight the police corner


----------



## editor (Dec 21, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. I've often wondered whether he is paid to disrupt this place. A nice little side-earner.


You have zero proof, so this is just another way to throw around more personal insults, so stop this *now* please.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2010)

And the mods are 'within their rights' to ban him for being a hysterical twat...


----------



## editor (Dec 21, 2010)

TopCat said:


> The security services have a huge budget and spend a lot of money infiltrating groups and organisations in order to subvert them, divert them, and lead them up the garden path. I speculate that this in the modern age includes operatives who do the same on influential message boards and similar. Is DB one of them? I don't know. Does he follow an identical agenda. Yes he does.


Or, conversely, you and others who don't like what he posts could just put him on ignore and then his supposed 'mission' would fail completely and the thread could continue without  a barrage of topic-diverting insults being thrown about.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2010)

editor said:


> You have zero proof, so this is just another way to throw around more personal insults, so stop this *now* please.


 
Ok I'll stop. But I don't think you or many other mods really properly understand the effect d-b has on this forum. He shuts down debates with his ranting and raving and _you_ allow him to get away with doing so again and again and again and again. About time it was sorted out, imo.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2010)

editor said:


> Or, conversely, you and others who don't like what he posts could just put him on ignore and then his supposed 'mission' would fail completely and the thread could continue without  a barrage of topic-diverting insults being thrown about.


 
Who starts the barrage? 

Who always starts it?

fuck's sake.


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 21, 2010)

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

©, claphammother 1970


----------



## xes (Dec 21, 2010)

TopCat said:


> The security services have a huge budget and spend a lot of money infiltrating groups and organisations in order to subvert them, divert them, and lead them up the garden path. I speculate that this in the modern age includes operatives who do the same on influential message boards and similar. Is DB one of them? I don't know. Does he follow an identical agenda. Yes he does.


 
I know that there probably are some paid mongs on here, who are here to disrupt discussions and such, but why have one on here as a copper? I'd have thought it more concievable, that someone who is paid to be here, to do what ever, would be done so from the perspective of "one of us" rather than "one of them". Someone to stir up debate, and get some info on people who might be a potential trouble maker. You're not going to get that from people telling a copper, ex or not, to "fuck off" alot. OK, you can get a quick glance at who might be anti establishment, but you're not going to get anything juicy out of it, becasue nobody will say anything juicy to a copper, ex or not. (well, anyone with any sense, that is) 

To wrap it up, I don't think DB is a paid disrupterizer. (new word, care of ME) He's just a copper/ex copper who has these views in real life. That's what copeprs/ex coppers do. Hate the people who go against what they believe/ the establishment. And go on to think we're all cunts/liars ect... And to an extent, he's a very useful poster, even I can see that. he's given some top notch advise to those who need it, and would probably still give that advise, eve n to those who've called him a cunt in the past. (which makes him bigger than some on here, but not by far, and that's a big a compliment as you're getting, coppah  ) 

I may dispise the fucker, and all he stands for, but he's still OK, sort of, when it comes to giving advise that may be useful to people in need of advice from someone with experience in law, and the legal proceedure. I don't think a paid dissinformant, would be that characture.


----------



## dylans (Dec 21, 2010)

editor said:


> Or, conversely, you and others who don't like what he posts could just put him on ignore and then his supposed 'mission' would fail completely and the thread could continue without  a barrage of topic-diverting insults being thrown about.


 
This. Really, this.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2010)

Nope. That is part of the misunderstanding of political debate. If a debate is turned and others are responding to points that need to be challenged, you need to be able to see who is making those points. You can't just put that person on ignore.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Dec 21, 2010)

BigTom said:


> Bit in bold - are you referring to some actual incident that has happened in the past or is this just hyperbolic nonsense?


That was probably the Waterstones at Trafalgar Square that was attacked (just after Tescos in same place) although neither was "ransacked" but both were attacked - with Waterstones it was one window that was attacked but didn't actually go through. A couple of very brave students at that one trying to defend (until TSG / Met arrived) it because it's a bookshop - plenty of shouts to that effect at the people trying to break in

(I think I mentioned it in an earlier post & it was at the previous protest)


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2010)

editor said:


> Or, conversely, you and others who don't like what he posts could just put him on ignore and then his supposed 'mission' would fail completely and the thread could continue without  a barrage of topic-diverting insults being thrown about.


 
his mission's a complete fail due to his inability to keep a civil tongue in his mouth and the great volume of guff which emanates from his keyboard


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2010)

8ball said:


> Ignore the haters.  Remember, you've got a song.
> Jupiter hasn't got one.


 
Jupiter doesn't need a mere song, when it's had symphonies written to it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2010)

magneze said:


> Why do you bother d-b?


 
Are you asking posters why they "bother" detective-boy, or are you asking detective-boy why he bothers?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 21, 2010)

editor said:


> Or, conversely, you and others who don't like what he posts could just put him on ignore and then his supposed 'mission' would fail completely and the thread could continue without  a barrage of topic-diverting insults being thrown about.


 
I don't agree. His justifications for police violence including the killing of Ian Tomlinson would still be there, be read and would have an effect even if I ignore him.  I confront his explanations, attitudes and insults because they need confronting. His continual insults towards posters here, followed by lickle kiddie whining when he gets it back (and running to the mods) just ups the ante. I understand your frustration. I doubt the situation will improve much though. The demonstrations are going to continue, the police violence will continue, things are getting more polarised not less.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2010)

TopCat said:


> The security services have a huge budget and spend a lot of money infiltrating groups and organisations in order to subvert them, divert them, and lead them up the garden path. I speculate that this in the modern age includes operatives who do the same on influential message boards and similar. Is DB one of them? I don't know. Does he follow an identical agenda. Yes he does.


 
Between your suggestion, and the possibility that he's merely someone who neurotically defends the police against slights, Occam's Razor shaves closer to the latter. 
Just the very idea of an MI5 desk officer with typewriter Tourettes seems way too unlikely!


----------



## xes (Dec 21, 2010)

Could be a double bluff


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2010)

xes said:


> Could be a double bluff


 
Good point!


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 21, 2010)

The main problem with d_b is that he turns all the threads he posts on into threads about d_b


----------



## TopCat (Dec 21, 2010)

I think we are too indulgent here. What police board would allow anarchists to post calling them all cunts?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 21, 2010)

TopCat said:


> I think we are too indulgent here. What police board would allow anarchists to post calling them all cunts?


 
Very good point


----------



## xes (Dec 21, 2010)

TopCat said:


> I think we are too indulgent here. What police board would allow anarchists to post calling them all cunts?


 
none, which is what makes urban 75, not indulgent in this, but more free in this. We're all adults here, if someone sends you an insult, send one back FFS. Man the fuck up, and stop bitching. Bitches  [/offtopic]


----------



## TopCat (Dec 21, 2010)

xes said:


> none, which is what makes urban 75, not indulgent in this, but more free in this. We're all adults here, if someone sends you an insult, send one back FFS. Man the fuck up, and stop bitching. Bitches  [/offtopic]


 
I don't have a problem with this attitude. Making this forum moderation free would be an option worth exploring. I feel for the mods (Crispy especially) trying to "restore order" when it gets heated here.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 21, 2010)

We should try. Anybody know any good police boards and a decent proxy thingy?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 21, 2010)

i'm banned from ukpolice online and I didn't even swear. Take up my torch.


----------



## xes (Dec 21, 2010)

TopCat said:


> I don't have a problem with this attitude. Making this forum moderation free would be an option worth exploring. I feel for the mods (Crispy especially) trying to "restore order" when it gets heated here.


 
I couldn't agree more, and on the forum I mod on, I use the approach of "if it ain't legally threatening, then let them fight it out" I know this is a much larger board, with far more complaints on, so it's not really the same thing. but it's still how I'd go about thing. (I'm a soft cunt though, don;'t like to be thought of as some kind of authoritive figure, cos I ain't)


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

magneze said:


> Why do you bother d-b?


I genuinely want a sensible discussion about policing issues.  To some extent I am a consultant and commentator on policing services and issues and there is a debate to be had.  It is pointless talking to people who agree with the police perspective and I don't know many active protestors in real-life (though I know a few).  It is _so_ frustrating here in that you occasionally get a little flash of a sensible discussion and debate and then the fuckwit trolls coming flaming in and it is extinguished ...


----------



## dylans (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I genuinely want a sensible discussion about policing issues.


 
Then stop swearing at everyone.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I genuinely want a sensible discussion about policing issues.  To some extent I am a consultant and commentator on policing services and issues and there is a debate to be had.  It is pointless talking to people who agree with the police perspective and I don't know many active protestors in real-life (though I know a few).  It is _so_ frustrating here in that you occasionally get a little flash of a sensible discussion and debate and then the fuckwit trolls coming flaming in and it is extinguished ...


 
If that's what you really want, then learn to deal with it when people disagree with you.  Learn to cope with being criticised and learn to admit when you're wrong about something.


----------



## xes (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I genuinely want a sensible discussion about policing issues.  To some extent I am a consultant and commentator on policing services and issues and there is a debate to be had.  It is pointless talking to people who agree with the police perspective and I don't know many active protestors in real-life (though I know a few).  It is _so_ frustrating here in that you occasionally get a little flash of a sensible discussion and debate and then the fuckwit trolls coming flaming in and it is extinguished ...


 
you have to admit that you have some responsibility in the way this pans out though. Much of the time, you're not speaking from you. You speak from a handbook of what the police would want you to say. And that can be infuriating. As no common sense is applied to that handbook. You have more than a flash of reasoned debate in you, yet you let the likes of me (and I;ll admit that I've been more than a little "untoward" towards you on more than 1 occasion) But you do bring it on yourself, dish out abuse, then go crying to teacher when you get it back. It doesn't look good. And doesn't help the discussion. Even if that discussion gets heated. It's still worthy of debate.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

revlon said:


> and this is the problem. The demonstration was entirely lawful, it wasn't an unlawful protest. If people were committing criminal acts those individuals would be acting unlawfully, the protest would remain entirely lawful.


A lot of the problem last week stemmed from the fact that whilst the march was allowed to go through Parliament Square on it's south-east (?) corner by the bridge, it was not approved to go into Parliament Square proper and certainly not to become a static demonstration there ... hence the protest became unlawful when large numbers decided to do exactly that.

In any event, I don't think anyone (and certainly not me) would argue that in an ideal world anyone but the protestors acting unlawfully should be dealt with for that ... but there are some obvious practical issues in dealing with a few protestors intent on serious disorder who have decided to "hide" amongst a mass of protestors who are not.  As they do not wear badges, and as the mass of lawful protestors do not (for the most part, though it does happen occasionally) seem willing to give them up in their own interests so that they can continue their lawful protest, it is simply impracticable for the police to _only_ deal with the specific individuals causing trouble.

There are tactics available (such as the use of snatch squads) which can improve that ... but the deployment of snatch squads tends to be misunderstood by the majority of the crowd and they tend to be resisted ... and hence it becomes an aggressive tactic that leads to force being used on those trying to prevent them reaching thier principal targets.

Would you prefer to see tactics such as snatch squads used?


----------



## xes (Dec 21, 2010)

why do we need approval to protest a certain route? That's properly messed up. In a democratic country (such as this is SUPPOSED to be)


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

xes said:


> like your "observation" that containment has no potential for injury?



No.  Like my quite specific "observation" that containment DOES have the potential for causing injury:



detective-boy said:


> Yes.



This is CLEAR evidence of your outright lying about what I have posted.

Apologise now.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 21, 2010)

How is it unlawful to occupy a public area?

Clue: It isn't.


----------



## xes (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You can't prove that containment has any potential to cause injury ...


 

No, you appologise. NOW  (and other emotive faces which convey my anger, ect) And one to convey my utter couldn't give a fuckedness at your stupid fucking "appologise now" bullshit demands.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

editor said:


> Here's what is so fucking annoying about you -


SO fucking predictable.

SO fucking pathetic.

* Gives up *


----------



## TopCat (Dec 21, 2010)

<waves bye bye>


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 21, 2010)

Lol.


----------



## winjer (Dec 21, 2010)

TopCat said:


> I think we are too indulgent here. What police board would allow anarchists to post calling them all cunts?


I got banned from Police Oracle just for correcting some cops on public order law, literally quoting from the statute, not even my own opinion.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 21, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> How is it unlawful to occupy a public area?
> 
> Clue: It isn't.



unlawful gatherings are illegal under the 1986 public order act iirc


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 21, 2010)

xes said:


> why do we need approval to protest a certain route? That's properly messed up. In a democratic country (such as this is SUPPOSED to be)



Because with every right comes conditions attached, the extreme example being the freedom of speech doesn't extend to shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.



Proper Tidy said:


> How is it unlawful to occupy a public area?
> 
> Clue: It isn't.



It is, in the designated area around Parliament, as per the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, 2005.


----------



## xes (Dec 21, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Because with every right comes conditions attached, the extreme example being the freedom of speech doesn't extend to shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.
> 
> 
> 
> It is, in the designated area around Parliament, as per the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, 2005.


 Whose streets? OUR STREETS!


----------



## winjer (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> A lot of the problem last week stemmed from the fact that whilst the march was allowed to go through Parliament Square on it's south-east (?) corner by the bridge, it was not approved to go into Parliament Square proper and certainly not to become a static demonstration there ... hence the protest became unlawful when large numbers decided to do exactly that.


A march doesn't become unlawful simply because it deviates from the police-mandated route, it is only an offence to organise such a march, not to participate in one. The static demonstration would be illegal if it could be proven they intended to remain static, which doesn't appear to be the case on published evidence.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2010)

There will always be a certain tension between the law and what it is right to do. Some of us are less concerned with the law than doing what is right. It's a nuance that is always lost on certain posters here.


----------



## winjer (Dec 21, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> unlawful gatherings are illegal under the 1984 public order act iirc


No, under the POA 1986, marches have to be notified to police, static demonstrations don't, except around Parliament.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I genuinely want a sensible discussion about policing issues.


 


Blagsta said:


> If that's what you really want, then learn to deal with it when people disagree with you.  Learn to cope with being criticised and learn to admit when you're wrong about something.


 


detective-boy said:


> SO fucking predictable.
> 
> SO fucking pathetic.
> 
> * Gives up *


 


You're a parody of yourself DB, grow up ffs.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I genuinely want a sensible discussion about policing issues.  To some extent I am a consultant and commentator on policing services and issues and there is a debate to be had.  It is pointless talking to people who agree with the police perspective and I don't know many active protestors in real-life (though I know a few).  It is _so_ frustrating here in that you occasionally get a little flash of a sensible discussion and debate and then the fuckwit trolls coming flaming in and it is extinguished ...


 
Keep it up, you have some great posts that annihilate some of the stupidity put out on these boards.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 21, 2010)

Before DB flounced he again made mention of snatch squads asking "do we want them as a response" or some such? Well I remember their use well and there is little to fear. If enough people are present then the snatch squad gets cut off and beaten. It most noticeably happened during the anti apartheid demonstration in 1985/6 (?) that was in Trafalgar Square. They had to sent snatch squads in to rescue the snatch squad that got captured and kicked. What the police and their masters the politicians have got to realise is that there are many of us, we won't give in and if they up the ante, so will we. Police want to use baton rounds? Then consider what the response will be. CS gas, again, its use will not be unopposed. This ain't Greece, this population is huge compared.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 21, 2010)

winjer said:


> No, under the POA 1986, marches have to be notified to police, static demonstrations don't, except around Parliament.


 
wasn't there a poa which made gatherings of people illegal?


----------



## scifisam (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Seeing as precisely, er, no-one died on Westminster Bridge (and no-one has died or been significantly injured as a result of _any_ use of the containment tactic) it patently obviously _wasn't_ "the exact same methods", was it?
> 
> (If you actually bothered to find out what the fuck you were talking about you would know that what happened there was that a large crowd heading in one direction and entering the site was suddenly stopped and turned round ... so crowds were heading in different directions in the confined tunnel).


 
I know no-one died in these protests. It was the same methods at Duisberg - people in a confined space only been let out in trickles. That was the reason that some people in the tunnel turned around (but it wasn't only people in the tunnel who died). Perhaps you're the one who needs to read up.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

BigTom said:


> Yeah, but if I say it people will believe me because they know I'm not an apologist for the police.


Don't hold your breath ... 



> I actually agree with a lot of this, but what it fails to recognise is that pre-emptive containment actually leads to more violence/property damage as people are (potentially illegally) and definitely uncomfortably contained - and most of them are held for no reason other than the belief that they might have an intention to do something.


Which is why _how_ containment is used (especially the length of time it is used for) needs to be carefully addressed by the police.  They need to (a) try and only contain those who are anticipated to be likely to cause trouble; (b) have a process in place whereby realistic filtering out of people who are clearly not is possible (from almost the outset), (c) ensure that the conditions of the containment are constantly reviewed, so that if things become dangerous / too uncomfortable they are addressed and (d) keep the containment only for as short a time as possible.

Having spoken to a couple of people during the day today (one police and two students who were there (one contained, one outside the containment) it appears that the police _may_ have held the containment on Westminster Bridge for as long as they did whilst they arranged for footage of some of the more serious incidents to be made available so that those involved could be identified and arrested as they were filtered out.  I think this could be justified in the case of serious crime (murder / GBH / arson or whatever) ... but I am not aware of anything that happened that would justify it on this occasion.  _If_ that is the reason it was held for so long it will be an interesting test case to see what the Courts make of that. 



> Obv. there are alot of high profile targets that make such a thing at least difficult for police.


To be honest they make it impossible.  Experience is that there are so many potential targets (and so little in the way of organised targetting) that it is impractical.  If the police had reasonable grounds to suspect that a group was intent on violence it would also open them to attack for failing to do all that they reasonably could to protect the victims of the attacks they allowed to happen.  Again we come back to the balance of rights - things are nowhere near as clear cut when you consider others apart from the demonstrators and their right to protest (and the law firmly obliges the police to consider others too).



> Bit in bold - are you referring to some actual incident that has happened in the past or is this just hyperbolic nonsense?


There were random attacks on various places.  There were interviews on the TV and in the papers with members of staff who were terrified for their personal safety.  If an unruly mob attacks a premises it is not at all beyond the realms of possibility that one or more individuals will attack the staff, especially if they try and defend the premises instead of running away (which they would be well-advised to do).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Before DB flounced he again made mention of snatch squads asking "do we want them as a response" or some such? Well I remember their use well and there is little to fear. If enough people are present then the snatch squad gets cut off and beaten.


Yep. They might have worked well at oppositional events like fas/ant-fash confrontations, or footie rucks, but not quite so well otherwise.


> It most noticeably happened during the anti apartheid demonstration in 1985/6 (?) that was in Trafalgar Square. They had to sent snatch squads in to rescue the snatch squad that got captured and kicked.


Whereupon they got a leathering too. In fact snatch squads are a fucking good way for uniting crowds of protesters who mught not otherwise agree on anything but the basics of what they're protesting about. 


> What the police and their masters the politicians have got to realise is that there are many of us, we won't give in and if they up the ante, so will we. Police want to use baton rounds? Then consider what the response will be. CS gas, again, its use will not be unopposed. This ain't Greece, this population is huge compared.


I'm sure they *are* bearing that all in mind. However, what we need to consider is what we reckon the tipping point will be between they holding such methods in reserve and their use of them, and being prepared and resolute when they do.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

TopCat said:


> DB posts here in order to derail any reasonable examination of police tactics, police actions, and police brutality. That's his role and MO.


There is no "reasonable examination of police tactics, police actions and police brutality" in the absence of me and a handful of others (most of whom have long since given up posting anything which challenges the ACAB monothought clique).  To suggest otherwise is simply laughable. 

There is simply a highly prejudiced, anti-police rant.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> wasn't there a poa which made gatherings of people illegal?


 
IIRC CJA '94 made gatherings over a certain size subject to action, although (also IIRC) it was mainly aimed at raves that had music with (rolleyes: "repetitive beats".


----------



## TopCat (Dec 21, 2010)

What's the worst they can do? Kill me? They can only kill me once.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> There is no "reasonable examination of police tactics, police actions and police brutality" in the absence of me and a handful of others (most of whom have long since given up posting anything which challenges the ACAB monothought clique).  To suggest otherwise is simply laughable.
> 
> There is simply a highly prejudiced, anti-police rant.


 
Back again eh?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Before DB flounced he again...



He hasn't "flounced again".


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> you need to amplify that though, in the cuurent climate - what 'substantial grounds', sez who, based on what evidence, in what likely scenario etc etc. "take our word for it, sonny' simply won't do anymore.


"Take our word for it" isn't sufficient and never has been sufficient.  If a protest is to be banned then the police must supply the evidence on which they make the request.  And the decision is subject to judicial review if the protest organisers wish to challenge a decision to restrict or ban it.

You are arguing against something that simply isn't the case.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> SO fucking predictable.
> 
> SO fucking pathetic.
> 
> * Gives up *


 

I thought he had. Oh well.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2010)

TopCat said:


> What's the worst they can do? Kill me? They can only kill me once.


 
Quite.
I always used to go on anti-fascists demos with the attitude of "what's the worst that can happen?", because once you accept that, you've no longer got anything to fear. Always best not to waste worry on what you can't control.

BTW, I see himself is ranting about "monothought cliques", no wonder moon23 slavishly agrees with a lot of what d-b says: They're birds (most likely cuckoos) of a feather.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> There were random attacks on various places.  There were interviews on the TV and in the papers with members of staff who were terrified for their personal safety.  If an unruly mob attacks a premises it is not at all beyond the realms of possibility that one or more individuals will attack the staff, especially if they try and defend the premises instead of running away (which they would be well-advised to do).


 
That Tesco at Trafalgar square had nowhere for the staff to run to - it'd been open all day through the protest and when 50 or so people started running at it with the front runners trying to break the windows. I couldn't get good shots from right at the front due to the crush of bodies and the fact that TSG lined up across the front to defend it with shields and batons after that calmed down was when people decided to have a go at Waterstones just over the square 

That was the November 30th protest I'm talking about. I didn't go to the most recent


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> If that's what you really want, then learn to deal with it when people disagree with you.


I'm quite happy to deal with people who disagree with me.  

It's the people who make up what I have said, who misrepresent what I have said, who can't be bothered reading what I have said before wading in and the trolls who obsessively follow me from thread to thread posting nothing but abuse who I _can't_ deal with.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 21, 2010)

some self awareness would be good too


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'm quite happy to deal with people who disagree with me.
> 
> It's the people who make up what I have said, who misrepresent what I have said, who can't be bothered reading what I have said before wading in...


 
Would that be like that time when you jumped on me on a thread about Notting Hill Carnival policing, and without even asking for clarification on what I had said (or not as it actually was), you went straight in shouting abuse and misrepresenting me?


----------



## xes (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> This is CLEAR evidence of your outright lying about what I have posted.
> 
> Apologise now.


 


> You can't prove that containment has any potential to cause injury ...



Still waiting for your appology...LIAR.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

xes said:


> you have to admit that you have some responsibility in the way this pans out though. Much of the time, you're not speaking from you. You speak from a handbook of what the police would want you to say.


I do not suffer fools gladly, no.  I show my frustration easily, yes.  But watch how things happen and I will _guarantee_ you will not find me wading into someone with abuse without them having started things.  I will _guarantee_ that (with very few exceptions) I do not base my responses on any history with that poster (not least because I can never be bothered to remember who I have had a spat with for the most part - there are _far_ more important things to worry about in life).

As for speaking from any "handbook" ... surprisingly after 150 years of doing it, the police and the law applicable to policing is pretty extensive.  Most things are done in particular ways for particular reasons and whilst there is constant need for changes around the edges (e.g. modern communication methods like Twitter mean that once again it is probably the case that (well-organised) protestors can get more people to a particular point more quickly than the police ... something that was one of the reasons why things got out of hand in the 80s and which, with the introduction of the very mobile and constantly available Police Support Unit, has not been the case since) the fundamental principles are extremely well-established and simply will not be subject to any major review by the Courts.

I have no immoveable attachment to those principles ... but if you are arguing against them you need to be able to engage with a _very_ well-supported rationale for doing so.



> then go crying to teacher when you get it back.


I don't go "crying to teacher" just for random abuse.  I have _never_ complained of others doing _anything_ that I have done myself.  Go back and read editors post earlier - I even get a bollocking for NOT reporting the trolling posts ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

winjer said:


> The static demonstration would be illegal if it could be proven they intended to remain static, which doesn't appear to be the case on published evidence.


I agree it doesn't appear that it intended to remain static ... on the basis of the information in the public domain it appears their intent was to break into Parliament and ... well, I'm not sure they know what they wanted to do when then got into Parliament but I suspect it would have ended in the same way as Millbank with most people just milling about not knowing what to do and others committing acts of damage and violence of varying degrees on any one and any thing which they encountered or which got in their way ...


----------



## ymu (Dec 21, 2010)

Deluded.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There will always be a certain tension between the law and what it is right to do. Some of us are less concerned with the law than doing what is right. It's a nuance that is always lost on certain posters here.


If you think that it is right to break the law then, as many posters other than me have pointed out, don't whinge when the police try to stop you (as that is their job and, in fact, they have a _duty_ to do so and would be committing a criminal offence themselves if they did not do all that is reasonably possible to do so).

What is _really_ pathetic is that you demand the right to break the law because it is "right" ... AND demand the right not to be stopped by the police from doing so ...

You cannot have your cake and eat it.  If you really think that it is necessary to break the law in the pursuit of some right, grow some balls and stand up and be counted for taking the action you did and the consequences which follow.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

scifisam said:


> It was the same methods at Duisberg - people in a confined space only been let out in trickles.


No, it wasn't.  It was the management of access to a site.  It was NOT a containment in _any_ way.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

TopCat said:


> If enough people are present then the snatch squad gets cut off and beaten.


In that case stop bleating about why the police contain the entire crowd instead of just the troublemakers.

If you are unwilling to allow them to deal with those intent on causing trouble then they will have no alternative but to deal with the entitre crowd containing them.  The only other alternative (doing nothing) is simply not possible.


----------



## dylans (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I will _guarantee_ you will not find me wading into someone with abuse without them having started things.



bullshit.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

GoneCoastal said:


> That Tesco at Trafalgar square had nowhere for the staff to run to -


Now you mention Tesco, it was their staff I remember seeing interviewed.  They were _plainly_ terrified (despite the platuitudes spoken by the apologists for criminal thugs on here that there is no reason for anyone inside premises being attacked to be the _slightest_ bit concerned for their own safety ...)


----------



## TopCat (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> In that case stop bleating about why the police contain the entire crowd instead of just the troublemakers.
> 
> If you are unwilling to allow them to deal with those intent on causing trouble then they will have no alternative but to deal with the entitre crowd containing them.  The only other alternative (doing nothing) is simply not possible.


 
Well you may well face the whole crowd turning on the police and expressing a massive amount of rage.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

xes said:


> Still waiting for your appology...LIAR.


Still lying, eh?

I notice that you don't actually link to the quote you take the out of context line "You can't prove that containment has any potential to cause injury" from ... no doubt because you know perfectly well that taken _in context_ it was not actually saying that at all - it was being used in a rhetorical way to demonstrate the threadbare nature of the position of another poster whose words I mirrored ... Look, it's here for anyone who is interested...



detective-boy said:


> You can't prove that containment has any potential to cause injury ... on the basis of your argument "It's back to intent.  Prove intent.  You can't.  Why shouldn't the police use containment?  Ban it is there's injury caused, sure.  But preventing the police using a tactic intended to prevent crime and disorder _in case_ injury is caused ... is bullshit?
> 
> Double standards anyone ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

ymu said:


> Deluded.


Thank you for your thoughful contributions to the substantive debate ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> bullshit.


Prove it.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Well you may well face the whole crowd turning on the police and expressing a massive amount of rage.


That is something that the _crowd_ should (and would) be criticised for.

What do you suggest that the police do?


----------



## dylans (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Prove it.


 
Show me one post where I have EVER used abuse aimed at you. One. Your abusive attacks on me where COMPLETELY unprovoked and unilateral. 

(In fact I would quite like an apology but I won't hold my breath)


----------



## discokermit (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> What do you suggest that the police do?


fuck off.


----------



## sherpa (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I do not suffer fools gladly, no.  I show my frustration easily, yes.  But watch how things happen and I will _guarantee_ you will not find me wading into someone with abuse without them having started things.



You have called me all sorts of names, most recently "thick cunt" - please refer me to the posts where I have delivered a similar level of abuse in your direction. 

I'm patient.


----------



## dylans (Dec 21, 2010)

sherpa said:


> You have called me all sorts of names, most recently "thick cunt" - please refer me to the posts where I have delivered a similar level of abuse in your direction.
> 
> I'm patient.


 
Join the queue.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> That is something that the _crowd_ should (and would) be criticised for.
> 
> What do you suggest that the police do?


 
Take their beating like a man.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> Your abusive attacks on me where COMPLETELY unprovoked and unilateral.


Which ones?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

discokermit said:


> fuck off.


Thank you for your well thought through alternative approach to the policing of dissent.  I will make sure that it is passed on to HMIC for consideration ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

sherpa said:


> You have called me all sorts of names, most recently "thick cunt" -


Where?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Where?


 
Do a search for your username and 'cunt'. Take your time.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Take their beating like a man.


So you support the crowd attacking the police ... and certainly them using excessive and specific violence to counter the minimal force but you do not expect the police to resist that use of force in their own defence, the defence of others or in the prevention of crime.

Please justify your position.  Or admit that you actually don't have one that would stand scrutiny by a three-year old ...


----------



## dylans (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Which ones?


 


> If you actually engaged sensibly with the discussion, read what had already been posted and sought to understand what was actually being said instead of making stuff up then I wouldn't need to be "derogatory, abusive and dismissive" would I? *I reserve the right to be "derogatory, abusive and dismissive" with fuckwits, liars and idiots*.


.
Now please explain where I have ever "started it" in order to deserve being called a fuckwit, a liar and an idiot.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> .


That's a statement of my position.

It is not the example of my abusing you that you take issue with.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Where?


 



			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> I'm talking about posters on a fucking bulletin board, none of whom are fucking police.
> 
> You thick cunt.


 
There


----------



## dylans (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> That's a statement of my position.
> 
> It is not the example of my abusing you that you take issue with.


 
Bullshit. The post is aimed at me. It starts "if *YOU *HAD ENGAGED SENSIBLY i WOULDN'T NEED TO BE DEROGATORY ABUSIVE AND DISMISSIVE".

So presumably you felt that I hadn't engaged "sensibly " and was therefore a legitimate target for your scattergun abuse.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If you think that it is right to break the law then, as many posters other than me have pointed out, don't whinge when the police try to stop you (as that is their job and, in fact, they have a _duty_ to do so and would be committing a criminal offence themselves if they did not do all that is reasonably possible to do so).
> 
> What is _really_ pathetic is that you demand the right to break the law because it is "right" ... AND demand the right not to be stopped by the police from doing so ...
> 
> You cannot have your cake and eat it.  If you really think that it is necessary to break the law in the pursuit of some right, grow some balls and stand up and be counted for taking the action you did and the consequences which follow.


 
See. You don't have the first clue what I am getting at, do you. In your head 'lawful' is synonymous with 'right'. You simply cannot countenance any complication of such a system. I do not 'demand the right' to break the law. Doesn't make the coppers who enforce shit laws any less culpable for their actions, though. Fuck you and anyone else who commits immoral acts in the name of 'duty'. Moral cowards the lot of you.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

Crispy said:


> There


I guaranteed that "... you will not find me wading into someone with abuse without them having started things".

In that case the response was brought about by the claim that I was "the police" and thus different rules applied to me.

In retrospect it was too strong and I apologise.  (I really _am_ trying to avoid using the c*** word ...)


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

dylans said:


> Bullshit. The post is aimed at me. It starts "if *YOU *HAD ENGAGED SENSIBLY i WOULDN'T NEED TO BE DEROGATORY ABUSIVE AND DISMISSIVE".
> 
> So presumably you felt that I hadn't engaged "sensibly " and was therefore a legitimate target for your scattergun abuse.


It was not intended to be addressed to you personally but was a general comment about posters generally.  

I apologise if my wording misled you.


----------



## dylans (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It was not intended to be addressed to you personally but was a general comment about posters generally.
> 
> I apologise if my wording misled you.


 
Thank you


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> See. You don't have the first clue what I am getting at, do you.


I don't.  

Of course I understand the difference between something being "right" and something being "lawful".  And I acknowledge that sometimes it is necessary to break the "law" in the pursuit of a greater "right" (and I have argued that, as a society, we should tolerate some degree of law-breaking as acceptable as the inevitable consequence of having a reasonable degree of freecdom to protest) ... but I haven't got the faintest idea what you are arguing should happen in the context of these protests - what the protestors should or should not do, what the police should or should not do in response.



> I do not 'demand the right' to break the law. Doesn't make the coppers who enforce shit laws any less culpable for their actions, though. Fuck you and anyone else who commits immoral acts in the name of 'duty'. Moral cowards the lot of you.


Those sentences make absolutely no sense.  If you do not demand the right the break the law what law are the coppers enforcing which makes you so cross?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> "Take our word for it" isn't sufficient and never has been sufficient.  If a protest is to be banned then the police must supply the evidence on which they make the request.  And the decision is subject to judicial review if the protest organisers wish to challenge a decision to restrict or ban it.
> 
> You are arguing against something that simply isn't the case.


no I am NOT doing that - _not at all_. I'm simply challenging the initially  vague, woolly term you gave of 'substantial grounds' as justification for pre-emptive action, and asking for clarification and amplification of that, simply because I think nothing less than a very rigorous submission by the police will do.
That clarification you have begun to give. Either way, it isn't 'arguing against', or for, _anything_ - as such, here you are simply doing the twisting and misrepresenting you (sometimes rightly) accuse others of.


----------



## sherpa (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I guaranteed that "... you will not find me wading into someone with abuse without them having started things".
> 
> In that case the response was brought about by the claim that I was "the police" and thus different rules applied to me.
> 
> In retrospect it was too strong and I apologise.  (I really _am_ trying to avoid using the c*** word ...)



I was actually trying to make a point, and was very open about being somewhat disingenuous in my interpretation of your post; something you wilfully chose to ignore, preferring to insult me. You would benefit from taking a few deep breaths inbetween reading and making posts. Your cortisol levels must be all over the shop.

Thank you for your apology.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> no I am NOT doing that - _not at all_. I'm simply challenging the initially  vague, woolly term you gave of 'substantial grounds' as justification for pre-emptive action, and asking for clarification and amplification of that, simply because I think nothing less than a very rigorous submission by the police will do.


And that is what happens.  The actual evidence and information gathered in support of any such application varies from case to case but it typically includes: experience of previous protests by the same group, information gathered from open sources (e.g. media, social networking, etc.), statements by any identifiable members / organisers of the protests; results of surveillance; information from Human Intelligence Sources; the records of any individuals known / believed to be likely to participate, likely reaction from any opposition faction (if appropriate), etc.

The degree of proof needed to establish "reasonable grounds to suspect" or "reasonable grounds to believe" (depending on the provision) is well established as those concepts are widely encountered throughout the criminal law.  Both are well short of "proof beyond reasonable doubt"; reasonable grounds to believe is a little short of "proof on the balance of probabilities" (though there is frequently sufficient evidence and information gathered to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, it will kick off if it goes ahead); reasonable grounds to suspect is someway beyond that.  The important thing is that ALL the information and evidence MUST be objective - i.e. the police MUST be able to show / tell it to someone else to justify their application.

The rarity of the police banning a protest, or applying any hugely detrimental conditions, should confirm to you that it is not something done easily or capriciously, on the basis of the police saying "take our word for it".


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 21, 2010)

sherpa said:


> Your cortisol levels must be all over the shop.


Everyone says that ... but they're not.  "Better out than in" could be my motto about frustration - I show it too much, I don't let save it up inside at all!  And I think you were unfortunate in that your post followed a number of other frustrating ones from other posters ... so there was a touch of camel's back about it ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Everyone says that ... but they're not.  "Better out than in" could be my motto about frustration - I show it too much, I don't let save it up inside at all!  And I think you were unfortunate in that your post followed a number of other frustrating ones from other posters ... *so there was a touch of camel's back about it* ...


 
you've got the hump?


----------



## winjer (Dec 21, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> wasn't there a poa which made gatherings of people illegal?


CJPOA 1994 (aka the CJB) has powers that can make gatherings on private land illegal - what it calls 'trespassory assemblies'.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=2156203&ActiveTextDocId=2156304


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 21, 2010)

winjer said:


> CJPOA 1994 (aka the CJB) has powers that can make gatherings on private land illegal - what it calls 'trespassory assemblies'.
> http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?parentActiveTextDocId=2156203&ActiveTextDocId=2156304


 
aahhhh, cheers


----------



## TopCat (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If you do not demand the right the break the law what law are the coppers enforcing which makes you so cross?



The "I don't like your face" ACT <time immemorial > Combined with the "Protect the Rich at all costs" ACT.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> They _did_ change.
> 
> The first protest was policed in a far more relaxed way ... and Millbank happened.
> 
> ...



I haven't read further than this post yet, but I'm grateful for the response.

I agree.  Millbank set the scene for the rest of the protests and a much harder line was taken.

But all I see is a swift return to the methods used at the G20 protests and an escalation in violence from either side.

So I question what has changed.  I understand police have generally been a bit more hands off since the G20 events, but in terms of these protests, we seem to be back to square one.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 21, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> .  I understand police have generally been a bit more hands off since the G20 events?


 
Why do you understand that?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2010)

Need another freddy 'fuck up' patel to mismanage the next death-by-copper.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 22, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Why do you understand that?


 
dunno really.  watching the hands off approach to the climate camp last year.  similar with the democracy camp and the tamil protest, all of which looked to be given a bit more toleration than i saw at the G20 one.

just my impression that they'd backed off a bit and had a rethink about using 'kettling' so quickly and rigidly after that pr disaster.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Take their beating like a man.


 
I think that when he asked "what do you suggest the police do?", he meant that you should suggest something within the realms of reality, rather than seeking the impossible.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> See. You don't have the first clue what I am getting at, do you. In your head 'lawful' is synonymous with 'right'. You simply cannot countenance any complication of such a system. I do not 'demand the right' to break the law. Doesn't make the coppers who enforce shit laws any less culpable for their actions, though. Fuck you and anyone else who commits immoral acts in the name of 'duty'. Moral cowards the lot of you.


 it also misses the point that laws aren't always well-made, and that sometimes the best way to expose that is to test the law.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 22, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> it also misses the point that laws aren't always well-made, and that sometimes the best way to expose that is to test the law.


Shirley, you're not suggesting some law is rushed, ill-thought-through and often factually illegal i.e. the recent immigration cap? how do we deal with such abuse?

_oh, i know, we'll abolish the scheme that allows ordinary citizens the ability to test the law........_

bye bye legal aid.....


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I guaranteed that "*... you will not find me wading into someone with abuse without them having started things*".
> 
> In that case the response was brought about by the claim that I was "the police" and thus different rules applied to me.
> 
> In retrospect it was too strong and I apologise.  (I really _am_ trying to avoid using the c*** word ...)



So why did you call me a fucking liar when you had simply misunderstood my post (which was about your attitude to the judiciary not capital punishment)?

This is another of your claimed 'facts'.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## BigTom (Dec 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Which is why _how_ containment is used (especially the length of time it is used for) needs to be carefully addressed by the police.  They need to (a) try and only contain those who are anticipated to be likely to cause trouble; (b) have a process in place whereby realistic filtering out of people who are clearly not is possible (from almost the outset), (c) ensure that the conditions of the containment are constantly reviewed, so that if things become dangerous / too uncomfortable they are addressed and (d) keep the containment only for as short a time as possible.



Yeah but kettling as currently used consistently fails to do any of that - (a) they contain based on an area rather than people ie: they decide right we are going to kettle at this location (or at least be prepared for it) - I know not being in the police force I can't say this for sure but it certainly looks that way to me.  
(b) fails because whenever you try to leave a kettle you are told by officers they won't let you go, it's they orders they have - no-one leaves.  I've seen children/parents, teenagers and a heavily pregnant woman refused exit from kettles in the past (mayday protests that I was actually witness to + dec 9th report from friends).
(c) Well tbf I can't say what happens on the police side, but how many hours will you make a large group of people go without access to toilet facilities before things get too uncomfortable?
(d) is far too loose, who decides what as short a time as possible is? What are the conditions set for what means you still need to hold people and what allows you to let them out, how many do you let out at a time - because the usual practice of the walk of shame means that it takes fucking hours to get out even when they do start letting people go.  I understand that they don't want to let protesters re-congregate but it's a joke really, no information given to front line officers or they have info but they refuse to pass it to people who talk to them to find out what is going on .. this to me feels like a deliberate tactic to wind up the crowd tbh.




> Having spoken to a couple of people during the day today (one police and two students who were there (one contained, one outside the containment) it appears that the police _may_ have held the containment on Westminster Bridge for as long as they did whilst they arranged for footage of some of the more serious incidents to be made available so that those involved could be identified and arrested as they were filtered out.  I think this could be justified in the case of serious crime (murder / GBH / arson or whatever) ... but I am not aware of anything that happened that would justify it on this occasion.  _If_ that is the reason it was held for so long it will be an interesting test case to see what the Courts make of that.



Yeah, if that's the case it's a fucking joke.  The only serious offenses that I know of to take place were by the police on Alfie Meadows (iirc he was in parl. sq.) .. there was damage to property but the "worst" of it - the attacks on the treasury - only happened later on in the evening after the police had pushed up whitehall to retake their vans.. very shortly after that people started trying to break the windows on the treasury.. and there had been a fair few bits of grafitti saying "this is the treasury" applied to the building during the day, yet no-one attacked it until late on, and directly after an action by the police which wound up the crowd.
I don't know how long they would have been on the bridge if the crowd hadn't pushed the police lines back and demonstrated that they were willing to push forward, the police started letting people go in groups after this started happening (perspective from the crowd obviously).



> To be honest they make it impossible.  Experience is that there are so many potential targets (and so little in the way of organised targetting) that it is impractical.  If the police had reasonable grounds to suspect that a group was intent on violence it would also open them to attack for failing to do all that they reasonably could to protect the victims of the attacks they allowed to happen.  Again we come back to the balance of rights - things are nowhere near as clear cut when you consider others apart from the demonstrators and their right to protest (and the law firmly obliges the police to consider others too).


 
I view most of this as tactics anyway, the police are the dogs of the state when it come to demos, they are going to try to stop me from doing whatever and I actually think that's fair enough, it's the rules of the game.  It's up to me to come up with tactics that defeat those the police use.
Part of the game is about the limited democratic means that are possibly to curb the tactics that the police can deploy, but there's always going to be a different tactic to come in it's place.  Part of it is about what's done on the streets.

That said, when the police (or if it happened, the protesters) seriously injured or killed someone (esp. someone innocent eg: Ian Tomlinson) then the above sounds fucking heartless, and my attitude towards things tends to change.



> There were random attacks on various places.  There were interviews on the TV and in the papers with members of staff who were terrified for their personal safety.  If an unruly mob attacks a premises it is not at all beyond the realms of possibility that one or more individuals will attack the staff, especially if they try and defend the premises instead of running away (which they would be well-advised to do).


 
Yeah someone else said about it as well.. I didn't hear of those attacks, imo I'd be shocked if any individuals attacked the staff (unless the staff did try to defend the premises with violence, at which point it becomes self-defence for the protesters).  I do recognise that it is not beyond the realms of possibility but I still think it's hyperbolic to suggest it might happen.. I also remember from one of the mayday's happening to be by a McD's branch when it was attacked by some people, and there were no staff members at the counter (or I was told in the kitchens) - presumed they all got taken upstairs into a staff room as the march approached - but the next day the media was all talking about terrified staff members at the counter as the windows were attacked and such things, so I am naturally skeptical of such reports of this kind of stuff - someone independant has posted here about the tescos staff though so I'm not questioning this one, just want you to understand that my skepticism is based on first hand experience of things being twisted by those who want to portray protesters in the worst possible light.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 22, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> But all I see is a swift return to the methods used at the G20 protests and an escalation in violence from either side.
> 
> So I question what has changed.  I understand police have generally been a bit more hands off since the G20 events, but in terms of these protests, we seem to be back to square one.


I agree entirely - that is _exactly_ what I have been posting since the day after Millbank and the carrot-crunching fool's "The game has changed" pronouncement ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 22, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> just my impression that they'd backed off a bit and had a rethink about using 'kettling' so quickly and rigidly after that pr disaster.


Your impression is absolutely right.  The briefings given have changed significantly - any officer engaged on the whole series will tell you (and the few idiots who like a fight will bemoan the fact ...)


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 22, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> So why did you call me a fucking liar when you had simply misunderstood my post (which was about your attitude to the judiciary not capital punishment)?


I read it again.  It does not bear the meaning you claim it has.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 22, 2010)

Mate of mine wrote this about the 09/12/10 demo:



> I arrived late to the demonstration (owing to the lack of a student union coach. Cardiff Student union shamefully failed to mobilise effectively for it and instead took a 15 seater minibus) and only just managed to catch up with the Youth Fight For Jobs contingent on the march. We marched past up to Trafalgar Square chanting and singing. The atmosphere was brilliant. People were friendly, joking and laughing despite the cold. There were a few reports of minor clashes with the police in the square before we arrived but I saw none of it. As we marched in to Trafalgar the police lined up on our left with the mounted police forming behind them. The demonstration closed ranks to avoid being separated and carried on.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, let out of one kettle after several hours only to find that they'd been intentionally let out to be baton charged by another line of coppers, followed by mounted police charging them and 'hand to hand fighting'. Bad eggs, clearly. Just bad eggs.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 22, 2010)

BigTom said:


> Yeah but kettling as currently used consistently fails to do any of that


I know.  That is why I entirely accept that changes in _how_ it is used need to be made.  I have _never_ had any issue with changes to _how_ it is used.  I have expressed these concerns since _before_ most others (and was the first commentator in the broadcast media to do so so far as I am aware).



> (d) is far too loose, who decides what as short a time as possible is?


It is impossible to be tight - there are an infinite number of possible situations.  "Reasonable grounds to believe" it to be necessary would be a well-established legal evidential test that the police should be held to.



> What are the conditions set for what means you still need to hold people and what allows you to let them out, how many do you let out at a time - because the usual practice of the walk of shame means that it takes fucking hours to get out even when they do start letting people go.


I am not at all sure that the same means of releasing a containment can be justified in every case.  Sometimes there would be no reason why the police could not simply take the cordons away and let everyone go at once.  ANY tactic MUST be applied thoughtfully and specifically to the particular circumstances prevailing at the time.



> no information given to front line officers or they have info but they refuse to pass it to people who talk to them to find out what is going on .. this to me feels like a deliberate tactic to wind up the crowd tbh.


It isn't.  It's a throwback to the days of limited radio communication.  Even as recently as the mid-90s PCs on serials did NOT have radios - just Sgts and above and specialist units.  This was because there were so few channels available.  That is now not the case and there is a _huge_ amount more potential for communication with individual officers, allocation of a dedicated channel to a particular part of a protest (e.g. all officers on a particular containment) without interfering with other communication.  This needs to be addressed and FULL advantage of what communication is now available needs to be taken.  Whilst it is entirely reasonable for an individual oficer not to know the bigger picture when the tactic is first used, as soon as things have settled for a while it is entirely reasonable to expect them all to know what is happening, what is expected to happen, etc.  (There are other issues with communication with the crowd too - advantage is not taken of PA systems now available on all vehicles to communicate with large numbers of people - I have commented on this previously).



> .. there was damage to property but the "worst" of it - the attacks on the treasury - only happened later on in the evening after the police had pushed up whitehall to retake their vans.. very shortly after that people started trying to break the windows on the treasury..


I wouldn't argue that that was anywhere near serious enough to merit the retention of a containment for any signifuicant period of time to see if the offenders could be identified.



> That said, when the police (or if it happened, the protesters) seriously injured or killed someone (esp. someone innocent eg: Ian Tomlinson) then the above sounds fucking heartless, and my attitude towards things tends to change.


The police have an absolute, legal obligation to ensure that this does not happen.  Protestors need to acknowledge that the police have a right to curtail violence, etc. by protestors to prevent this happening (e.g. the looting of shops and offices, terrorising staff, cannot be tolerated under any circumstances).  They also need to acknowledge they have an obligation _themselves_, albeit not a legal one, or one as strong as that of the police, to ensure that it does not.



> (unless the staff did try to defend the premises with violence, at which point it becomes self-defence for the protesters).


No, it most definitely does not.  Either in law or in common sense.  If you are attacked going about your lawful business you are entirely able to look to the law of self-defence to defend yourself or your property (or another).  You are entitled to use "reasonable and necessary" force to do so.  Any response to a _lawful_ use of force cannot be characterised as "self-defence" by the person committing the crime, only a response to an excessive, and thus unlawful, use of force could / should be.



> ...so I am naturally skeptical of such reports of this kind of stuff - someone independant has posted here about the tescos staff though so I'm not questioning this one, just want you to understand that my skepticism is based on first hand experience of things being twisted by those who want to portray protesters in the worst possible light.


There would be nothing to be sceptical about if "protestors" (and I doubt if all / most of them actually were) didn't commit out and out crime entirely unconnected with the purpose of the protest.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 22, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> So, let out of one kettle after several hours only to find that they'd been intentionally let out to be baton charged by another line of coppers, followed by mounted police charging them and 'hand to hand fighting'. Bad eggs, clearly. Just bad eggs.


If that is what happened, and I have no reason to suspect it wasn't, then it should not have done.  But I will put my mortgage on the fact that the reason is poor communication / coordination by senior commanders, and different units not knowing what others are doing (or possibly things changing quickly after one decision was made, meaning that something else had to be done and could be justified), rather than individual "bad egg" officers deciding to just baton and contain people on their own decision ... 

It needs to be addressed.  It does not help ensure that it was by claiming that the problem is with individual officers actually using the tactic rather than senior officers deploying them to do so.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 22, 2010)

So why don't these officers say, no, actually sarge, I'm not going to hit kids with sticks or keep them kettled in freezing temperatures or chase them on horseback? Lad who wrote that is seventeen btw.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 22, 2010)

I have no issue with what you've said on most of the post so I've not replied to those bits.. I see it differently as I'm looking at it from a different perspective but what you say is reasonable from the police point of view.



detective-boy said:


> It isn't [designed to wind up the crowd].  It's a throwback to the days of limited radio communication.  Even as recently as the mid-90s PCs on serials did NOT have radios - just Sgts and above and specialist units.  This was because there were so few channels available.  That is now not the case and there is a _huge_ amount more potential for communication with individual officers, allocation of a dedicated channel to a particular part of a protest (e.g. all officers on a particular containment) without interfering with other communication.  This needs to be addressed and FULL advantage of what communication is now available needs to be taken.  Whilst it is entirely reasonable for an individual oficer not to know the bigger picture when the tactic is first used, as soon as things have settled for a while it is entirely reasonable to expect them all to know what is happening, what is expected to happen, etc.  (There are other issues with communication with the crowd too - advantage is not taken of PA systems now available on all vehicles to communicate with large numbers of people - I have commented on this previously).



I'm glad you see this needs to be addressed, in an age where the protesters are using smartphones and twitter to enable mass communication amongst the crowd it's difficult to understand why the police, who are setup to communicate with radios and a command structure fail to be able to do this.. this was a problem 10 years ago, and it's still a problem now.  It's always going to feel like a deliberate wind up when it's so obviously solvable in a technical sense - and it really does wind people up.




> The police have an absolute, legal obligation to ensure that [attacks on shops etc] does not happen.  Protestors need to acknowledge that the police have a right to curtail violence, etc. by protestors to prevent this happening (e.g. the looting of shops and offices, terrorising staff, cannot be tolerated under any circumstances).  They also need to acknowledge they have an obligation _themselves_, albeit not a legal one, or one as strong as that of the police, to ensure that it does not.



looting of shops and offices, meh.. terrorising staff I agree with, working class staff members and even the mid-level bosses are not, nor ever should be, a target and should not be tolerated.. I fully aknowledge the police have a duty to prevent any destruction of privately owned property, we both agree that there should be a limited response to this in terms of the use of violence against people.. 



> No, it most definitely does not.  Either in law or in common sense.  If you are attacked going about your lawful business you are entirely able to look to the law of self-defence to defend yourself or your property (or another).  You are entitled to use "reasonable and necessary" force to do so.  Any response to a _lawful_ use of force cannot be characterised as "self-defence" by the person committing the crime, only a response to an excessive, and thus unlawful, use of force could / should be.



Not sure you understand why I've said it would be self-defence.. If I was smashing a window and a staff member decided to take it upon themselves to physically attack me to try to stop me from doing so, then I would regard it as self-defence to use violence against them to defend myself.  Maybe it's not the case legally but psychologically and practically it is imo.  [this is hypothetical obv. I'm not likely to be attacking windows and I can't believe that I would attack a staff member if they did try to stop me, I'd be talking to them trying to get them to think about why they are defending the property of those who exploit them, why they are putting their own person at risk etc..]



> There would be nothing to be sceptical about if "protestors" (and I doubt if all / most of them actually were) didn't commit out and out crime entirely unconnected with the purpose of the protest.


 
Rubbsih. The police/state will always try to put out through the media the story they want to tell, and that will always be likely to contain smears and lies about the protesters that they want to paint in a particular light.  My skepticism arises from witnessing lies being told about an attack on a target (McD's) that was very definitely connected with the purpose of the protest (anti-capitalism/anti-globalisation).


----------



## WWWeed (Dec 22, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> So why don't these officers say, no, actually sarge, I'm not going to hit kids with sticks or keep them kettled in freezing temperatures or chase them on horseback? Lad who wrote that is seventeen btw.


 
because that's questioning authority and is not allowed.

I've always said the police are just like computers or robots - they just follow instructions without question.....


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2010)

robots don't generally look for opportunities to be on the mump though


----------



## 8ball (Dec 22, 2010)

I guess things haven't changed too much since Victorian times where the point of police training was to make the trainee into: 
‘a machine, moving, thinking and speaking only as his instruction book directs… Stiff, calm and inexorable, an institution rather than a man’ 

Not sure about the 'calm' bit.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 22, 2010)

I went to the protest on 24th.  Stood outside the kettle for a bit in Whitehall, wandered around to the other side, went back.  I'd taken some pics and had to head off.

Half way up Whitehall, I'm confronted by a line of cops sweeping up all and sundry right down the road, including people leaving the area...  I asked if I could pass and was blanked, so I legged it over fences with a few 100 kids.  Good move imo.  Couldn't really see the logic in that?

I went again on 30th Nov.  After touring the city, videoing the events, we got back to Traf Sq and I again stood back and watched the kettle lines form up.  Weirdly, later on, they were letting people out near Charing X, so I went into the kettle to leave, it being the quickest way to get to the station.  But there were no trains.  I walked back round to The Mall exit.  Police actually seemed to encourage me to go in, but I held back.  Within 15-20 minutes, they'd sealed the kettle again...  I'm sure they wouldn't have let me out again even if they'd watched me go in.

Nobody seems to have any sort of coherent plan at these things.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 22, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> I went to the protest on 24th.  Stood outside the kettle for a bit in Whitehall, wandered around to the other side, went back.  I'd taken some pics and had to head off.
> 
> Half way up Whitehall, I'm confronted by a line of cops sweeping up all and sundry right down the road, including people leaving the area...  I asked if I could pass and was blanked, so I legged it over fences with a few 100 kids.  Good move imo.  Couldn't really see the logic in that?
> 
> ...


 avoiding being kettled's a good start


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 22, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> avoiding being kettled's a good start


 
lol.  i've avoided being kettled since i got trapped in traf square at the mayday one years ago and persuaded a copper i was a tourist from balham.

makes it a bit difficult to document events tho.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Shirley, you're not suggesting some law is rushed, ill-thought-through and often factually illegal i.e. the recent immigration cap?


It's an old problem, although it does appear (possibly due to the massively expanded legislative timetables) to have gotten a lot worse over the last 20 or so years, The immigration cap was a pretty good example of a government minister demanding legislation and not giving the Civil Servants responsible for researching the possible complications enough time to do their job.


> how do we deal with such abuse?


The only way it can be dealt with - testing the legislation. I always reckon pingu (the Urbanite, not the animated penguin) is a good example of this, given his involvement in showing up the Dangerous Dogs Act for the crap it is.


> _oh, i know, we'll abolish the scheme that allows ordinary citizens the ability to test the law........_
> 
> bye bye legal aid.....


Doesn't help, does it? Although we don't yet appear to have reverted to a starkly-divided 2-tier criminal justice system, there certainly appears to be an almost constant pressure to make access to justice for those without fat wallets more and more difficult.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 22, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> So why don't these officers say, no, actually sarge, I'm not going to hit kids with sticks or keep them kettled in freezing temperatures or chase them on horseback? Lad who wrote that is seventeen btw.


 
Why not? Because they're taught to respect and obey the chain of command, which means that each rank looks upward for direction, and makes it less than likely that any officer will take the initiative and refuse to do the task they're allotted.
In the military all soldiers are obligated to refuse to carry out any orders that don't accord to the Rules of Engagement, and soldiers will all know their RoE thoroughly (if you don't, you can be heavily disciplined). I'm not sure that individual police officers have a similar legal obligation.

Oh, and if d-b starts going off about how I'm anti-police and pro-military, please refer him to the words "I'm not sure" in the final sentence. I'd hate him to get aerated just because he didn't read the post properly.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 22, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> So why don't these officers say, no, actually sarge, I'm not going to hit kids with sticks or keep them kettled in freezing temperatures or chase them on horseback?


Because it is a lawful order - what they are asked to do is within the law as they understand it.  HOW they do it (i.e. whether they use force or not) is a decision for the individual officers ... which is why we do NOT see the vast majority of officers hitting "kids with sticks".

Individual officers _do_ raise issues about the use of particular tactics ... but that cannot be done during the actual operation or everything would simply fall to pieces.



> Lad who wrote that is seventeen btw


And your point is?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 22, 2010)

BigTom said:


> Not sure you understand why I've said it would be self-defence.. If I was smashing a window and a staff member decided to take it upon themselves to physically attack me to try to stop me from doing so, then I would regard it as self-defence to use violence against them to defend myself.


I disagree.  And the law would too.  s.3 Criminal Law Act 1967 - we all have the right to use reasonable and necessary force to prevent crime.



> Rubbsih. The police/state will always try to put out through the media the story they want to tell, and that will always be likely to contain smears and lies about the protesters that they want to paint in a particular light.  My skepticism arises from witnessing lies being told about an attack on a target (McD's) that was very definitely connected with the purpose of the protest (anti-capitalism/anti-globalisation).


I have yet to encounter a protest where the police _said_ there was some out-and-out crime ... and yet there was none.

And you need to also factor in what the MEDIA do to skew the coverage - not all of the hype (and I would suggest not much of it at all) actually originates from the police.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 22, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> Nobody seems to have any sort of coherent plan at these things.


Maybe.  I think it is more likely that someone does ... but without them explaining it to you, in the context of the bigger picture of which you are not aware, you wouldn't know ... and none of us would be able to work out just from watching what was actually done.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 22, 2010)

Coherent, yet ineffable?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Because it is a lawful order - what they are asked to do is within the law as they understand it.  HOW they do it (i.e. whether they use force or not) is a decision for the individual officers ... which is why we do NOT see the vast majority of officers hitting "kids with sticks".
> 
> Individual officers _do_ raise issues about the use of particular tactics ... but that cannot be done during the actual operation or everything would simply fall to pieces.



Funny that, because I've seen coppers hitting kids with sticks at every major demo I've been to over the last few months. In fact, I've seen whole lines of coppers, obviously acting on orders, batoning whichever poor sods happen to be at the front of the kettle.

No fucking good raising the issue after you've batterred some poor wee kids is it? Bit late.




detective-boy said:


> And your point is?


 
That the people your lot are battering and criminalising are children. You read his piece, purposefully being let out of one kettle so that the coppers can baton charge them, so the mounties can charge at them, freezing cold kids having to try and assemble fucking barricades to fend off violent attacks from heavily armed and fully grown policemen. And you wonder why so many people despise the Police, as an institution and as individuals.


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Maybe.  I think it is more likely that someone does ... but without them explaining it to you, in the context of the bigger picture of which you are not aware, you wouldn't know ... and none of us would be able to work out just from watching what was actually done.


 
Of course.  But do you think I should have some sort of information as to why I'm being detained in the case of being prevented from walking up whitehall, away from a protest which has been contained?  Is there a legal requirement to be informed, as there is when you are arrested?  Even if not, I'd say it would be a good thing to do.  If you do not know why you are being detained, how can you know whether it's legally right or not?

This incident was, I believe from reports and video/ photo's I've seen afterwards, where police walked through Trafalgar Square, forcing people out (presumably those who might be students), down Whitehall, even stopping to go into McDonalds and pull people out of there, to put them all in a protest at the other end of the street.

I don't understand this at all.  I saw no people doing anything untoward on Whitehall, just milling about or heading towards or away from the contained protest.  If there was a problem in Trafalgar Square, which I've seen no evidence of anyway, why didn't they contain the problem there?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 22, 2010)

Conservative member of the MPA calls for protesters to lodge complaints against the Met.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/22/kettling-video-appalling-police-watchdog


> The chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority's civil liberties panel has condemned video footage appearing to show protesters being crushed by police attempting to contain them in a "kettle" during student anti-fees demonstrations in London two weeks ago as "appalling" and "ghastly".
> 
> Victoria Borwick, who is also a Conservative member of the Greater London Authority, encouraged protesters to make official complaints against the Met and said other police forces were making a better job of public order policing.


----------



## dylans (Dec 22, 2010)

> The chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority's civil liberties panel has condemned video footage appearing to show protesters being crushed by police attempting to contain them in a "kettle" during student anti-fees demonstrations in London two weeks ago as "appalling" and "ghastly".



More "hysterical over reaction" to the rapidly becoming infamous police kettling video from Victoria Borwick, chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority's civil liberties panel (and a Tory!)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/22/kettling-video-appalling-police-watchdog.

(damn, ferrelhadley beat me to it)


----------



## audiotech (Dec 22, 2010)

Just heard that Sean Dilley, political correspondent for TalkSport was battoned twice on the back by police on the student demonstration. Dilley is blind and was assisting an injured protester at the time. Dilley's father was a senior officer in the police and is one of their most strongest defenders. An investigation is taking place into the incident.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 22, 2010)

is it wrong that I immediately thought 'talksport cunt deserves it'


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 22, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Just heard that Sean Dilley, political correspondent for TalkSport was battoned twice on the back by police on the student demonstration. Dilley is blind and was assisting an injured protester at the time. Dilley's father was a senior officer in the police and is one of their most strongest defenders. An investigation is taking place into the incident.



just listening now


----------



## audiotech (Dec 22, 2010)

He has a dog he named 'Chipp' if that helps?


----------



## audiotech (Dec 22, 2010)

From 'The Guardian' link.



> This was a far more aggressive form of kettling...



and



> David Mead, an expert in public order policing and law at the University of East Anglia, said physically restricting the space occupied by protesters was a significant development from previous kettling exercises. "I suspect this is likely not to be a lawful kettle," he added.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 22, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I read it again.  It does not bear the meaning you claim it has.


 
In what way does my post, poking fun at your promotion of the efficacy of judicial indepedence, not mean I was having a laugh at your pretended naivety? Just because you can't sustain a coherent argument, there's no need to make stuff up and start swearing.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## audiotech (Dec 23, 2010)

The "Stasi"?

http://criminalchalkist.blogspot.com/2010/12/police-come-for-me-at-5am-please-share.html


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 23, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Funny that, because I've seen coppers hitting kids with sticks at every major demo I've been to over the last few months. In fact, I've seen whole lines of coppers, obviously acting on orders, batoning whichever poor sods happen to be at the front of the kettle.
> 
> No fucking good raising the issue after you've batterred some poor wee kids is it? Bit late.
> That the people your lot are battering and criminalising are children. You read his piece, purposefully being let out of one kettle so that the coppers can baton charge them, so the mounties can charge at them, freezing cold kids having to try and assemble fucking barricades to fend off violent attacks from heavily armed and fully grown policemen. And you wonder why so many people despise the Police, as an institution and as individuals.


 
Well said!


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes.
> 
> Would _you_ agree that (A) dispersing a crowd intent on violence and damage has the _potential_ to cause injuries or much, much worse to members of the public, NONE of whom are troublemakers?
> 
> Or that (B)  allowing a crowd intent on violence and damage to go exactly where it likes has the _potential_  to cause injuries or much, much worse to members of the public, NONE of whom are troublemakers?


 
(A) is the likely outcome and has been for as long as I can remember. 

I have never seen a crowd attack (option b I think you are saying) 'members of the public', but I have seen property damaged and we can live with that.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 23, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> What does he know? he's only a fucking doctor, you idiot!



One reason I avoid U75 is cos of the cranks/headbangers around here - I get sensible comments elsewhere, in that real world people hide from on U75;

Here's some evidence about that letter, objective comment without prejeudice; 

I emailed the letter and link around http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/letters/8741907.Student_protests/
 here's one reply;

Identity hidden; - *thats a bliddy classic letter ____ well done.*

_Thanks ____, you cheered me up
_

Identity hidden; *no bullshit, it was concise, hits the spot, sharp, and short.*


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 23, 2010)

TopCat said:


> The security services have a huge budget and spend a lot of money infiltrating groups and organisations in order to subvert them, divert them, and lead them up the garden path. I speculate that this in the modern age includes operatives who do the same on influential message boards and similar. Is DB one of them? I don't know. Does he follow an identical agenda. Yes he does.


 
Well said TC


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 23, 2010)

winjer said:


> A march doesn't become unlawful simply because it deviates from the police-mandated route, it is only an offence to organise such a march, not to participate in one. The static demonstration would be illegal if it could be proven they intended to remain static, which doesn't appear to be the case on published evidence.


 
These are very good points... Precious piggies over policed, over reacted as per....


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'm quite happy to deal with people who disagree with me.
> 
> It's the people who make up what I have said, who misrepresent what I have said, who can't be bothered reading what I have said before wading in and the trolls who obsessively follow me from thread to thread posting nothing but abuse who I _can't_ deal with.


 
TBH though, we're not interested in the law and the police, only insofaras you are in our way.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I agree it doesn't appear that it intended to remain static ... on the basis of the i*nformation in the public domain it appears their intent was to break into Parliament* (????!!!)  and ... well, I'm not sure they know what they wanted to do when then got into Parliament but I suspect it would have ended in the same way as Millbank with most people just milling about not knowing what to do and others committing acts of damage and violence of varying degrees on any one and any thing which they encountered or which got in their way ...





ymu said:


> Deluded.


  YES quite...


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You cannot have your cake and eat it.  If you really think that it is necessary to break the law in the pursuit of some right, grow some balls and stand up and be counted for taking the action you did and the consequences which follow.


  WHY? That would be stupid. Far better to live to fight again another day. 

The police protect the rich and powerful, always have and always will (well till we can get a society that goes beyond capitalism). Your 'role' DB is to try to deny that you are doing this in the face of all the evidence to the contrary...


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 23, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> I have never seen a crowd attack (option b I think you are saying) 'members of the public', but I have seen property damaged and *we* can live with that.



No, _we_ can't. (_we_ being the vast majority - e.g. non-workshy; non-soap dodgers; non-anarcho-wankers; non-scrounging etc. etc. etc. folk who actually contribute something to the fabric of the nation).


----------



## rover07 (Dec 23, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> No, _we_ can't. (_we_ being the vast majority - e.g. non-workshy; non-soap dodgers; non-anarcho-wankers; non-scrounging etc. etc. etc. folk who actually contribute something to the fabric of the nation).


 
Shut up and get on with your work.


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 23, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> See. You don't have the first clue what I am getting at, do you. In your head 'lawful' is synonymous with 'right'. You simply cannot countenance any complication of such a system. I do not 'demand the right' to break the law. Doesn't make the coppers who enforce shit laws any less culpable for their actions, though. Fuck you and anyone else who commits immoral acts in the name of 'duty'. Moral cowards the lot of you.


 
This is true. 

The police do not work, infact they spend most of their time avoiding it or exploiting it (remember the police diving squad swimming lessons anyone?) and take the piss on sick leave, far more than any other 'public service'. Overpaid all of them, right wing thicko's most of them....


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 23, 2010)

Apologies if this has already been posted, excellent photo of false imprisonment on westminster bridge

http://www.flickr.com/photos/carthorse/5248441955/sizes/l/in/photostream/


----------



## revlon (Dec 23, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> No, _we_ can't. (_we_ being the vast majority - e.g. non-workshy; non-soap dodgers; non-anarcho-wankers; non-scrounging etc. etc. etc. folk who actually contribute something to the *fabric of the nation*).


 
cotton fibre?


----------



## editor (Dec 23, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> No, _we_ can't. (_we_ being the vast majority - e.g. non-workshy; non-soap dodgers; non-anarcho-wankers; non-scrounging etc. etc. etc. folk who actually contribute something to the fabric of the nation).


Every time you drive around in your precious polluting car you cause damage to the environment and property. This is a fact.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Dec 23, 2010)

skyscraper101 said:


> You don't _do_ coats?


 
i even roll my shirt sleeves up


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> No, _we_ can't. (_we_ being the vast majority - e.g. non-workshy; non-soap dodgers; non-anarcho-wankers; non-scrounging etc. etc. etc. folk who actually contribute something to the fabric of the nation).


 
what a load of wee


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 23, 2010)

8ball said:


> Coherent, yet ineffable?


No.  Just not known (in the public domain)


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 23, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> In fact, I've seen whole lines of coppers, obviously acting on orders, batoning whichever poor sods happen to be at the front of the kettle.


You really _are_ quite incapable of handling complex concepts, aren't you?  

ORDERS to hold a line, or to clear a street, or to push a crowd back, as part of some overall strategy that there is simply no opportunity to explain the rationale for in detail to each and every individual officer.

PERSONAL DECISIONS to use batons if attacked or resisted with such force as to make the use of a baton INDIVIDUALLY justifiable.

But this is _precisely_ the area where I believe attention should be focused - (some) officers using INDIVIDUAL officer safety tactics in the context of a COLLECTIVE use of force by "the police" on "the crowd" for a justifiable reason.  I do not believe that the individual uses of force by batoning, especially at or around the head, can possibly be justified by the same grounds as justify the collective use of force perfectly well.

As for people being at the front line - _sometimes_ that is because they have chosen to be there because they have chosen to attack / resist the police (in which case they are entirely the authors of their own misfortune in putting themselves in a situation in which force may be justified), _sometimes_ they have had ample opportunity to leave that particular area, or to move back, when things have started kicking off and, for whatever reason, they have chosen not to do so (in which case whilst not authors of their own misfortune to the same extent as the first group, they have had an opportunity to remove themselves and have failed to take it, so putting themselves at risk of being caught up in the "fog of conflict" if things kick off) and _sometimes_ they have simply not been able to be anywhere else as they have had no opportunity to move because of the crush of the crowd (in which case they are not the authors of their own misfortune at all).  The police using force on a crowd need to do their best (and it will never be perfect) to distinguish between these groups and, wherever possible, endeavour to help those in the third group escape the situation rather than treating them all the same - if they don't want to be involved in trouble, but have no way of escaping it because of the crush, it is absolutely pointless (and probably unlawful) for the police to baton them 



> That the people your lot are battering and criminalising are children.


If someone who is 17 is committing crime, or using such force as to merit the lawful use of a baton in response they are criminalising themselves.  Fact.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You really _are_ quite incapable of handling complex concepts, aren't you?


 
And you're quite incapable of making a post without starting or ending it with an insult. 

 How about this? Write out your post, then go back into it and edit out all the personal abuse before posting it. 

Try it for a trial period and see whether it changes the way people respond to you. You might be surprised.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 23, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> Of course.  But do you think I should have some sort of information as to why I'm being detained in the case of being prevented from walking up whitehall, away from a protest which has been contained?  Is there a legal requirement to be informed, as there is when you are arrested?  Even if not, I'd say it would be a good thing to do.  If you do not know why you are being detained, how can you know whether it's legally right or not?


I have already commented that the amount of communication with protestors (at all stages, not just when contained) needs to be significantly improved.  There is no legal obligation (unless the courts were to conclude that containment was a form of arrest ... which I think is highly unlikely) to provide information.  I cannot see the Courts deciding there is one either - it would simply be impracticable to do so (there are exceptions from the rights to information on arrest if it is impracticable to provide it (e.g. because the person is fighting, or because of some other operational imperative).  Personally I believe it should be established as good practice, even if there is no legal obligation.  The use of PA systems is noticeable by it's absence ... which is a bit bizarre as I remember loud hailers being used regularly in public order situations back in the day before police vehicles had PA systems fitted ... and now all vehicles do they are not used and loud hailers are rarely seen ...



> I don't understand this at all.  I saw no people doing anything untoward on Whitehall, just milling about or heading towards or away from the contained protest.  If there was a problem in Trafalgar Square, which I've seen no evidence of anyway, why didn't they contain the problem there?


That is my point - you cannot expect to understand it unless you have had the benefit of a detailed eplanation from the officer directing that it be done, giving details of the rationale for their decision.  These things _are_ now recorded in "Gold" control rooms (and by subordinate "Silver" and "Bronze" commanders) ... but they are not routinely released into the public domain.  If there is a criminal or civil court case, or a complaint or enquiry arising from the use of the tactic then they _will_ be made available there.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 23, 2010)

editor said:


> Every time you drive around in your precious polluting car you cause damage to the environment and property. This is a fact.


 
Do you mean his fictional Bentley, or his real Ford Mondeo?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 23, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> is it wrong that I immediately thought 'talksport cunt deserves it'


Whether it is or it isn't, it is _very_ telling about how you allow your prejudices to lead your thoughts ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 23, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> TBH though, we're not interested in the law and the police, only insofaras you are in our way.


In that case you commit yourselves to a lifetime of being ignored by the vast majority of people in this country, who are not interested in overthrowing the State and who inhabit that "real world" you claimed to prefer just a few posts ago ...


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 23, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> Your 'role' DB is to try to deny that you are doing this in the face of all the evidence to the contrary...


I don't have a "role" you paranoid fool.  My only interest in relation to the policing of protest is to try and help reach an acceptable middle way whereby basically lawful protest if facilitated, minor unlawfulness is tolerated / not overreacted to by politicians, media, the Commissioner and where those using lawful protest as a cover for serious violence and crime are isolated and brought to justice as swiftly as possible.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 23, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> No, _we_ can't. (_we_ being the vast majority - e.g. non-workshy; non-soap dodgers; non-anarcho-wankers; non-scrounging etc. etc. etc. folk who actually contribute something to the fabric of the nation).


I would disagree.  In life there are compromises.  If protesters are particularly angry about something, is it _really_ such a big deal to put up with some grafitti and broken windows in public (or large corporations) buildings / property?  Is it _really_ worth killing a protestor (as so nearly happened last week) just to prevent that?

We put up with lots of downsides to lots of things to protect or facilitate some upsides (I am listening to a plane taking off, disturbing my peace so that some other people can fly off somewhere, as I write this and I, and millions of others, tolerate that all day and every day).  Why should protest be any different?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 23, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> The police do not work, infact they spend most of their time avoiding it or exploiting it (remember the police diving squad swimming lessons anyone?) and take the piss on sick leave, far more than any other 'public service'. Overpaid all of them, right wing thicko's most of them....


99.9% prejudice.  0.1% fact. 

Well done.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 23, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Try it for a trial period and see whether it changes the way people respond to you.


I will.

As soon as other posters refrain from:

1.  Throwing abuse in my direction on _any_ thread involving policing issues (often before I have even posted).
2.  Simply posting abuse, with not even an attempt to engage on the substantive issues.
3.  Obsessively stalking me from thread to thread, making post after post after post with _nothing_ but abuse and other slagging off.
4.  Failing to read what I actually post, and thus misrepresenting entirely what I have actually said.
5.  Not even bothering to _try_ to read what I have posted and posting on the basis of what their _prejudices_ tell them I would have thought / said.

i.e. ... er, no time soon ... 

In slagging off Proper Tidy I am responding to their deliberate misrepresentation of what I have said - they are _perfectly_ capable of understanding what I posted, they have simply _chosen_ not to do so, which is tedious and annoying ... and so results in a robust response.  If I thought for one moment that they genuinely had special educational needs and genuinely didn't understand the complexities of the issue I had posted about then I wouldn't dream of abusing them as I did.


----------



## winjer (Dec 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Having spoken to a couple of people during the day today (one police and two students who were there (one contained, one outside the containment) it appears that the police _may_ have held the containment on Westminster Bridge for as long as they did whilst they arranged for footage of some of the more serious incidents to be made available so that those involved could be identified and arrested as they were filtered out.


That tallies with what I was told by a Sergeant at the Victoria Embankment end of the bridge, he said the road was closed because "serious arrestable offences" (his exact words) had occurred and were being investigated. This was justification not only for the kettle, but also apparently to not allow me to stand on the road and take of a photo of the outer cordon. The specific power invoked being "Bronze says so".



detective-boy said:


> The use of PA systems is noticeable by it's absence ... which is a bit bizarre as I remember loud hailers being used regularly in public order situations back in the day before police vehicles had PA systems fitted ... and now all vehicles do they are not used and loud hailers are rarely seen ...


The police did manage to get one of their vehicle PA systems working for the dispersal of the Westminster Bridge kettle, to tell people to proceed to Waterloo station, which as they were blocking all the other routes was as pointless as the kettle had been.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 23, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> No, _we_ can't. (_we_ being the vast majority - e.g. non-workshy; non-soap dodgers; non-anarcho-wankers; non-scrounging etc. etc. etc. folk who actually contribute something to the fabric of the nation).


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> As soon as other posters refrain from:
> 
> 1.  Throwing abuse in my direction on _any_ thread involving policing issues (often before I have even posted).
> 2.  Simply posting abuse, with not even an attempt to engage on the substantive issues.
> ...



nee ner nee ner nee ner nee ner....


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 23, 2010)

winjer said:


> That tallies with what I was told by a Sergeant at the Victoria Embankment end of the bridge, he said the road was closed because "serious arrestable offences" (his exact words) had occurred and were being investigated.


Oh dear ... another success for police continuation training ... there has been no such thing as a "serious arrestable offence" since 2005 (when the relevant provisions of PACE were amended and repealed by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act) ...  



> This was justification not only for the kettle, but also apparently to not allow me to stand on the road and take of a photo of the outer cordon. The specific power invoked being "Bronze says so".


They were a bit more accurate with this bit: there is no specific power to move people around, contain them, etc. in order to prevent a breach of the peace - it is a Common Law power (probably a Common Law _duty_ more accurately).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I will.
> 
> As soon as other posters refrain from:
> 
> ...


 
Be big enough to make the first step. Have the courage to rise above the abuse. Show the wisdom to see that you are not just replying to individuals – every post you make speaks to the whole thread.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 23, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I will.
> 
> As soon as other posters refrain from:
> 
> ...


 
lol


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I will.
> 
> As soon as other posters refrain from:
> 
> ...


 
It doesn't make any odds whether it's a personal or collective decision to batter kids. It is still your lot battering kids. Proof, if we need more proof, that you have to be a cunt to be a copper. And as for your comments about kids deserving it, self defence is no offence. They have every right to defend themselves against police attacks, by whatever means necessary.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 24, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Be big enough to make the first step. Have the courage to rise above the abuse.


I have tried that several times.  It has not the slightest effect.   

And (worse) the mods make no effort to proactively deal with it ... so eventually I bite (and then, instantaneously and miraculously, the mods appear as if by magic and threaten *me* with a ban ...


----------



## peterkro (Dec 24, 2010)

Poor the D-B.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> They have every right to defend themselves against police attacks, by whatever means necessary.


If those "attacks" are unlawful, sure ... but they are (for the most part) not.

If a crowd is using or threatening violence then the police have a _duty_ to use whatever lawful, reasonable and necessary means that they have at their disposal to do so, including the use of reasonable and necessary force.  That applies even if the crowd includes (or is even entirely made up of) "kids".

(Your entirely patronising depiction of "kids" as being incapable of making decisions for themselves and of being unable to present any threat to anyone at all, ever is pretty pathetic, by the way ... )


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 24, 2010)

yours is a cross to bear, a heavy one.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If those "attacks" are unlawful, sure ... but they are (for the most part) not.
> 
> If a crowd is using or threatening violence then the police have a _duty_ to use whatever lawful, reasonable and necessary means that they have at their disposal to do so, including the use of reasonable and necessary force.  That applies even if the crowd includes (or is even entirely made up of) "kids".
> 
> (*Your entirely patronising depiction of "kids" as being incapable of making decisions for themselves and of being unable to present any threat to anyone at all, ever is pretty pathetic, by the way* ... )


 

stop making things up. This isn't the canteen.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 24, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> stop making things up. This isn't the canteen.


Oh look!  The Collective rushing to defend each other ... what a fucking surprise ...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Oh look!  The Collective rushing to defend each other ... what a fucking surprise ...


 
But you do make things up DB; like snooker balls and accusations that you support capital punishment for example. Are people meant to turn a blind eye when you post up another lie?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If those "attacks" are unlawful, sure ... but they are (for the most part) not.
> 
> If a crowd is using or threatening violence then the police have a _duty_ to use whatever lawful, reasonable and necessary means that they have at their disposal to do so, including the use of reasonable and necessary force.  That applies even if the crowd includes (or is even entirely made up of) "kids".
> 
> (Your entirely patronising depiction of "kids" as being incapable of making decisions for themselves and of being unable to present any threat to anyone at all, ever is pretty pathetic, by the way ... )


 
How is indiscriminately running horses at, or whacking with truncheons, whoever is in the vicinity 'lawful'? I'm fairly confident that collective punishment isn't legally justifiable. Crowd control? Do me a favour. Police purposefully provoke crowd in order to justify further police violence, every single time. No attempt to 'control', purely to inflame.

Kids under 18 are unable to enter a credit contract, or get married without consent, or drink etc for a reason you numpty. Because they are kids. Go batter a toddler or something big man. Fucking kapo.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 24, 2010)

Another thread ruined.

Why is this idiot still allowed here?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 24, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> How is indiscriminately running horses at, or whacking with truncheons, whoever is in the vicinity 'lawful'? I'm fairly confident that collective punishment isn't legally justifiable.


Collective punishment isn't lawful ... as I have already acknowledged.  But it isn't collective punishment.  A collective use of force (on a crowd as a group) is lawful - it is NOT a collective punishment but is a lawful action taken to prevent a breach of the peace, crime, etc.  It can usually only usually be justified to a minor degree (pushing and shoving or whatever) and certainly not to the point where any significant injury is caused.  That may include the use of horses in a way which will not involve any significant injury (such as them moving sideways at walking pace or moving forwards a short distance into a crowd, under control and at low speed, to break up a crowd or move it back - as has been seen in the majority of the footage of the student demonstrations).

Any more forceful action (such as the use of batons or the use of a mounted police charge at speed likely to cause significant injury) can only be justified on specific, individual grounds where there are reasonable grounds to believe that to do nothing would lead to a worse (or at least similar) level of injury or outcome.



> Police purposefully provoke crowd in order to justify further police violence, every single time. No attempt to 'control', purely to inflame.


That is not my experience in the vast, vast majority of cases.  It is not the case in the vast, vast majority of footage taken of any crowd control situation (strangely the boring bits which don't kick off don't make the headlines ... but they DO still exist ... ).  



> Kids under 18 are unable to enter a credit contract, or get married without consent, or drink etc for a reason you numpty. Because they are kids. Go batter a toddler or something big man. Fucking kapo.


They are also capable of assault, murder and other serious crimes ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Oh look!  The Collective rushing to defend each other ... what a fucking surprise ...


 
perhaps you could stop making things up?


----------



## revlon (Dec 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If a crowd is using or threatening violence then the police have a _duty_ to use whatever lawful, reasonable and necessary means that they have at their disposal to do so, including the use of reasonable and necessary force.  That applies even if the crowd includes (or is even entirely made up of) "kids".



If the police are using or threatening violence then the general public have a _duty_ to use whatever lawful, reasonable and necessary means that they have at their disposal to do so, including the use of reasonable and necessary force.  That applies even if a desk jockey ex plod tells you otherwise.


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 24, 2010)

Ban the pig.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 24, 2010)

Happy Christmas filth - roll on 2011!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Another thread ruined.
> 
> Why is this idiot still allowed here?


 
Because *we* tend to be more tolerant than *he* is.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 26, 2010)

revlon said:


> If the police are using or threatening violence then the general public have a _duty_ to use whatever lawful, reasonable and necessary means that they have at their disposal to do so, including the use of reasonable and necessary force.


They don't though.

If the police (or anyone else) is using LAWFUL force, any use of force in response to it WILL amount to a criminal offence of assault and a civil wrong of trespass to the person, rendering the person using the force liable to criminal conviction and being sued in the civil courts.

If the police (or anyone else) is using UNLAWFUL force, then any use of reasonable and necessary force in self-defence, or defence of another, or in the prevention of a crime (including assault) or in the making of a lawful arrest, will be likely to be found to be lawful.

As the police have many powers to use reasonable and necessary force, as they use reasonable and necessary force in a huge number of situations every day, and as they are almost invariably using powers based on more information than an observer has access to, it is _extremely_ risky to decide that the use of force by the police is unlawful simply on the basis of what you observe.  You are by far and away most likely to have got it wrong unless the circunstances are exceptionally clear cut and / or the amount of force being used by the police is grossly excessive.


----------



## Anonymous1 (Dec 26, 2010)

I've been lurking about reading a few threads here though i've only just decided to join.
I'd like to voice respect and solidarity with the students/protesters who've took part.

Vive La Revolution!


----------



## audiotech (Dec 26, 2010)

Student protester who stroked police horse arrested. Could it get any more farcical than this?



> A 25-year-old Bristol student was arrested in a dawn raid at his house and locked in a police cell for 12 hours after video evidence emerged of him stroking a police horse at an anti-tuition fees demonstration.



Here we go.



> Speaking about his time in the cells, Saville said: "There was no reason to come for me that early in the morning; the protest was three weeks before. And if we do live in a democracy then we should have a right to protest. But when I sat in the cell, I thought to myself, 'I don't want to be part of this any more.' I thought, 'Let the government make the cuts they want, I can't take this.' I gave up in that cell.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/26/student-protester-stroked-police-horse?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 26, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Student protester who stroked police horse arrested. Could it get any more farcical than this?


He wasn't arrested for "stroking a police horse" was he though ... as the article you link to makes clear and as you perfectly well know.

So why lie?


----------



## audiotech (Dec 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> He wasn't arrested for "stroking a police horse" was he though ... as the article you link to makes clear and as you perfectly well know.
> 
> So why lie?



They stuck on an "alleged" affray charge Mr Ed.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Dec 26, 2010)

Read the story, it was a fishing expidition to get his computer.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 26, 2010)

audiotech said:


> They stuck on an "alleged" affray charge Mr Ed.


So he wasn't arrested for "stroking a police horse" then.

Why did you lie?

(And I suggest you go and read up on the difference between arrest and charge too ... )


----------



## audiotech (Dec 26, 2010)

It was a C&p headline from the article, which I suspect is nearer to the truth, but we'll wait and see? Now off you trot.


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 26, 2010)

audiotech said:


> It was a C&p headline from the article, which I suspect is nearer to the truth, but we'll wait and see? Now off you trot.


Oh fuck off you supercillious prick ...


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 26, 2010)




----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 26, 2010)

Anonymous1 said:


> I've been lurking about reading a few threads here though i've only just decided to join.
> I'd like to voice respect and solidarity with the students/protesters who've took part.
> 
> Vive La Revolution!


 
Welcome to the boards   Now, please define the term revolution and how you expect it to come about


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 26, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> Now, please define the term revolution ...


Can I have a go?

Is it:  "Going round in a circle and getting nowhere" ?


----------



## audiotech (Dec 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Oh fuck off you supercillious prick ...



Sugar cube?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Dec 26, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Oh fuck off you _supercillious_ prick ...


did you have to put that in spellcheck, swearcheck or both?


----------



## detective-boy (Dec 27, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> ... swearcheck ...


Now _there's_ an idea ... 

* Wanders off to find App developer ... *


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 27, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So he wasn't arrested for "stroking a police horse" then.
> 
> Why did you lie?
> 
> (And I suggest you go and read up on the difference between arrest and charge too ... )


oh dear  you're not still accusing other people of mendacity are you? especially when you're so often guilty of it yourself...


----------



## The Black Hand (Dec 28, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> I wonder what would happen if everyone started creating protest events on facebook left, right and centre, with all the lists of people invited, attending etc... hidden from view?
> 
> How will they manage to cope with 20 or more protests which may or may not even happen, when their main intelligence seems to come from facebook?


 
Quite, it would be difficult and perhaps impossible for them...


----------



## gawkrodger (Dec 28, 2010)

I see another demo has been announced for the last Saturday of January, so all the non-studies can get involved as well


----------



## OneStrike (Dec 29, 2010)

Sensible to arrange it at the weekend, an early enough announcement for non-london folk to arrange cheaper train deals as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 30, 2010)

Can anyone throw any light on this? The lib-dems made and are still making a big thing about the effect of the rise in tuition fees being ameliorated by  special fund for the poorest. Labour are now claiming that this actually represents a cut from £360 million to £150 million.



> In the run up to the vote on trebling university tuition fees Clegg attempted to assure Lib Dem MPs by unveiling a £150m National Scholarship Programme aimed at poorer pupils. But the Browne review, used by the coalition as the basis for increasing tuition fees, said £360m was being spent in the current financial year by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).


----------



## shaman75 (Dec 30, 2010)

> The new head of public order policing in London has promised a "robust" response if there are more violent protests in 2011.
> 
> In her first TV interview Assistant Commissioner Lynne Owens, has told the BBC's Home Affairs Correspondent Andy Tighe that violence on the streets of the capital would never be tolerated.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/london/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9327000/9327628.stm


----------



## TopCat (Dec 30, 2010)

They might not have to tolerate it, but they will have to eat it up as they regularly dish it out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 30, 2010)

gawkrodger said:


> I see another demo has been announced for the last Saturday of January, so all the non-studies can get involved as well


 
yeh except for people who work on saturdays of course, which given the number of students with part time jobs is not going to be an insignificant number


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 5, 2011)

There was some woman from UNISON on BBC Breakfast (the London news slot) who was talking about how 'violence' was bad and it puts people from bringing kids to demos. She also said that "peaceful demonstrations" work.  Really? How so? How many peaceful demos have actually resulted in the government of the day changing its mind. I can't think of any and that's a sad indictment on the efficacy of peaceful protest.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2011)

*The Robbins Report 1963* - (basically set the ground for the first wave of university expansion to the working class etc):



> The search for truth is an essential function of the institutions of higher education’and the process of education is itself most vital when it partakes in the nature of discovery.



*The Browne Report 2010*:



> Higher education matters because it… helps produce economic growth, which in turn contributes to national prosperity.’



(From Kenan Malik's essay what is education for?)


----------



## The Black Hand (Jan 10, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> *The Robbins Report 1963* - (basically set the ground for the first wave of university expansion to the working class etc):
> 
> *The Browne Report 2010*:Higher education matters because it… helps produce economic growth, which in turn contributes to national prosperity.’
> 
> (From Kenan Malik's essay what is education for?)


 
Puts it very well. This is the end of the liberal education dream (which never was anything to do with the lib dems).


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jan 11, 2011)

ouch.. Willard just got over 2 yrs for the Fire extinguisher incident......


----------



## elbows (Jan 11, 2011)

32 months sentence according to Guardian news ticker.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 11, 2011)

year n a half served maybe less with a tag .


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jan 11, 2011)

aye 2 yrs 8 months (I couldnt work out what 32months was  )
bbc
good luck to the lad...


----------



## ExtraRefined (Jan 11, 2011)

AKA pseudonym said:


> ouch.. Willard just got over 2 yrs for the Fire extinguisher incident......


 
... and nothing of value was lost


----------



## Flanflinger (Jan 11, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> ... and nothing of value was lost



Over the coming months the silly little twat will learn the true value of liberty.


----------



## winjer (Jan 12, 2011)

While you won't even get that far.


----------



## Ungrateful (Jan 12, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:
			
		

> ... and nothing of value was lost





Flanflinger said:


> Over the coming months the silly little twat will learn the true value of liberty.


 
So some untrained, excitable teenager in the excitement of an occupation does something reprehensible but which injures no one. He comes forwards, is prosecuted and is given 32 months in prison. Meanwhile a highly trained and experienced police officer kills someone. in view of the camera The perpetrator does not step forward, his colleagues systematically lie about the incident, and then there is no prosecution and there is no punishment. Hmmm, the British legal system....


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2011)

NUS exec voted not to support the student and EMA protests at the end of jan earlier this week.


----------



## WWWeed (Jan 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> NUS exec voted not to support the student and EMA protests at the end of jan earlier this week.



 

its not surprising but it does kinda make you wonder the current purpose of the NUS is?!?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2011)

To produce future MPs and careers.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 12, 2011)

and to facilitate the opening of a fucking greggs on campus grounds. Oh and hiring unfunny comedians for shit freshers parties.


----------



## grit (Jan 12, 2011)

Ungrateful said:


> So some untrained, excitable teenager


 
Whatever about the injustices surrounding this case, I dont think the above is a excuse.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> NUS exec voted not to support the student and EMA protests at the end of jan earlier this week.


 
Not surprised at all either, seeing as there are lots of 'others' attending, rather than students.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> NUS exec voted not to support the student and EMA protests at the end of jan earlier this week.



They have now called a lobby of parliament on the 19th Jan, when there is apparently going to be a vote taking place on EMA (although given that the "vote" on the 11th never was, I'm not convinced this is true).  They've also called a day of action on the 18th but not really said anything much about doing something from what I've seen.  They still won't support the day of action that was already called on the 26th.


----------



## strung out (Jan 13, 2011)

there seem to be rumours knocking around (on police blogs etc, lol) that alfie meadows was struck by a piece of concrete thrown by protestors. has there been anything from him recently to confirm or deny this?


----------



## TopCat (Jan 13, 2011)

Inspector gadget is a cunt.


----------



## Ungrateful (Jan 13, 2011)

grit said:


> Whatever about the injustices surrounding this case, I dont think the above is a excuse.



It's not a _justification_ - it is however an _excuse_ - maybe not a very strong one - but it does give some reasons why he should not be held wholly responsible for his action. Youth, unusual circumstances etc. are usually taken as mitigating factors (especially when the defendant's actions aren't wholly in conflict with the interests of the governing class).


----------



## strung out (Jan 13, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Inspector gadget is a cunt.


 
yep!


----------



## strung out (Jan 20, 2011)

heh, just got a survey to fill out from the NUS about the protests etc. this bit made me laugh a little


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> NUS exec voted not to support the student and EMA protests at the end of jan earlier this week.


oh gawd they're so_ shit_


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> To produce future MPs and careers.


quite


----------



## The Black Hand (Jan 20, 2011)

Ungrateful said:


> So some untrained, excitable teenager in the excitement of an occupation does something reprehensible but which injures no one. He comes forwards, is prosecuted and is given 32 months in prison. Meanwhile a highly trained and experienced police officer kills someone. in view of the camera The perpetrator does not step forward, his colleagues systematically lie about the incident, and then there is no prosecution and there is no punishment. Hmmm, the British legal system....


 
WEll put.


----------



## winjer (Feb 2, 2011)

detective-boy;11348791][quote=ymu said:


> "The sides of the bridge were only waist high and all it would have taken is one stumble and someone could have gone over the side.


Waist high?  For a fucking nine foot tall person maybe[/QUOTE]
Utter bullshit. The sides of the bridge are 40 inches high, that's pretty much dead on waist-high for an average person.



> cos people (including drunks on New Years Eve) "stumble" and go over the fucking side all the fucking time


Just how often do the police use long shields to compress the crowd on New Year's Eve?

You're always pretty quick to point when others post nonsense they've just made up, and rightly so, so why post crap like this yourself?


----------



## BigTom (Apr 26, 2011)

Bumped because 11 people have been charged mostly with violent disorder from the demos on 9th Dec - including Alfie Meadows, the lad who nearly died from a head injury.


----------



## embree (Apr 26, 2011)

11 people have been charged by the Met in connection with 9th December, including Alfie Meadows - violent disorder

ETA: simultaneous bump!


----------



## BigTom (Apr 26, 2011)




----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 26, 2011)

Recklessly endangering the usability of a truncheon. Lock him up.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Apr 26, 2011)

ACAB.


----------



## OneStrike (Apr 26, 2011)

wtf re Alfie Thomas, has he pursued a claim for his injuries?  I presume he has otherwise they wouldn't want to hear his name mentioned again surely?


----------



## teqniq (Mar 30, 2016)

*Bump*

i hope this is the right thread, if it's not please someone point me in the right direction.

Anyway well one *cough* bad apple and all that....


----------



## ska invita (Mar 30, 2016)

A policeman doing time! Will wonders ever cease. I have to say I am for the idea of all police being mic'ed and camera'd up.

BTW my understanding is that the Alfie Meadows case is still not concluded ...dont know the details but somehow or other it rumbles on


----------



## shaman75 (Mar 31, 2016)

Unlucky Cunstable Ott.  Bet he's wondering how Simon Harwood managed to kill a man and keep his liberty.


----------

