# Riot Police Storm Lewisham Council Budget Cuts Meeting (NOW)



## where to (Nov 29, 2010)

*Protests at Lewisham Council Budget Cuts Meeting*

Twitter:

https://twitter.com/#search?q=lewisham


----------



## Mr Smin (Nov 29, 2010)

Hard to tell how many of those tweets are first hand and how many are just repetition (I don't have twitter experience).
Best wishes to the people down there. Shame Lewisham stuck with the usual suspects last election - there was an independent bloke running for mayor who was willing to do the job for the average wage instead of the excessive wedge we're paying Labour's bloke.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 29, 2010)

If it says 'RT' at the beginning of the post it means 're-tweet' i.e. they have copy and pasted directly from someone else's feed.


----------



## Sue (Nov 29, 2010)

Love Detective was going to this so assume we'll get the full story later.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 29, 2010)

It looks like @hangbitch on twitter is actually there, she's the name everyone's linking to for updates anyway...

Story is up on socialist worker now, fwiw http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=23216


----------



## smokedout (Nov 29, 2010)

this is unbearable, am just down the road and was going to be there but broke my foot last wednesday, im gonna be feeling like this all week aint i 

well fucking done everyone


----------



## Sue (Nov 29, 2010)

Hmm, think I'd trust LD's version of events rather than the SWP's.


----------



## paolo (Nov 29, 2010)

Basic details now on News24


----------



## discokermit (Nov 29, 2010)

Sue said:


> LD's version of events


where's that then?


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 29, 2010)

Sue said:


> Hmm, think I'd trust LD's version of events rather than the SWP's.


 
Well yes, I did say 'for what its worth'... I don't take anything they say at face value until its backed up elsewhere but they do love getting a riot story up first


----------



## smokedout (Nov 29, 2010)

latest on council meeting vote - not confirmed

Lewisham cuts package approved. 36 for. 3 against. 11 abstain. Greens and tories against. Lab for. Ld abstain.

Lewisham wont forget this labour


----------



## love detective (Nov 29, 2010)

that was pretty tasty - pitched battles with police & security in the reception of the town hall with the mayor & council cowering in the chamber upstairs shitting themselves - sporadic acts carried out inside elsewhere in the building  - police units called in from as far away as camden, main roads through roads in catford shut down - only one person lifted as far as I know on the night


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 29, 2010)

love detective said:


> that was pretty tasty - pitched battles with police & security in the reception of the town hall with the mayor & council cowering in the chamber upstairs shitting themselves - sporadic acts carried out inside elsewhere in the building  - police units called in from as far away as camden, main roads through roads in catford shut down - only one person lifted as far as I know on the night



Good stuff!


----------



## smokedout (Nov 29, 2010)

love detective said:


> that was pretty tasty - pitched battles with police & security in the reception of the town hall with the mayor & council cowering in the chamber upstairs shitting themselves - sporadic acts carried out inside elsewhere in the building  - police units called in from as far away as camden, main roads through roads in catford shut down - only one person lifted as far as I know on the night



 wicked news, lets keep up the momentum


----------



## belboid (Nov 29, 2010)

Sue said:


> Hmm, think I'd trust LD's version of events rather than the SWP's.


 
you prefer outright lies to exageration?  odd....  [oops, misunderstood!]

Anyway, a fairly typical over-reaction by the cops, they seem intent on taking us straight back to poll tax days!


----------



## past caring (Nov 29, 2010)

belboid said:


> you prefer outright lies to exageration?]



Stick to the Strictly Come Dancing threads, it's about all you're good for these days.


----------



## love detective (Nov 29, 2010)

belboid said:


> you prefer outright lies to exageration?  odd....
> 
> Anyway, a fairly typical over-reaction by the cops, they seem intent on taking us straight back to poll tax days!


 
what you on about?


----------



## belboid (Nov 29, 2010)

love detective said:


> what you on about?


 
uhh, I thought she meant Lib Dems version, sorry!


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 29, 2010)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11870742


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 29, 2010)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11870742 is the basic info on the BBC.


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 29, 2010)

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=23216


----------



## past caring (Nov 29, 2010)

Apology accepted - and I withdraw my remark (though I'll leave it there for context) - but Sue had specifically said Love detective was going to be there _before_ the bit you quoted......always helps to read the thread...


----------



## belboid (Nov 29, 2010)

bourgeois nonsense!


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 29, 2010)




----------



## love detective (Nov 29, 2010)

that video doesn't really give a sense of what was going on inside afterwards - looks pretty calm from that side!


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 29, 2010)

Not even a dented shield in sight


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 29, 2010)

https://twitter.com/#!/cllr_mikeharris/status/9365419576008704


----------



## moon23 (Nov 29, 2010)

love detective said:


> that was pretty tasty - pitched battles with police & security in the reception of the town hall with the mayor & council cowering in the chamber upstairs shitting themselves - sporadic acts carried out inside elsewhere in the building  - police units called in from as far away as camden, main roads through roads in catford shut down - only one person lifted as far as I know on the night


 
Fair enough protesting, but what's so great about trying to storm a meeting of elected democratic representatives?


----------



## love detective (Nov 30, 2010)

because it was meant to have been a publicly open meeting where members of the public had a right to both attend and speak at - members of the community attempted to exercise that right tonight and were met with a barrage of police & private security violence

all previous council meetings that contained cuts topics have either been held in rooms capable of fitting large amounts of the public in and in addition the meetings broadcast on a telly in an overflow room - for tonight's meeting however, they decided not to have the meeting in a room even close to capable of accommodating all those who wished to attend (limiting the attendance to only 40 despite knowing that hundreds would be turning up - despite intense lobbying of the council in the run up urging them to either hold it in a bigger room or at least open up another room and broadcast it), nor did they see fit to broadcast the meeting on the screen in another room like they usually do - they knew the numbers who wanted to attend and did their best to ensure that hardly anyone could - despite it being a pivotal moment for the community and so called local democracy, instead what we got was the symbolism of labour councillors cowering away behind closed doors in a sham undemocratic meeting (guarded by thugs with riot shields, dogs and horses )abdicating their responsibilities to the community in favour of waving through the cuts package - tonight was a collective act of mass anti-social behaviour in and against the community, perpetrated just as much by councillors as the police


----------



## moon23 (Nov 30, 2010)

love detective said:


> because it was meant to have been a publicly open meeting where members of the public had a right to both attend and speak at - members of the community attempted to exercise that right tonight and were met with a barrage of police & private security violence
> 
> all previous council meetings that contained cuts topics have either been held in rooms capable of fitting large amounts of the public in and in addition the meetings broadcast on a telly in an overflow room - for tonight's meeting however, they decided not to have the meeting in a room even close to capable of accommodating all those who wished to attend (limiting the attendance to only 40 despite knowing that hundreds would be turning up - despite intense lobbying of the council in the run up urging them to either hold it in a bigger room or at least open up another room and broadcast it), nor did they see fit to broadcast the meeting on the screen in another room like they usually do - they knew the numbers who wanted to attend and did their best to ensure that hardly anyone could - despite it being a pivotal moment for the community and so called local democracy, instead what we got was the symbolism of labour councillors cowering away behind closed doors in a sham undemocratic meeting (guarded by thugs with riot shields, dogs and horses )abdicating their responsibilities to the community in favour of waving through the cuts package - tonight was a collective act of mass anti-social behaviour in and against the community, perpetrated just as much by councillors as the police


 
Well I think if it was an open meeting and they knew it would be popular they should have arranged for a bigger venue or had some kind of application and lottery system if spaced was limited to allow some people attend. What were people doing inside, anything to provoke a police response or was it a complete over reaction?


----------



## free spirit (Nov 30, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well I think if it was an open meeting and they knew it would be popular they should have arranged for a bigger venue or had some kind of application and lottery system if spaced was limited to allow some people attend. *What were people doing inside*, anything to provoke a police response or was it a complete over reaction?


attempting to hold the councillors to account and ensure a meeting that should have been held in public was held in public presumably. The police should have been assisting them in this process rather than defending the councillors IMO.


----------



## love detective (Nov 30, 2010)

> Well I think if it was an open meeting and they knew it would be popular they should have arranged for a bigger venue or had some kind of application and lottery system if spaced was limited to allow some people attend. What were people doing inside, anything to provoke a police response or was it a complete over reaction?



it was a full council meeting, these meetings are alway open to the public to attend & speak at - and in the past they have always accommodated those who either wished to be in the room or watch it on the broadcast outside - they told us a few days before the meeting that there was no plans to make the accomodations that they previously had, despite knowing hundreds would be turning up. The meeting was held in the town hall which has countless large meeting rooms that could accommodate higher numbers, they chose however not to hold it in any of these - so space was not limited by design, they limited space through choice to restrict public attendance at an event that we had a right to attend - people gathered outside to protest and assert their right of witness - the answer was riot shields, TSG, horses, dogs and brutality from police & private security

this was the number 2 item on BBC national news just now!


----------



## little_legs (Nov 30, 2010)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11870742

some people got arrested


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2010)

smokedout said:


> latest on council meeting vote - not confirmed
> 
> Lewisham cuts package approved. 36 for. 3 against. 11 abstain. Greens and tories against. Lab for. Ld abstain.
> 
> Lewisham wont forget this labour


 

Interesting.

A couple of questions.

1) Is Lewisham still Labour?

2) Is there still a mechanism like the old surcharge on councillors if they failed to set a legal rate? Could the Labour councillors, if they form the administration, have accepted the cuts so they couldn't be "surcharged", or do you reckon it's just (the unfortunately usual) careerism at work?


----------



## love detective (Nov 30, 2010)

1. yes

2. no


----------



## love detective (Nov 30, 2010)

little_legs said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11870742
> 
> some people got arrested


 
_The Metropolitan Police (Met) said 15 officers suffered minor injuries, with two needing hospital treatment_

that sounds like complete bullshit - it was a bit rowdy but not 15 injured policemen rowdy


----------



## where to (Nov 30, 2010)

new video now available - see homepage of anticuts.org.uk


----------



## paolo (Nov 30, 2010)

love detective said:


> _The Metropolitan Police (Met) said 15 officers suffered minor injuries, with two needing hospital treatment_
> 
> that sounds like complete bullshit - it was a bit rowdy but not 15 injured policemen rowdy


 
Previous public order injury figures have included bee stings. But it's too cold for bees, so that would be ridiculous at this time of year.


----------



## little_legs (Nov 30, 2010)

paolo999 said:


> Previous public order injury figures have included bee stings. But it's too cold for bees, so that would be ridiculous at this time of year.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 30, 2010)

paolo999 said:


> Previous public order injury figures have included bee stings. But it's too cold for bees, so that would be ridiculous at this time of year.


 
Paper cuts reeeeaaally hurt when its cold though, or a seasonal cold sore perhaps?


----------



## newbie (Nov 30, 2010)

ViolentPanda;112847452) said:
			
		

> Is there still a mechanism like the old surcharge on councillors if they failed to set a legal rate? Could the Labour councillors, if they form the administration, have accepted the cuts so they couldn't be "surcharged", or do you reckon it's just (the unfortunately usual) careerism at work?


 
LD are you sure there isn't?  This was the same financial duty on councillors that later got Shirley Porter.  Has it really been repealed?


----------



## belboid (Nov 30, 2010)

newbie said:


> LD are you sure there isn't?  This was the same financial duty on councillors that later got Shirley Porter.  Has it really been repealed?


 
yes there is, updated in the Local Government Act 2000


----------



## dennisr (Nov 30, 2010)

Saw this point made elsewhere: "These are some of the same Labour councillors that Lewisham Right to Work campaign, set up as a clear rival to the Lewisham Anti-Cuts Alliance had on their platform at their founding public meeting. Perhaps the Lewisham SWP comrades can put all their herculean efforts to foist the local Labour Party onto the anti-cuts movement to good use and prevail upon their mates in the Labour Party not to set the riot police on working people trying to defend their jobs and local services?"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2010)

love detective said:


> 1. yes
> 
> 2. no


 
So the craven cunts have basically showed their true colours, and followed the govt line.

Wankers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2010)

belboid said:


> yes there is, updated in the Local Government Act 2000


 
Ah, so they *may* have passed the cuts purely to save their own hides.

Wankers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2010)

dennisr said:


> Saw this point made elsewhere: "These are some of the same Labour councillors that Lewisham Right to Work campaign, set up as a clear rival to the Lewisham Anti-Cuts Alliance had on their platform at their founding public meeting. Perhaps the Lewisham SWP comrades can put all their herculean efforts to foist the local Labour Party onto the anti-cuts movement to good use and prevail upon their mates in the Labour Party not to set the riot police on working people trying to defend their jobs and local services?"


----------



## love detective (Nov 30, 2010)

> Ah, so they may have passed the cuts purely to save their own hides.
> 
> Wankers.



pretty much - I don't think they can be jailed or anything like that anymore like what could be done back in the 80's - if they set an illegal budget the first thing that happens is that they can get warned by unelected finance officials, which they are able to overturn, potentially can result in a fine, but i'm sure it's not the same as the old surcharges

there's still a few of those pro-labour swp types in/around LACA - they were the ones who were arguing against ridculing the notion of labour councillors desire to implement 'democratic socialist cuts' as one day we may need them as friends - boners bruno stuff! - thankfully the worst of the lot seems to have taken their ball and went home as they weren't happy about the 'revolutionary relevance' of LACA being compromised because we didn't want to be mates with pro-cuts councillors


----------



## TopCat (Nov 30, 2010)

Well done that mob!


----------



## TopCat (Nov 30, 2010)

Ha! i a looking at the longer video at the cuts link, it's mental! I have just got to the point where the smoke bomb gets thrown in. I am very proud of the lot of you.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 30, 2010)

Labour mate of mine asked why people should protest the council when the council have almost no choice but to enact the cuts. The answer is two-fold:

1) People are pissed off and need a place to focus that anger. There were more issues than just the cutting of services, there was also the way they went about holding the meeting
2) Yes, councils are bound to produce a legal budget, otherwise central government will bring in people from outside to set one. In that respect, it is pragmatically better for the council to liaise and consult with the local community to make it hurt less than letting gvt come in and make it hurt more, however these 'consultations' rarely happen, and even when they do the basic premise that there have to be cuts in the first place is dodgy.

Difficult to say that to him in 140 char on twitter though


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 30, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Ha! i a looking at the longer video at the cuts link, it's mental! I have just got to the point where the smoke bomb gets thrown in. I am very proud of the lot of you.


 
Have you got a link? I can't find the video


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2010)

Great stuff  - this is going to be happening at town halls around the country for months on end. We must make sure people know about them - before and after.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 30, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> Have you got a link? I can't find the video


----------



## discokermit (Nov 30, 2010)

dennisr said:


> Saw this point made elsewhere: "These are some of the same Labour councillors that Lewisham Right to Work campaign, set up as a clear rival to the Lewisham Anti-Cuts Alliance had on their platform at their founding public meeting. Perhaps the Lewisham SWP comrades can put all their herculean efforts to foist the local Labour Party onto the anti-cuts movement to good use and prevail upon their mates in the Labour Party not to set the riot police on working people trying to defend their jobs and local services?"


 
you can barely make three consecutive posts without mentioning the swp. well funny.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 30, 2010)

discokermit said:


> you can barely make three consecutive posts without mentioning the swp. well funny.


 
did i push the wrong button? (and thats simply not true - but a point worth making in this instance)


----------



## belboid (Nov 30, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ah, so they *may* have passed the cuts purely to save their own hides.
> 
> Wankers.


 
It is a confused law, as far as I can tell.  The terms under which Liverpool & Lambeth got done are removed, but there is still an obligatory Code of Conduct to sign which has provison for 'wilful misuse of public funds.' There is no case law in this at the moment tho, so how it might be aplpied would be interesting.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 30, 2010)

dennisr said:


> did i push the wrong button? (and thats simply not true - but a point worth making in this instance)


 
my buttons are pretty unpushable today, dennis. it was more of a tickle.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 30, 2010)

discokermit said:


> my buttons are pretty unpushable today, dennis. it was more of a tickle.



 - let me tickle you some more. Being a pedant: 200 recent posts (cant be arsed going any further) and only one mention of the swappies - the one above


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 30, 2010)

dennisr said:


> - let me tickle you some more. Being a pedant: 200 recent posts (cant be arsed going any further) and only one mention of the swappies - the one above


 
That's two now.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## dennisr (Nov 30, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> That's two now.
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


 
bugger


----------



## belboid (Nov 30, 2010)

dennisr said:


> Saw this point made elsewhere: "These are some of the same Labour councillors that Lewisham Right to Work campaign, set up as a clear rival to the Lewisham Anti-Cuts Alliance had on their platform at their founding public meeting. Perhaps the Lewisham SWP comrades can put all their herculean efforts to foist the local Labour Party onto the anti-cuts movement to good use and prevail upon their mates in the Labour Party not to set the riot police on working people trying to defend their jobs and local services?"


 anyone go to said meeting?  I'd have no problems with Labour councillors attending one, as long as they had demands put upon them and were told in no uncertain terms that if they impletemented the cuts they, could fuck off.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 30, 2010)

belboid said:


> anyone go to said meeting?  I'd have no problems with Labour councillors attending one, as long as they had demands put upon them and were told in no uncertain terms that if they impletemented the cuts they, could fuck off.


 
me neither. there's an online rumble over this issue on the socialist unity site (where I got the original quote from)


----------



## belboid (Nov 30, 2010)

aah, ta


----------



## dennisr (Nov 30, 2010)

Twitter commentry from yesterday's protest:
"Lewisham council protest 2nite 6pm Catford town hall: fury @ Bullock’s huge cuts list for a deprived borough … Cops losing control at lewisham … Ppl screaming let us in … This is mad never seen protest like it … Ppl have broken past cops into town hall … Riot cops at a council meeting jesus … Now ppl fighting riot cops … Think yr going to need some bigger cops gideon … Jesus ppl r going for the police theyre fighting back … Whole street outside lewisham council is closed + full of coppers … Everyone at this protest sayng theyre inspired by the students … Gideon youve got a big fuckn problem here Ive never seen ppl take on riot cops … Lewisham is a Labour council too. Jesus man that’s anger … Lewisham is a v poor borough. What does the govt expect?"

from: http://socialistunity.com


----------



## dennisr (Nov 30, 2010)

riot police have been unleashed on protestors by "a labour council, a labour council" - grotesque chaos

(are they delivering the redundancy notices by taxi?)


----------



## discokermit (Nov 30, 2010)

dennisr said:


> - let me tickle you some more. Being a pedant: 200 recent posts (cant be arsed going any further) and only one mention of the swappies - the one above


 
what i've done here is not noticed the dates on the ra/iwca thread. i though the posts you made two years ago were recent. sorry, my mistake.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 30, 2010)

discokermit said:


> what i've done here is not noticed the dates on the ra/iwca thread. i though the posts you made two years ago were recent. sorry, my mistake.


 
oh yeh that thread - that was a resurected 'blast from the past' 

(as was my crappy joke above - i just hope someones gets it - anyone...)


----------



## revlon (Nov 30, 2010)

dennisr said:


> oh yeh that thread - that was a resurected 'blast from the past'
> 
> (as was my crappy joke above - i just hope someones gets it - anyone...)


 
degsy'll appreciate it


----------



## dennisr (Nov 30, 2010)

revlon said:


> degsy'll appreciate it


 
he was misunderstood - as are all scousers


----------



## moon23 (Nov 30, 2010)

love detective said:


> it was a full council meeting, these meetings are alway open to the public to attend & speak at - and in the past they have always accommodated those who either wished to be in the room or watch it on the broadcast outside - they told us a few days before the meeting that there was no plans to make the accomodations that they previously had, despite knowing hundreds would be turning up. The meeting was held in the town hall which has countless large meeting rooms that could accommodate higher numbers, they chose however not to hold it in any of these - so space was not limited by design, they limited space through choice to restrict public attendance at an event that we had a right to attend - people gathered outside to protest and assert their right of witness - the answer was riot shields, TSG, horses, dogs and brutality from police & private security
> 
> this was the number 2 item on BBC national news just now!



Well it's hard to know whether they intentionally tried to limit space or whether there was another factor. It could simply be that the clerk booked the wrong room or another one was taken up, or that they were advised to limit numbers for health & safety or simply that they didn't think that many people would turn up.

I'm not saying it wasn't intentional, only that it is just one of several possibilities.


----------



## belboid (Nov 30, 2010)

Bollocks, of course it as deliberate.


----------



## love detective (Nov 30, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well it's hard to know whether they intentionally tried to limit space or whether there was another factor. It could simply be that the clerk booked the wrong room or another one was taken up, or that they were advised to limit numbers for health & safety or simply that they didn't think that many people would turn up.


 
jesus fuck


----------



## moon23 (Nov 30, 2010)

belboid said:


> Bollocks, of course it as deliberate.



Why would you deliberately try making it into an even bigger scene? There being too many people to enter a public meeting is not a unique phenomena. They were probably just not prepared for an organised group of protestors arriving on mass.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 30, 2010)

love detective said:


> jesus fuck


 
I'm just saying that there are a multitude of possibilities, you shouldn’t always assume a conspiracy.


----------



## love detective (Nov 30, 2010)

LACA press release

_Lewisham Anti Cuts Alliance 
Press release re: lobby of Lewisham Council 29th November

Last night (29th November) Lewisham Anti Cuts Alliance lead a peaceful protest outside Lewisham Town Hall in Catford to protest against first wave of cuts (c. £20m in the first tranche – possibly up to £78m over the next three years) which Steve Bullock was presenting to full council. The protest gathered various trade unions, the NUT, Unison, PCS, UCU and Unite, users of public services such as local libraries and Opening Doors and students from Goldsmiths College. Already the council has announced the closure of  five libraries, the Amersham Children’s Centre, the Opening Doors employment centres as well as making 466 council workers redundant. 

Around 150-200 people gathered from 5.30pm onwards in the freezing cold, wanting to express their democratic right to oversee the council and attend the public gallery of the council chamber. Upon arriving we discovered that just 28 people were to be allowed in. An orderly queue formed, where people were searched by security guards and the police. At 7.30pm when the meeting was due to start our protest began to gather outside the doors of the Council to make our voices heard. 

We were met with harassment and abuse from the council employed security guards and the police, who were illegally preventing us from undertaking our democratic right to attend council meetings. Riot police then assaulted protesters and cleared the public gallery of all visitors and violently cleared the lobby.

By not allowing us into the pubic gallery or providing a video link in an overspill area the police were preventing our democratic right to observe a public council meeting which is making a decision which will drastically affect our lives as our public services are slashed or else abolished. 

The lobby demonstrated our unity that we are all in this fight to save our public services, welfare benefits, EMA and prevent the rise in tuition fees together. Our level of anger is doubled by the fact that in Lewisham it is a Labour council, which is carrying out the coalition government’s dirty work for them. 

In a previous response to our appeal for the Labour Council to pass a “no cuts” budget Cllr Michael Harris said that these cuts are necessary and “democratic and socialist”. Lewisham Anti Cuts Alliance believes there is an alternative. Simply cutting the amount spent on consultants would save c. £36m in the next three years. We have called on Labour Councillors to reject this budget and to join us in the fight these cuts imposed on us by the Tories and LibDems. 
_


----------



## TopCat (Nov 30, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well it's hard to know whether they intentionally tried to limit space or whether there was another factor. It could simply be that the clerk booked the wrong room or another one was taken up, or that they were advised to limit numbers for health & safety or simply that they didn't think that many people would turn up.
> 
> I'm not saying it wasn't intentional, only that it is just one of several possibilities.


 
Its not very plausible is it? Your grasping at straws.


----------



## ericjarvis (Nov 30, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well it's hard to know whether they intentionally tried to limit space or whether there was another factor. It could simply be that the clerk booked the wrong room or another one was taken up, or that they were advised to limit numbers for health & safety or simply that they didn't think that many people would turn up.
> 
> I'm not saying it wasn't intentional, only that it is just one of several possibilities.


 
It's irrelevant. The voters of Lewisham have a right to attend full meetings of the council. If that right was curtailed, for whatever reason, the council should be starting from a position of being apologetic... not calling in riot police to prevent people from exercising their democratic right to oversee the actions of their elected representatives.

Councillors, MPs, and MEPs, are elected representatives of the people, not our rulers. Unfortunately there is pretty much nobody left in any of the main political parties who doesn't accept the line that democracy works on a basis of a leadership telling followers the policies they must accept through blind loyalty. Now they have the political parties working that way they are set on making the entire system follow suit.


----------



## belboid (Nov 30, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm just saying that there are a multitude of possibilities, you shouldn’t always assume a conspiracy.


 
this from the man who, upon readnig one single statistic, thought it proved causation.

A change from what has been done in previous years, despite knowing that this meeting will be more popular....what could the most obvious explanation be?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 30, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Why would you deliberately try making it into an even bigger scene?


I suspect that they believed the tactic would discourage attendance. It's a pretty widespread practice by local authorities, unfortunately.
In this case they made an error of judgement about how easily they could brush aside local concerns about the cuts. 


> There being too many people to enter a public meeting is not a unique phenomena. They were probably just not prepared for an organised group of protestors arriving on mass.


Because obviously no-one at Lewisham town hall had any idea of what has been happening in terms of anti-cuts protest over the last month or so.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 30, 2010)

Camden town tomorrow.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2010)

We need a thread for town hall stuff - this is going on for months.


----------



## love detective (Nov 30, 2010)

> Because obviously no-one at Lewisham town hall had any idea of what has been happening in terms of anti-cuts protest over the last month or so



Indeed - the mayor & cabinet meeting about the cuts two weeks prior which they managed to hold in a room that held around 100 public who turned up, plus broadcasting it to an overflow room outside clearly indicated that no more than 40 people would possibly want to attend the actual meeting where the cuts were being voted on


----------



## moon23 (Nov 30, 2010)

love detective said:


> Indeed - the mayor & cabinet meeting about the cuts two weeks prior which they managed to hold in a room that held around 100 public who turned up, plus broadcasting it to an overflow room outside clearly indicated that no more than 40 people would possibly want to attend the actual meeting where the cuts were being voted on


 
This is point that lends credibility to your interpretation.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Nov 30, 2010)

Bugger! All the protests I've attended outside that Town Hall over the years and the one night something kicks off is the evening  I decide to give it a miss
glad no one was seriously hurt but also very pleased that the councillors got given a hard time 
 They have been pissing over their electorate for far too long.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/30/lewisham-anti-cuts-protesters

_The local context is vital. Lewisham's Labour-run council wasn't exactly munificent even before the cuts. When I lived in the borough, there were few amenities and local people had to struggle to keep those available. School closures were the subject of repeated local campaigns and the threat to Ladywell swimming pool galvanised a sustained campaign that helped cost Labour control of the local council in the 2006 elections.

What money was being spent on services was too often squandered on costly and inefficient PFI schemes. The arrogance of Labour mayor Steve Bullock in the face of any opposition was on display when he called anti-cuts protesters "fucking idiots"_


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 30, 2010)

Big hairy balls. I clean forgot this was happening. Anyone know what's planned next?


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 30, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> Big hairy balls. I clean forgot this was happening. Anyone know what's planned next?


 
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/98176


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 30, 2010)

In Lewisham I meant. Can't see any more events lined up on the anti-cuts blog.


----------



## where to (Nov 30, 2010)

new thread explicitly for announcement of these protests and subsequent discussion:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...uts-Meetings-Protests?p=11288964#post11288964


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Nov 30, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> In Lewisham I meant. Can't see any more events lined up on the anti-cuts blog.


 http://sayingno.org/cms/2010/11/29/1329/
 Not an anti cuts protest but there's a  Candlelit Vigil at 5 on Thursday  to protest Tidemill becoming an Academy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 1, 2010)

I was pretty fucking disgusted after watching some of the news footage, and seeing at least two coppers jabbing members of the public in the neck with the edges of their riot shields. Fucking murderous irresponsibility.


----------



## love detective (Dec 1, 2010)

_Throughout the meeting there was a siege like atmosphere with councillors being regularly updated on the situation outside, the doors of the chamber being locked.

When the meeting did end councillors were given a police escort out of the building to prevent them being attacked, even though the crowd had dispersed._

Hopefully these scenes will be repeated up and down the country


----------



## TopCat (Dec 1, 2010)

Hope you lot are coming to Camden Town hall this evening.


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Dec 1, 2010)

report in News Shopper
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/8...mes__minority__for_Lewisham_protest_violence/


----------



## love detective (Dec 1, 2010)

few more reports here

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/11/cuts-lewisham-night-violent
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/30/lewisham-anti-cuts-protesters
http://whitechapelanarchistgroup.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/lewisham-fighting-the-cuts/

couldn't go to camden tonight TC - i've got the lurgy


----------

