*Brixton Movement for Justice March

[viperman]

You're right pooka

This is no place for the RUC/NI I did not start it, I merely mentioned that i use to work for them, FULL STOP Everyone else has brought it up and slagged them off, so what else can I do!!
I don't mind people slagging me off or criticising my remarks and hitting back, that's what debate is all about.

Keep it up. Thanks Pooka for posting something sensible here at last

 

[editor]

Viperman: seeing as you've made disgraceful comments about people living in Brixton, I'm not surprised that some of them have had a go back at you - sadly, it seems that you can't take what you dish out.

But as editor of this site, I have every right to bring you to task for your offensive comments about me and .my fellow Brixtonians

Now, quit your whinging and bleating, and substantiate your deeply offensive comments.


Or fuck off.

Edited to add: your comment, "I agree with your comments about Editor. Sticks and stones etc" appears to be agreeing with yourself.

This couldn't be because you're posting here under two different identities, could it?

 

[viperman]

can't take it?????

can you read?? did you not see my remark where i said I don't give a fuck what people say about me. It does not bother me what people say about me no matter what and no matter how abusive. They are only words so who cares, like water off a ducks back

 

[editor]

Answer my question or you're toast on these boards, wriggler.

 

[viperman]

Well...........

Guess I'm toast then. this is probably the reason there are so few dissenters on this board. I guess I should consider myself lucky. Stalin would have shot me so getting banned aint toooooo bad

 

[editor]

Look: you barge into these boards and announce - like the pitiful bigot you are - that the notion of 'hard working and honest' Brixtonians is an 'oxymoron'.

Seeing as I live in Brixton that's deeply offensive.

I've given you endless opportunities to explain and substantiate your opinion, but each time you try to wriggle and bluff your way out of it.

Now, I couldn't give a flying fuck what your politics are - despite your feeble bleating about 'censorship' - the fact remains that anyone who makes such clearly disruptive and bigoted statements on these boards will be kicked off.

It's got nothing to do with 'dissenting', but everything to do with providing a grown up argument and treating the people on these boards with a little respect - something you have clearly failed spectacularly to do.

Edited to add: after yet another refusal from viperman to back up his outrageous claims about Brixton people, he's been banned.

All his IP addresses have been logged for future reference.

 

[freethepeeps]

Originally posted by Brian
OK enough already. NO, the police in Brixton do NOT routinely attack protestors - for goodness sake (I have to say 'goodness' now I'm afraid) this is where I came in. We may have held up protestors who wanted to go elsewhere on a march but we did not attack them. Genuine protestors are welcome in Brixton. Many people in Brixton protest by their very existence, the way they live, the way they conduct themselves. That is one of the things that makes Brixton such a wonderful place.

Well excuse me Sir

Lets just think about it this way - if the behaviour of the police towards the protestors had been reversed, what charges would the protestors have faced?

My guess is Section 4 (POA), Assault occassioning ABH, false imprisonment and a few others besides, I'm pretty sure that affray would have been considered as well.

Going in the right direction or going backwards - no argument there, is there?

Erm, I think there's quite a lot of argument about this actually!

 

[newbie]

Many people in Brixton protest by their very existence, the way they live, the way they conduct themselves.

I'm not sure how to take this. It's an interesting thought, certainly, but not one I'd really expect from someone who knows the place.

I'm not in the police, and I'm happy to accept that they shield me from much of the raw unpleasantness that characterises inner city life. Maybe from that POV many peoples conduct can be viewed as protest, simply because they don't see normal day by day life.

But from the outside I have to ask, protest against what, exactly? And how?

ISTM most are just living their lives. TBH this smacks of the cod sociology I might expect of newcomers (or journalists): in simplistic terms it goes something like "Black people are oppressed, therefore they will naturally support any revolutionary activity". It doesn't take long to see through this, either as written or when you substitute women, gays, workers... .

Compared with other places I've spent time, one of the key things I appreciate about Brixton is how non-judgemental most people are, how possible it is to live whatever lifestyle I choose. But I seldom see evidence that people (metaphorically) bay at the moon in existential protest. Am I missing something?

 

[hatboy]

Brian's remark makes sense to me. I protest about homophobia just by being me, going to the places I go, and being heard/seen.

I think that if you're in any sort of visible minority that there is an element of protest in your very existence. Look at the hassle transexuals get just walking down the street for instance?

 

[newbie]

haawooooo

fair enough

 

[freethepeeps]

Many people in Brixton protest by their very existence, the way they live, the way they conduct themselves. That is one of the things that makes Brixton such a wonderful place.

originally posted by Brian

Brian's remark makes sense to me. I protest about homophobia just by being me, going to the places I go, and being heard/seen.

originally posted by Hatboy

Hatboy

Surely the same applies for any openly gay man anywhere - it is not specific to Lambeth.

Brian's statement actually doesn't mean a lot. Many people outside of Lambeth "protest by their very existence"!!

 

[The Black Hand]

Newbie said "TBH this smacks of the cod sociology I might expect of newcomers (or journalists): in simplistic terms it goes something like "Black people are oppressed, therefore they will naturally support any revolutionary activity". It doesn't take long to see through this, either as written or when you substitute women, gays, workers...." I DO NOT believe in such simplistic analysis [you constructed a straw man to burn], although there are as you say some of these people WHO do protest and have that consciousness... I have a dynamic approach which says that there is no mechanical consciousness derived from peoples objective positions (that is a Marxism that died in 1956 when many including EP Thompson left the COmmunist Party) - I'm more with Sartre and making sides, giving history the meaning we see fit...

 

[The Black Hand]

REPLY TO the demi God Brian the Commander

HI Bri... you said that "Genuine protestors" are welcome in Brixton... I thort i would just say that there is no such thing as a 'Un genuine protester' - whatever that is... were the people who fought the police in 1981, 1985 and 1990 in Brixton 'not genuine'? I know they were, and to pretend otherwise is right wing politics... I know this is one of the many examples of canteen culture amongst the police but it also raises other points...

Q. What do liberals (including liberal 'anarchists'), Trotskyists, and the police exemplified by Brian have in common?

A. The way they see protest, 'debate' and 'reasoning' is fairly similar. These people all have a detached view of protest and think that everybody is in rational control of their emotions...
SO when faced with problematic situations when people don't play the rules of the 'rigged' game they are shouted down and demonised, or ideologically 'explained away'....

Hypothetical Example: the sister of a man killed by police goes to a Police 'Community' 'Consultation' meeting and disrupts it, and attacks the head of the force responsible [or local commander] ... You can't negotiate with her, you can't mediate her political needs, what see feels about making her protest is imminent in what she does, and the bourgois democratic structure irrelevent in her calculations cos she doesn't care about what is subsequently done to her and the superficial reforms that might happen... All that matters IS HER protest...

George Orwell said that when he saw conflict between police and workers he didn't have to think about which side he was on... when i see conflict between protesters and the police i don't either


The Black HAnd

(ps is there a smilie with a helmet on that turns into a pig? )

 

[newbie]

Black Hand I never for a moment thought you think that, I wasn't getting personal.... oops, I've just realised- in my original I typed TBH meaning 'to be honest', I'm slipping into acronyms without thinking. Sorry.

 

[pooka]

The black hand:

Do you mean the meeting last Tuesday and do you mean mother not sister? Were you there?

If that is the occasion you're referring to, then she was listened to once everyone knew who she was. No-one would doubt that her protest was "genuine" and grief driven. I can't see that the police commander could have "negotiated" with her in those circumstance, in part for legal reasons but much more so cos a meeting of 300 people is not the place. Brian Paddick says he's spoken with her on other occasions and I take his word for it.

But one could forgiven for thinking that the protest of those using her was other than "genuine".

In terms of street protest, I would assert that most people would define "genuine" as people who take to the streets to make their views/feelings felt about a particular issue. They would consider "not genuine" people who want to use any opportunity for a ruck with the police. I don't think that distinction is restricted to police canteen culture.

Seems to me people using their rationality to mediate how the express their emotions especially where it impacts on other people, is a prerequisite of a civilised society, bourgois or not.

I think when people aren't able to, like the grief of a mather, then people understand that. But I don't think that's what's being talked about here.

 

[freethepeeps]

Originally posted by pooka
They would consider "not genuine" people who want to use any opportunity for a ruck with the police. I don't think that distinction is restricted to police canteen culture.

Oh yeah, those "hardcore" of anarchists who have been invented to justify attacking dissent? Who the hell are these people? I have been on many demos, and I have yet to meet them or see them. But it is good enough for the police to spread lies, then believe them and then act on them.

And you are right, it isn't just restricted to police canteen culture, it is part of mainstream journalistic culture as well. They are instrumental in creating the climate against protests by demonising the protestors and uncritically reporting police lies, whilst glossing over the Human Rights abuses that are perpertrated daily by the footsoldiers of the state.

They produce no evidence of these "opportunistic ruckers", despite the millions of images that they record at these demos. They find no weapons despite the widespread usage of S60 and it's attendant searches.

And theres Brian denying once again that the march was attacked, showing that he means the MFJ are not "genuine" protestors by his refusal to criticise heavy handed policing and abuse of authority.

"They thought it might be out of hand, they thought there might be a breach of the peace, so they assaulted people and held them without charge, against their will. And Brian "thought" that was okay.

So thats what they mean by the "thought" police!

 

[editor]

freethepeeps: are you *really* suggesting that you've never been to a demo and witnessed some 'protesters' who are clearly only interested in aimless violence and unrelated vandalism and have scant regard for the issues?

I certainly have. Several times, sadly.

At J18, I was so enraged by some fuckwits throwing bottles (the fragments of which were bouncing back and showering over some young children and their Mums) that I had to physically threaten them to stop (I was also equally enraged by some intimidatory fuckwit officers too, who seemed more interested in stirring up trouble than policing).

On occasion, I've seen brew crew fuckwits smashing up cheap, old cars in the street, lobbing bricks into local shops and hassling working class people who don't fit their stereotypes at various protests and I've always found such mindless acts utterly depressing.

Do you condemn such acts too?

My opinion: I've seen brutal, violent police and I've seen brutal, violent protesters - and I condemn them both uniquivocally.

Don't you?

Personally, I find it rather a shame that you can't direct your considerable energy and enthusiasm into providing some useful, real-world, community-backed alternatives - but I guess solutions come a little harder than criticism, eh?

Btw: did you actually attend the march in question or the Paddick meeting last week?

 

[freethepeeps]

Mike

I wasn't at J18 and I have never seen a window bricked, or a car done over, and yet I have been on many protests. I can honestly say that the violence I have witnessed has always been perpertrated by the police.

That is not to say that I don't know that there have been times when "brew crew fuckwits" have damaged property, but it seems to me that the police are now using the fact that that has happened in the past, to treat all protestors like criminals.

You say that you condemn violent protestors and violent police equally. That starts to open up the whole "violence/non violence" debate, which is the stuff of other threads. I am clear that I regard violence as the use of physical force to hurt people and that to date, it is only the police that I have seen use violence.

Are you saying that you back the widespread use of S60 and kettles at protests? That you are happy with the use of force prior to any illegal act being committed? Because that is my basic problem.

In terms of the MFJ march, I was at the rally outside the Town Hall and a number of my friends were on the march. The marchers were outnumbered by the police, who (as usual) were tooled up to the hilt. Had any trouble started, they would have been able to deal with it without any problems. However, no trouble was planned and the police moved in, assaulted people and held them for some time, before there was any justifiable reason for doing so.

And my issue with Brian is that he doesn't see it as an attack, that he mumbles about it being a "close call" and supports an attack by his officers on protestors, because a copper "thought" there might be trouble. As I pointed out, any protestor behaving in the same manner as the police on that march would be facing a number of charges including Public Order Act / ABH and false imprisonment.

A march against police brutality was turned into a demonstration of police brutality!

The report in
the Observer last week shows how the media and police collude to demonise protestors , in order to justify using outrageous levels of force against peaceful protestors. Do you know any of this "several hundred strong block" that is planning to inflict economic damage on Mayday? Cos I sure as hell don't!! Note that the journos just slip it in, give no indication of where they got the info from, but insinuate they picked it up at the Wombles "safe house".

Well, I'm sure that the report is sufficient to lead coppers like Brian to "think" that something naughty might happen - which would then lead him to give his officers a free hand in stopping the "naughtiness" before it happens, mainly by attacking protestors.

I was not at the pro-Paddick meeting last week, mainly because I am not pro-Paddick and do not believe that one man is the answer to Brixton's problems. If he is, god help Brixton if he should get run over by a car tomorrow!!

The action pages of U75 contain all sorts of info on protestors' rights and other legal stuff. Yet the police ignore rights, assault people and detain them without charge or rights on a regular basis now.

There is (to use a favourite term of the Apartheid South African State) a TOTAL ONSLAUGHT against protest in this country.

The aim appears to be that the state wants protests to be held on its terms only. It wants people to march from A - B with banners, have a little chant, listen to the speakers and go home.

That isn't enough for me - is it for you?

 

[editor]

FTP: I actually agree with the vast majority of what you said.

The reason I got involved with campaigning in the first place was after seeing police harass, push around and generally inflame situations at football matches - hence my fears about the Criminal Justice Act compounding the problems for fans (it did) and things haven't got a great deal better for street protests.

The main difference is that you seem to view things in absolutes: all protesters good, all police bad.

I don't. I've witnessed appalling, violent, provocative policing and I've witnessed some utter contemptible characters at protests using it as an excuse to vandalise personal property, lob bottles at the police (when they're just standing around causing no hassle) and generally act like aggressive fuckwits (sad to say, I vaguely know one of these characters, and he was boasting about how smashed up all manner of things at Mayday this year and threw things at police).

If you're saying that you've never seen any such acts by protesters, I'd suggest you've been singularly fortunate.

But don't think my support of Paddick's policing style in Lambeth equates to some kind of all round endorsement of the police, because it certainly doesn't - I still expect them to act like unaccountable thugs from time to time and that's why I spent considserable time recently updating and redesigning the entire 'your rights' section on this site.

Let's hope people will have no need to refer to it.

 

[freethepeeps]

The main difference is that you seem to view things in absolutes: all protesters good, all police bad.

I don't recall saying that at all. I say with all honesty that I have never witnessed violence or bricking of windows, or cars being attacked by demonstrators.

My objection is that the police use those absolutes, along with a campaign of disinformation to justify attcking protests on a regular basis. That they feel justified in treating all protestors as criminals, and in surrounding demos and holding everyone, before any crime has been committed. And there has always been a strong enough police presence to allow them to deal with incidents should they arise.

Paddick complains that Brixton is 250 officers short, and yet every demo I go on is policed to the hilt. At the Argentinian Embassy there were more TSG vans than protestors. It was absurd - there were 8 protestors chained to a balcony and there were 12 TSG vans there.

I think this demonstrates where the politicians' priorities lie, soft on real crime that damages working class communities and tough on imaginary crime that might embarrass the ruling classes.

What steps do the police take to stop muggings before they happen? Or burglaries? Or car-jackings? None that I can see, and yet systematically they attack demos and "prevent breaches of the peace"!

 

[pooka]

Thanks ftp and editor for stuff to think about.

Originally posted by freethepeeps


The aim appears to be that the state wants protests to be held on its terms only. It wants people to march from A - B with banners, have a little chant, listen to the speakers and go home.

That isn't enough for me - is it for you?

Erm....well that seems like a reasonable enough view of a protest. If it isn't enough for you ttp, what would you want that doesn't involve restricting other peoples freedoms?

 

[Mrs Magpie]

I don't go on demonstrations any more because of the real possibility of violence. I think there are some demonstrators and some police who are just after a good ruck. It's a bloke thing.

 

[Brian]

FTP I think there is some sense in what you say. I think your analysis of what you see the police doing at demonstrations is a reasonable one from your perspective. I just think it is the wrong interpretation from a particular (rather than objective) perspective and you over do it. So here is my view from my own particular (subjective) perspective.

It is difficult for the police to estimate the number and the behaviour of protestors in advance. We tend to over-estimate the number of police required but we estimate on the basis of how violent the protestors are likely to be towards the police and what damage they might do to other people and property. We do not estimate on the basis of how effectively we want to suppress the protest.

I do not think it is worth repeating what I saw, from my perspective, on that march in December 2000.

Many people, by the way they live, the way they dress, in Lambeth and outside of Lambeth, make positive statements about how they are refusing to comply with what 'society' or 'the system' dictates. I call it a protest, you may call it something else. All I would say is, live how you want, dress how you want, march, hold meetings and 'protest' as you want, but do not hurt others and do not damage my community. Sorry - beginning to sound like a worn-out record.

Hundreds of police for a big demonstration, not many police visible on the street normally - very fair point. To say the police do nothing to stop robbery and burglary is just over-doing it.

I did not realise that it was Mrs Bishop who was shouting at me at the meeting. I asked Alex on Saturday to apologise to her and he said he would speak to her. At the end of the day everyone should be given, and Mrs Bishop and Alex were both given, an opportunity to speak. During that particular 2 minutes in that meeting, it was my turn to speak.

FTP you say that 'the police service is moving in the right direction' is arguable. Why do you think that?

 

[freethepeeps]

What is this freedom you talk of?

Originally posted by pooka
Erm....well that seems like a reasonable enough view of a protest. If it isn't enough for you ttp, what would you want that doesn't involve restricting other peoples freedoms?

Well pooka, marching from A - B does restrict peoples freedom, no? If it involves closing off roads and stopping traffic, then surely that means freedom of movement is restricted.

What about the freedom of protestors though? I don't want the system to tell me how I am allowed to express my anger and dissent. I want to be free to make my point in the way that I see fit. I accept that if I break the law, I will be arrested. I do not accept that I can be detained before any crime has been committed.

The state wants someone to go and negotiate with the police before a demo takes place. - why should we, and for non-hierarchical, non authoritarian groups, who is expected to do this.

Placard waving, chanting and marching from A - B has happened at several anti-war demos now. Has the war stopped? No, I don't think so. Quite honestly I don't think the system gives a shit if people go on organised marches. The point of protest is to challenge the system. The system now seeks to contain and dictacte the terms under which an individual can protest.

Reclaim the Streets street parties were effective demos, and I fear that they can not happen any more, because the state will sink resources into stopping them. Protestors rights are being eroded all the time, the police expect to be able to go into any protest and dictate the terms, even when no law is being broken. The first thing they do when they arrive at a protest is to order people to cross the road. Then they offer to get barricades for protestors to stand behind. That is not my idea of protest. It quickly becomes a symbolic ritual that achieves nothing.

I want the freedom to stand where I like, to do what I like and to protest as I like, and as long as I break no laws, for the police to leave me alone! If I break laws then I must accept the consequences of that.

The police want me to stand where they say, the do what they allow and to protest as they see fit. They try and force me to do this even when no law has been broken.

So, what freedom do we really have? Freedom to do as we are told is not freedom at all!

 

[editor]

Quite honestly I don't think the system gives a shit if people go on organised marches.

Sad to say, but that seems to be how most of the media treats them too, regardless of the number of protesters - unless of course, there's a bit of minor damage or 'sexy' violence.

But that's a different issue all together...

 

[freethepeeps]

All I would say is, live how you want, dress how you want, march, hold meetings and 'protest' as you want, but do not hurt others and do not damage my community.

And that is the point Brian - nobody hurt anyone or damaged your community before the police attacked the demo!!! So your words mean nothing. It should read:

"All I would say is, live how you want, dress how you want, hold meetings and 'protest' as you want, and you will be fine until my officers think that there might be trouble, then I will back them to the hilt while they step in, assault people and detain them without charge."

And the move towards zero tolerance in Brixton is one of the reasons that I say policing is not moving in the right direction. Policing is about inequality of power, it is about vanloads of thugs riding around with carte-blanche to attack any group that they do not like the look of. It is about systematic harrassment of whole sections of the population.

And BTW the people on the march were part of "your community" as well!

 

[Mrs Magpie]

I was not on that march, but there were definitely people using that protest for their own, completely non-political ends. Brixton Cycles (a workers co-operative) had their premises damaged and were robbed of a lot of bikes during the disturbances after that march. It could have completely ruined them, because they are not covered for riot in their insurance. Luckily it was successfully argued that it was an act of theft and although it must have financially damaged them (increased premiums if nothing else) they are still surviving.

 

[freethepeeps]

Are you talking about the MFJ march in December Mrs. Magpie? There was no riot and the detention of protestors took place at the other end of Brixton!

 

[Mrs Magpie]

I think it was the Derek Bennett march. MFJ turn out for and/or organise a number of protests here. I don't think any genuine protesters were involved in robbing Brixton Cycles but it happened on the back of the protest, if you see what I mean.

 

[pooka]

ftp

Thanks for your responses, Free the Peeps,

My take on street protests is as follows:

Our democracy is imperfect and it is right that people should be able to demonstrate a groundswell of opinion at any time - either because it is a very local issue that never gets on anybody's agenda at the time of elections or because circumstances change - no one anticipated Sept 11 at the last general election and the possibility of UK following on America's coat tails into Iraq. Street protest can also be a way of putting things on the agenda - eg third world debt, GM foods, nuclear weapons.

But, increasingly the dynamic of street protest is prone to violence and disruption on the one hand and to the restriction of civil liberties on the other because:

There ARE people who regard having a ruck with the police ("Footsoldiers of the state") as "genuine protest" in itself and they do turn out regardless of the cause;

If the object of the protest is to influence opinion beyond those on the march, then that has to be through the media, and they show much more interest if there's trouble;

There ARE policemen who have the contempt for those they serve demonstrated on these boards by Colin the Copper and, to a degree and in a different context, Viperman - and they are only too ready to smash skulls;

But even amongst police without those attitudes, the dynamic must always be to get their "repression" in first. This is because there are two mistakes they can make. One is to take a heavy hand even before any law is broken, in which case the flack they take is from liberal opinion in the media, politicos &TC which usually amounts to no more than a slap on the wrist. The alternative mistake is to take a light touch and events the subsequently get out of hand - as with the protests in the City - in which case they get it in the neck from all and sundry and doubtless for some, find their careers on the line, In those circumstances the balance will always fall towards repressive measures.

Effectively what we've seen is a progresive "collusion" over the years between the "have a go" nutters and the "smash some skulls" police, whipped on by the media, to make peaceful street protest less and less viable. Exceptions have been the Reclaim the Streets cycle protests and some of the environmentalists.