Dealing With the Renegades - Revisited

[articul8]

fair do's. It was the bit about the only outcome being more self-confident anti-social elements I thought was one-sided. But I suppose I see why you might have been (to use a horrible swappie phrase) bending the stick.

 

[Random]

fair do's. It was the bit about the only outcome being more self-confident anti-social elements I thought was one-sided. But I suppose I see why you might have been (to use a horrible swappie phrase) bending the stick.

Leninist phrase in general iirc.

 

[The39thStep]

there was a considerable amount of looting involved in the poll tax riot. i walked up tottenham court road and saw a load of looted electronics shops. i saw at least two looted off licences. i saw looted music shops. i saw a jewellers getting looted. and even if you didn't actually see it, there were the reports of looting. so if your argument is there was fuck all looting in the poll tax riot, you either chose to ignore it, didn't see it or have preferred to rewrite history.

Perhaps Joe meant looting by non anarchists

 

[smokedout]

Not necessarily no - I don't understand your attempt to define this on pure economic terms - as you say below it's about what kind of behaviours & activities impact working class communities adversely and what doesn't

i'm not attempting to define this purely on economic terms, i'm pointing out there is an economic dimension which is important. im sure neither of us would have much problem with knightsbridge getting looted, but to many of these kids the people who run local shops are the rich - or at least the most obvious and accessible target of the class divide. i remember winding up the late balders on here about enfield being posh. by and large it isnt, but much of it is upper working/lower middle class, skilled workers, tradesmen, teachers, home owners - many of them would be described as working class proper. but when i worked in tottenham the kids thought enfield was posh, thats probably why they went there after tottenham the other week. what we're seeing is inter-class conflict based around economic power which in some may lead to an (im)moral position, kids with no stake in their communities, no chance of a future, who've learnt the only way to get anything is to nick it, often from the people they see as having what they don't - their 'class enemies' are small shop keepers.

what that means for our practice, how it should be addressed i dont know, but im not sure that pulling up the drawbridge and writing them off as an immoral class without addressing the underlying economics is very helpful. in short, theres a lot more thinking to be done.

 

[TopCat]

Perhaps Joe meant looting by non anarchists

The crowd looted Europa Foods on Trafalgar square first. As the crowds got pushed up Charing Cross Road and also Regent Street, widespread looting took place. Pockets of looting happened right across the West End throughout the night.

 

[love detective]

fair do's. It was the bit about the only outcome being more self-confident anti-social elements I thought was one-sided. But I suppose I see why you might have been (to use a horrible swappie phrase) bending the stick.

yeah you're right, i shouldn't have said that that would be the 'only' outcome - but in the context of the thing I was talking about I was using it to counter the more positive analysis & fawnings from some parts of the left - so perhaps i stretched the language too far - but I think that phrase when taken in context is not as extreme as you make out when taken out of context

Clearly there will be other outcomes in addition to the bolstering of confidence amongst existing anti-social elements:-

- a more politicised approach to sentencing that will capture a wider range of activities than these narrow riots

- the potential for the far right to capitalise on the racialising of the aftermath (i.e. the liberal/left tendency to equate turkish/sikh/muslim groups which mobilised to protect their area as positive but to view the same tendency as negative if done by anyone who happened to be white and working class),

- an opening up of academic/liberal riot analysis/research industry (ironically commodifying an event/tendency that some on the left see as an unconditional revolt against the commodity and a positive rupture of the circuit of capital)

- higher car & home insurance premiums (in particular in the worst hit areas) to recoup insurance losses at a time of declining real wages, stubborn unemployment and economic stagnation

- an opening up of space for further political & economic attacks on the working class in general under the narrow cover of responding to what happened

Fair enough these are all negative, so your accusation of one-sidedness probably remains - but feel free to add a list of positive things to come out of it to balance out my dour analysis

 

[love detective]

i'm not attempting to define this purely on economic terms, i'm pointing out there is an economic dimension which is important. im sure neither of us would have much problem with knightsbridge getting looted, but to many of these kids the people who run local shops are the rich - or at least the most obvious and accessible target of the class divide. i remember winding up the late balders on here about enfield being posh. by and large it isnt, but much of it is upper working/lower middle class, skilled workers, tradesmen, teachers, home owners - many of them would be described as working class proper. but when i worked in tottenham the kids thought enfield was posh, thats probably why they went there after tottenham the other week. what we're seeing is inter-class conflict based around economic power which in some may lead to an (im)moral position, kids with no stake in their communities, no chance of a future, who've learnt the only way to get anything is to nick it, often from the people they see as having what they don't - their 'class enemies' are small shop keepers.

what that means for our practice, how it should be addressed i dont know, but im not sure that pulling up the drawbridge and writing them off as an immoral class without addressing the underlying economics is very helpful. in short, theres a lot more thinking to be done.

ah right, I thought you were bringing in some economic definition in relation to the topic of the article which this thread was started to discuss

re what you say it collapses down even further than that - I saw some looters at the back of argos in catford being confronted by others who looted them of their looted gear - so again those looting the looters saw those primary looters as their 'class enemies' nicking things from the people they see as having what they didn't

as for pulling up the drawbridge and writing them off as an immoral class without addressing/understanding the underlying - i think the phrase 'understand a little more and condem a little more' succintly captures the two things that need to be done here while avoiding the fuckwitted approaches of both the right (understand less and condem more) and the conservative/cobweb left (understand next to nothing and never condem/always victimise/always predetermine all behaviour/remove scope for any kind of personal/collective responsibility)

I've already given one practical example of an IWCA initiative at setting up an athletics club with a focus on getting youngsters on the estate involved - this doesn't fit with the accusations of writing people off from the get-go. i'd say it's very much a two pronged approach of attempting to create collective/communal structures that can give people ways of using their energies in more positive ways that can go some small way to rebuilding the kinds of communal solidarity that used to exist and has been systematically detroyed over the last 30 yeasr - while at the same time being prepared to draw a line where the persistent behaviour & activities of a minority make life even more miserable for the wider community, and to support ways in which the wider community can regain the confidence required to attempt to deal with some of these issues on their own terms

 

[theCIA]

Im reading the article OP posted, can someone please help explain to me what is meant by "Atomising social relations" ? I have a vague idea, but would like clarification.

Thanks...

 

[Random]

Im reading the article OP posted, can someone please help explain to me what is meant by "Atomising social relations" ? I have a vague idea, but would like clarification.

Capitalism making society into a bunch of people fighting each other for money, basically.

 

[butchersapron]

Im reading the article OP posted, can someone please help explain to me what is meant by "Atomising social relations" ? I have a vague idea, but would like clarification.

Thanks...

Making them appear as individual rather than collective, fuck you jack with meat on it. And in doing so helping make sure that responses are also individual or based on individual decided priorities rather than collectively constructed needs.

 

[articul8]

Fair enough these are all negative, so your accusation of one-sidedness probably remains - but feel free to add a list of positive things to come out of it to balance out my dour analysis

I don't doubt that lots of shit things could and probably will happen under the cloak of the "response". But I'd talk about opportunities - good things that *might* come out them, rather than things that are likely to:
- General association in public mind between Tory governments and social disorder/destruction is reinforced
- Attacks on police cuts broadening out into a more general public consciousness of the effects of cuts to essential services
- Space opening for discussion of new forms genuinely accountable community (self-?)-policing
- Review of SuS laws and operations
- demands for more jobs and facilities for young people getting people linked up with anti-cuts campaigns and politicised (nb. I'm not talking about minority who looted charity shops etc, but less purely anti-social elements).

 

[cantsin]

ah right, I thought you were bringing in some economic definition in relation to the topic of the article which this thread was started to discuss

re what you say it collapses down even further than that - I saw some looters at the back of argos in catford being confronted by others who looted them of their looted gear - so again those looting the looters saw those primary looters as their 'class enemies' nicking things from the people they see as having what they didn't

as for pulling up the drawbridge and writing them off as an immoral class without addressing/understanding the underlying - i think the phrase 'understand a little more and condem a little more' succintly captures the two things that need to be done here while avoiding the fuckwitted approaches of both the right (understand less and condem more) and the conservative/cobweb left (understand next to nothing and never condem/always victimise/always predetermine all behaviour/remove scope for any kind of personal/collective responsibility)

I've already given one practical example of an IWCA initiative at setting up an athletics club with a focus on getting youngsters on the estate involved - this doesn't fit with the accusations of writing people off from the get-go. i'd say it's very much a two pronged approach of attempting to create collective/communal structures that can give people ways of using their energies in more positive ways that can go some small way to rebuilding the kinds of communal solidarity that used to exist and has been systematically detroyed over the last 30 yeasr - while at the same time being prepared to draw a line where the persistent behaviour & activities of a minority make life even more miserable for the wider community, and to support ways in which the wider community can regain the confidence required to attempt to deal with some of these issues on their own terms

no one could question the good intent and practical contribution this/these kinds of initiatives could make on a localised, grassroots level, but could any progressive political grouping, of any sort, realistically hope to be able to be addressing the bigger picture ( as presumably any political grouping has to, or else it becomes a community group / voluntary group / part of the' big soc 'etc ) whilst devoting it's energies day to day to trying to help plug the endless holes in community fabric that 30 years of neo libs. has created ? i

 

[love detective]

i think one thing for sure is the only way to even attempt to do such a thing is from the bottom up, brick by brick

your post there seems to suggest that the kind of things the IWCA has been involved in doing is a distraction from some wider/nobler (more exciting?) project - I see it more as putting in place the types of things that need to be in place to even attempt to do the things you mention - how else could they be done otherwise (assuming we want to see it done in both a progressive & prefigurative (!?) manner)?

So it's not a distraction from the wider picture, it's a building block towards being in a position to actually do anything about the wider picture

 

[past caring]

The crowd looted Europa Foods on Trafalgar square first. As the crowds got pushed up Charing Cross Road and also Regent Street, widespread looting took place. Pockets of looting happened right across the West End throughout the night.

This is true (though I happened to witness the same incident Joe did on Shaftesbury Avenue) and I saw the windows of Marcari's go and someone grab a guitar. What was different though is this - the looting wasn't the main event and didn't really start in earnest until the police had succeeded in pushing people out of Trafalger Square. And even when it did start, it remained marginal to the main proceedings of the day - and there were lots of people having a go at the looters for their individualism - I had a go at the bloke taking the guitar, a couple of people came out with the standard trite response of "property is theft" - and when I said, "That's as maybe, but we're here fighting the police and this selfish cunt is going to leave us to it - he's got to, he's got no choice now" the bloke was so ashamed he ended up stashing the guitar under a car, saying he'd come back for it later.

 

[TopCat]

This is true (though I happened to witness the same incident Joe did on Shaftesbury Avenue) and I saw the windows of Marcari's go and someone grab a guitar. What was different though is this - the looting wasn't the main event and didn't really start in earnest until the police had succeeded in pushing people out of Trafalger Square. And even when it did start, it remained marginal to the main proceedings of the day - and there were lots of people having a go at the looters for their individualism - I had a go at the bloke taking the guitar, a couple of people came out with the standard trite response of "property is theft" - and when I said, "That's as maybe, but we're here fighting the police and this selfish cunt is going to leave us to it - he's got to, he's got no choice now" the bloke was so ashamed he ended up stashing the guitar under a car, saying he'd come back for it later.

I don't think anyone was arguing that the levels of looting were similar on the Poll tax riot to that of the recent disorder. Certainly the main event of the poll tax riot (and I would argue the Brixton riots of 1985) was fighting the police. This was depressingly not the case with the recent stuff especially the Croydon disturbances but that said this was also down to the fact that in Croydon at least, the police did not come out to play but threw everything into defending Centrale and the Whitgift Centre.

 

[Joe Reilly]

I don't think anyone was arguing that the levels of looting were similar on the Poll tax riot to that of the recent disorder. Certainly the main event of the poll tax riot (and I would argue the Brixton riots of 1985) was fighting the police. This was depressingly not the case with the recent stuff especially the Croydon disturbances but that said this was also down to the fact that in Croydon at least, the police did not come out to play but threw everything into defending Centrale and the Whitgift Centre.

Which is exactly the opposite of what they did in the Poll Tax 'riot' - they held a group back until about 7pm and then drove them unescorted up the Haymarket (if memory serves) into Piccadilly, Shaftsbury Avenue Regent St and Oxford St. Immediately, bank windows were crashed (there was a conveninet load a off rubble enroute) and so forth. Police did not respond. Though plain clothes police were very much in evidence during the day itself. Was the crowd released into Piccadilly and Regent St in order to cause looting the better to discredit the resistance of the demo earlier? It certainly worked out that way.
In addition it was essentially a police riot.

An entirely peaceful demonstation divided in two by police - who then attacked first one section then the other. In any event, I only described what looting i witnessed, whatever else happened after that was very much after the Lord Mayor's show so to speak, and was certainly not representative in any way, shape or form of the demo itself. Overall, the contrast between it, and the actions and intentions of the August rioters could hardly be more striking.

 

[cantsin]

Which is exactly the opposite of what they did in the Poll Tax 'riot' - they held a group back until about 7pm and then drove them unescorted up the Haymarket (if memory serves) into Piccadilly, Shaftsbury Avenue Regent St and Oxford St. Immediately, bank windows were crashed (there was a conveninet load a off rubble enroute) and so forth. Police did not respond. Though plain clothes police were very much in evidence during the day itself. Was the crowd released into Piccadilly and Regent St in order to cause looting the better to discredit the resistance of the demo earlier? It certainly worked out that way.
In addition it was essentially a police riot.

An entirely peaceful demonstation divided in two by police - who then attacked first one section then the other. In any event, I only described what looting i witnessed, whatever else happened after that was very much after the Lord Mayor's show so to speak, and was certainly not representative in any way, shape or form of the demo itself. Overall, the contrast between it, and the actions and intentions of the August rioters could hardly be more striking.

what do you mean ?

 

[Pickman's model]

Which is exactly the opposite of what they did in the Poll Tax 'riot' - they held a group back until about 7pm and then drove them unescorted up the Haymarket (if memory serves) into Piccadilly, Shaftsbury Avenue Regent St and Oxford St. Immediately, bank windows were crashed (there was a conveninet load a off rubble enroute) and so forth. Police did not respond. Though plain clothes police were very much in evidence during the day itself. Was the crowd released into Piccadilly and Regent St in order to cause looting the better to discredit the resistance of the demo earlier? It certainly worked out that way.
In addition it was essentially a police riot.

An entirely peaceful demonstation divided in two by police - who then attacked first one section then the other. In any event, I only described what looting i witnessed, whatever else happened after that was very much after the Lord Mayor's show so to speak, and was certainly not representative in any way, shape or form of the demo itself. Overall, the contrast between it, and the actions and intentions of the August rioters could hardly be more striking.

you're speaking a load of bollocks. i can't tell you precisely what time the sun set on 31 march 1990: but this year it set at about 1930, and i imagine it was much the same in 1990. by 1900 on 31 march 1990 there had been fuck loads of window smashing in regent street, oxford street etc etc etc. there'd been running battles in the haymarket and round piccadilly circus by then, i was round there probably half five or so and saw them. and it must have been before seven because i had an amusing encounter with some posh people on the way to the theatre. i met the drummer out of culture shock as i started going up regent street - and there were loads of people up ahead.

what you seem to have difficulty grasping is that a lot of the people who were on the march, a lot of the people who were rioting for that matter, were smashing windows and doing a spot of looting. it really shouldn't come as a surprise after what, 21 years since the event? people were looting the offie on the corner of whitehall and trafalgar square before anything had actually kicked off - people were opening and up and drinking cans in the shop, taking out bottles, all sorts. there was a period of 'dual power' while some people were still paying for stuff and other people were removing things from the shop.

your post is the first claim i've seen since the ptr that the police encouraged looting to discredit the earlier resistance. it's barking nonsense.

oh - and by the way the square was cleared by five. where were these people who were thrust up the haymarket kept?

 

[Anudder Oik]

I don't doubt that lots of shit things could and probably will happen under the cloak of the "response". But I'd talk about opportunities - good things that *might* come out them, rather than things that are likely to:
- General association in public mind between Tory governments and social disorder/destruction is reinforced
- Attacks on police cuts broadening out into a more general public consciousness of the effects of cuts to essential services
- Space opening for discussion of new forms genuinely accountable community (self-?)-policing
- Review of SuS laws and operations
- demands for more jobs and facilities for young people getting people linked up with anti-cuts campaigns and politicised (nb. I'm not talking about minority who looted charity shops etc, but less purely anti-social elements).

People claim that stop and search and SUS are somehow racist because they target young black males more than any other group. But people who say this seem to forget that London has a very high level of black on black gun crime that needs to be dealt with. They keep finding 14 year olds slumped dead in playgrounds, bystanders get caught in crossfires in shop shootouts.

What would be an effective and realistic alternative to the random and somewhat desperate tactic of SUS?

 

[Joe Reilly]

you're speaking a load of bollocks. i can't tell you precisely what time the sun set on 31 march 1990: but this year it set at about 1930, and i imagine it was much the same in 1990. by 1900 on 31 march 1990 there had been fuck loads of window smashing in regent street, oxford street etc etc etc. there'd been running battles in the haymarket and round piccadilly circus by then, i was round there probably half five or so and saw them. and it must have been before seven because i had an amusing encounter with some posh people on the way to the theatre. i met the drummer out of culture shock as i started going up regent street - and there were loads of people up ahead.

what you seem to have difficulty grasping is that a lot of the people who were on the march, a lot of the people who were rioting for that matter, were smashing windows and doing a spot of looting. it really shouldn't come as a surprise after what, 21 years since the event? people were looting the offie on the corner of whitehall and trafalgar square before anything had actually kicked off - people were opening and up and drinking cans in the shop, taking out bottles, all sorts. there was a period of 'dual power' while some people were still paying for stuff and other people were removing things from the shop.

your post is the first claim i've seen since the ptr that the police encouraged looting to discredit the earlier resistance. it's barking nonsense.

oh - and by the way the square was cleared by five. where were these people who were thrust up the haymarket kept?

Yeah, your probably right, it must have been about 5pm.

 

[articul8]

People claim that stop and search and SUS are somehow racist because they target young black males more than any other group. But people who say this seem to forget that London has a very high level of black on black gun crime that needs to be dealt with. They keep finding 14 year olds slumped dead in playgrounds, bystanders get caught in crossfires in shop shootouts.

What would be an effective and realistic alternative to the random and somewhat desperate tactic of SUS?

Stop and search is only ever going to try in vain to limit a whole tidal wave. Does stop and search it have the support of the communities mostly targeted by it? Maybe ask them how best to tackle it?

 

[frogwoman]

fair do's. It was the bit about the only outcome being more self-confident anti-social elements I thought was one-sided. But I suppose I see why you might have been (to use a horrible swappie phrase) bending the stick.

it is a swappie phrase yeh, ive never heard anyone else use it.

 

[nino_savatte]

People claim that stop and search and SUS are somehow racist because they target young black males more than any other group. But people who say this seem to forget that London has a very high level of black on black gun crime that needs to be dealt with. They keep finding 14 year olds slumped dead in playgrounds, bystanders get caught in crossfires in shop shootouts.

What would be an effective and realistic alternative to the random and somewhat desperate tactic of SUS?

Thing is, if Stop and Search is so effective why are so many teenagers are still being killed?

 

[Joe Reilly]

your post is the first claim i've seen since the ptr that the police encouraged looting to discredit the earlier resistance. it's barking nonsense.

What you think it beneath them or simply too sophisticated? Or is it that the looting/violence wasn't later used by police and News International in particular, in order to discredit the entire anti-Poll tax campaign? The fact is police ran they day the way they wanted up until 5 - can't see why they would have lost control of it afterwards. For example the much used footage of riot police apparently retreating from the enraged mob - has to be set against the hundreds and hundreds of police sitting idly in their carriers some casually drinking coffee sitting in the open doorways, in Whitehall at the same time.
Finally of the 200,000 or so involved in the march, what percentage would you say was involved in looting? And what percentage of the remainder would be as inordinately proud of it as you appear to be?

 

[Pickman's model]

What you think it beneath them or simply too sophisticated? Or is it that the looting/violence wasn't later used by police and News International in particular, in order to discredit the entire anti-Poll tax campaign? The fact is police ran they day the way they wanted up until 5 - can't see why they would have lost control of it afterwards. For example the much used footage of riot police apparently retreating from the enraged mob - has to be set against the hundreds and hundreds of police sitting idly in their carriers some casually drinking coffee sitting in the open doorways, in Whitehall at the same time.
Finally of the 200,000 or so involved in the march, what percentage would you say was involved in looting? And what percentage of the remainder would be as inordinately proud of it as you appear to be?

i am sorry for my intemperate language before.

i do not have a chronology of the poll tax riot before me: but things had kicked off before 5. i do not think the police 'ran the day they wanted up until 5'. i do not doubt they wanted a scrap - that was evident from what i saw before getting to trafalgar square. but they decided to kick it off attacking a sit-down protest outside downing street. their subsequent decision to force people away from westminster, into the west end, wasn't i think motivated by a machiavellian scheme to produce bad publicity for the anti-poll tax movement, but to prevent downing street being stormed and parliament attacked. p a j waddington said in his book 'liberty and order', about public order policing in london, that there were some things the police would 'die in a ditch' to protect, two of which are parliament and downing street. but police tactics on the day were confused: i remember being charged (along with many others!) by horses that came south down charing cross road - and the famous footage of the police riding someone down in trafalgar square shows them charging south. there seems to me to have been a front where there was fighting with the police which was pushed ever further north, and a hinterland where, erm, other things were taking place.

it is difficult to estimate how many people took part in the fighting, which i would say was about 10%: remember a lot of people never made it out of kennington common, let alone north of the river. the people who took part in the looting? given its extent - from at least covent garden in the east to at least piccadilly and probably marble arch in the west, and at least as far north as goodge street - thousands of people must have taken part. i didn't think i came across as 'inordinately proud' of the looting, simply there was a lot of looting, and not just the occasional boot. as this was my first demonstration it came as rather a surprise to me to see that sort of thing going on, but given that things were rather precisely targeted it's never given me a great weight on my conscience.

turning briefly to these hundreds of police lounging about, i don't suppose the quality of police leadership then was any greater than it is now. there is something of a dearth of talent at the top of the met's public order branch, and given half a chance to fuck things up they will. seems to me cock-up explains these things better than conspiracy. although the cops are not too fussed about losing a van or two to make a propaganda point, i think they'd shy from apparently losing control of central london for a number of hours as they did on 31 march 1990. i don't think they thought your idea beneath them, or too sophisticated, i just don't believe they thought of it at all. it had been quite some time since any previous march had ended in such disorder - perhaps you'd have to go back to the protestant association march which led to the gordon riots. anyway, i suspect that these police lounging about hadn't received orders and as police seem loath to act in such circumstances on their own initiative they might have been being used as a reserve or were the next shift waiting to come on.

 

[The39thStep]

i am sorry for my intemperate language before.

Well knock me down with a feather, Trevor!

 

[Joe Reilly]

i am sorry for my intemperate language before.

i do not have a chronology of the poll tax riot before me: but things had kicked off before 5. i do not think the police 'ran the day they wanted up until 5'. i do not doubt they wanted a scrap - that was evident from what i saw before getting to trafalgar square. but they decided to kick it off attacking a sit-down protest outside downing street. their subsequent decision to force people away from westminster, into the west end, wasn't i think motivated by a machiavellian scheme to produce bad publicity for the anti-poll tax movement, but to prevent downing street being stormed and parliament attacked. p a j waddington said in his book 'liberty and order', about public order policing in london, that there were some things the police would 'die in a ditch' to protect, two of which are parliament and downing street. but police tactics on the day were confused: i remember being charged (along with many others!) by horses that came south down charing cross road - and the famous footage of the police riding someone down in trafalgar square shows them charging south. there seems to me to have been a front where there was fighting with the police which was pushed ever further north, and a hinterland where, erm, other things were taking place.

it is difficult to estimate how many people took part in the fighting, which i would say was about 10%: remember a lot of people never made it out of kennington common, let alone north of the river. the people who took part in the looting? given its extent - from at least covent garden in the east to at least piccadilly and probably marble arch in the west, and at least as far north as goodge street - thousands of people must have taken part. i didn't think i came across as 'inordinately proud' of the looting, simply there was a lot of looting, and not just the occasional boot. as this was my first demonstration it came as rather a surprise to me to see that sort of thing going on, but given that things were rather precisely targeted it's never given me a great weight on my conscience.

turning briefly to these hundreds of police lounging about, i don't suppose the quality of police leadership then was any greater than it is now. there is something of a dearth of talent at the top of the met's public order branch, and given half a chance to fuck things up they will. seems to me cock-up explains these things better than conspiracy. although the cops are not too fussed about losing a van or two to make a propaganda point, i think they'd shy from apparently losing control of central london for a number of hours as they did on 31 march 1990. i don't think they thought your idea beneath them, or too sophisticated, i just don't believe they thought of it at all. it had been quite some time since any previous march had ended in such disorder - perhaps you'd have to go back to the protestant association march which led to the gordon riots. anyway, i suspect that these police lounging about hadn't received orders and as police seem loath to act in such circumstances on their own initiative they might have been being used as a reserve or were the next shift waiting to come on.

If 200,000 taking part in the demonstration is agreed, then a 10 per cent taking part in the fighting comes out as 20,000. From what I witnessed a considerable inflation. I would have said that there were at the very most 2,000 involved in the skirmishes with the police in the square. Which is still a considerable number. However the police were the ones to take the iniative throughout. The split the march in Whitehall. Then attacked the marchers there. When in Trafalfar Sq they charged, the crowd fled. It was only when the police retreated that the crowd advanced. It is my belief that they deliberately used insufficient officers to clear the area in order to create the impression of being over run. It was police that held the crowd in Trafalgar Square against their will. It was also the police decision to release them. No where, that I saw, were police overstretched. You could also see that ordinary people taking part in the demo were totally shocked at police aggression. They just wanted to get away. Many i would suggest never to come back. which was no doubt the point of the excercise (kettling is more passive version of the same strategem). The scandal of the 'police riot' never came to be addressed largely due to News of the World running a front page story involving a certain Mr Murphy, who claimed that far from being a police conspiracy the police were in fact the victims of an anarchist one.

In Welling in 1993 the police announced in advance on the regional news exactly where the violence would occur. Accordingly the area in question was carpeted with cameras. On the day, all side roads from the route march were manned by riot police, (preventing anyone leaving the march)while the junction previously identified by police as the potential site of conflict had a curiously thin line of wooden tops. In addition, likely suspects, such as AFA for instance were 'body-mapped' prior to arriving on the march by SB. The London Evening Standard and World in Action later blamed AFA for the riot. Similar formula. Coincidence or cock-up?

 

[Pickman's model]

If 200,000 taking part in the demonstration is agreed, then a 10 per cent taking part in the fighting comes out as 20,000. From what I witnessed a considerable inflation. I would have said that there were at the very most 2,000 involved in the skirmishes with the police in the square. Which is still a considerable number. However the police were the ones to take the iniative throughout. The split the march in Whitehall. Then attacked the marchers there. When in Trafalfar Sq they charged, the crowd fled. It was only when the police retreated that the crowd advanced. It is my belief that they deliberately used insufficient officers to clear the area in order to create the impression of being over run. It was police that held the crowd in Trafalgar Square against their will. It was also the police decision to release them. No where, that I saw, were police overstretched. You could also see that ordinary people taking part in the demo were totally shocked at police aggression. They just wanted to get away. Many i would suggest never to come back. which was no doubt the point of the excercise (kettling is more passive version of the same strategem). The scandal of the 'police riot' never came to be addressed largely due to News of the World running a front page story involving a certain Mr Murphy, who claimed that far from being a police conspiracy the police were in fact the victims of an anarchist one.

In Welling in 1993 the police announced in advance on the regional news exactly where the violence would occur. Accordingly the area in question was carpeted with cameras. On the day, all side roads from the route march were manned by riot police, (preventing anyone leaving the march)while the junction previously identified by police as the potential site of conflict had a curiously thin line of wooden tops. In addition, likely suspects, such as AFA for instance were 'body-mapped' prior to arriving on the march by SB. The London Evening Standard and World in Action later blamed AFA for the riot. Similar formula. Coincidence or cock-up?

interesting points. i would very much agree with you about welling. i remember watching the news when they announced the change of route and saying it would definitely kick off. there was the recent revelation about the undercover cop who'd been knocking round with yre (iirc) at the time who'd apparently managed to get the route changed.

i think you make some solid points about the poll tax riot, i'll come back to this later.

 

[Fedayn]

In Welling in 1993 the police announced in advance on the regional news exactly where the violence would occur. Accordingly the area in question was carpeted with cameras. On the day, all side roads from the route march were manned by riot police, (preventing anyone leaving the march)while the junction previously identified by police as the potential site of conflict had a curiously thin line of wooden tops. In addition, likely suspects, such as AFA for instance were 'body-mapped' prior to arriving on the march by SB. The London Evening Standard and World in Action later blamed AFA for the riot. Similar formula. Coincidence or cock-up?

the YRE Away Team-mate of mine was interviewed-and some of Panther also got blamed for the violence in the World in Action programme. Plod spent months denying they closed off the official route, ie Lodge Hill upto the enforced endpoint at Bostall Hil. They also denied they had lines of police across Okehampton Crescent only allowing people to be taken to the ambulances that were already stationed there......

 

[love detective]

will be an IWCA article on the riots out tomorrow

so we can do another 16 pages of exactly the same thing on that