NUS national protest against the cuts 10.11.10 [London]

[moon23]

Ska caused the violence against property. He should be waterboarded.

Can it be noted Moon23 was critical

 

[fractionMan]

You wouldn't know the inside of your own head moon.

 

[ymu]

Can it be noted Moon23 was critical

You do deserve some credit for the good natured way you deal with all the crap thrown at you here, I'll give you that.

But if you could start responding to posts and not just regurgitating party briefings, that'd be grand.


<notes that m/Moon23 can't seem to work out if he has a capital in his own username. Typical Lib Dem fence-sitting. Pfft>

 

[detective-boy]

It's intriguing that the police were so hopeless. Was it deliberate? Maybe they wanted to show what happens when they don't use G20 tactics? They're hoping the press and politicians will ask them to get back to their old tricks next time - lots more officers, everyone suited up, horses etc.

They have been told in no uncertain terms (through public opinion, media coverage, political pressure, an official HMIC Report (Adapting to Protest) and everything else) that they had moved too far into controlling protest, to the point where it was too intrusive and was preventing lawful protest.

They have (as you would no doubt hope) responded to that and (I think quite rightly) moved back to a position where they focus on facilitating protest and they do not intervene unless there is a clear and genuine need to do so. Unfortunately that means that sometimes by the time the grounds are clear enough there is no opportunity to actually prevent significant damage. I think we saw the thirty or forty minutes where there was the stand-off outside Millbank, with the little bonfire of placards and a bit of pushing and shoving as being tolerated as being genuine protest ... but then when the windows started to be kicked in it was too late to prevent a major problem with the protestors in the building.

I have been trying to persuade the media today that they shouldn't be so hysterical and that, as a society, we need to accept that if we want genuine right to protest we will have to accept that sometimes a few windows will get broken. That said, there are a couple of questions that the police need to ask themselves: firstly did they gather all available open source (or other) intelligence suggesting that things may kick off / involve elements other than the (I am sure) totally genuine student organisers who they had judged to represent minimal threat; secondly, did they identify, and deploy sufficient resources to, potential targets like Millbank on the route and thirdly (and perhaps most importantly) how come the reinforcements were not immediately available when it did kick off. There may or may not be legitimate explanations for any or all of these questions - so much else was going on simultaneously which simply hasn't been reported that it is impossible to know whether other priorities had been identified too.

I certainly don't think that, overall, it was a "failure" by the police - yes, the occupation of the building should not have been allowed and could have gone so horribly wrong - but what we saw was, to my mind, a far more appropriate policing response to protest that what we have seen in some aspects of G20 and other events.

I think there are probably some officers (including many who got hurt ...) who would hope that what happened means the pendulum will swing back again to the G20 approach. Personally I hope it doesn't. With the exception of the building occupation, the policing of the protest overall was something the Met should be proud of, not embarassed about.

 

[moon23]

You do deserve some credit for the good natured way you deal with all the crap thrown at you here, I'll give you that.

But if you could start responding to posts and not just regurgitating party briefings, that'd be grand.

Ok I’ll try, would hate to disappoint.

 

[revol68]

Can it be noted Moon23 was critical

a coward like yourself will always side with power.

 

[moon23]

You wouldn't know the inside of your own head moon.

Fair comment.

 

[revol68]

They have been told in no uncertain terms (through public opinion, media coverage, political pressure, an official HMIC Report (Adapting to Protest) and everything else) that they had moved too far into controlling protest, to the point where it was too intrusive and was preventing lawful protest.

They have (as you would no doubt hope) responded to that and (I think quite rightly) moved back to a position where they focus on facilitating protest and they do not intervene unless there is a clear and genuine need to do so. Unfortunately that means that sometimes by the time the grounds are clear enough there is no opportunity to actually prevent significant damage. I think we saw the thirty or forty minutes where there was the stand-off outside Millbank, with the little bonfire of placards and a bit of pushing and shoving as being tolerated as being genuine protest ... but then when the windows started to be kicked in it was too late to prevent a major problem with the protestors in the building.

I have been trying to persuade the media today that they shouldn't be so hysterical and that, as a society, we need to accept that if we want genuine right to protest we will have to accept that sometimes a few windows will get broken. That said, there are a couple of questions that the police need to ask themselves: firstly did they gather all available open source (or other) intelligence suggesting that things may kick off / involve elements other than the (I am sure) totally genuine student organisers who they had judged to represent minimal threat; secondly, did they identify, and deploy sufficient resources to, potential targets like Millbank on the route and thirdly (and perhaps most importantly) how come the reinforcements were not immediately available when it did kick off. There may or may not be legitimate explanations for any or all of these questions - so much else was going on simultaneously which simply hasn't been reported that it is impossible to know whether other priorities had been identified too.

I certainly don't think that, overall, it was a "failure" by the police - yes, the occupation of the building should not have been allowed and could have gone so horribly wrong - but what we saw was, to my mind, a far more appropriate policing response to protest that what we have seen in some aspects of G20 and other events.

Any chance of answering my post about developing something resembling a fucking heart and mind and deciding on the actual rights and wrongs in the dispute over the cuts rather than mouthing off legalistic bullshit?

 

[detective-boy]

i can't help but wonder the same. 225 officers deployed today.

Tory cuts to policing imminent, Tory HQ trashed by very poorly policed protest. you've got to wonder.

You'd find a conspiracy in an empty room, wouldn't you ...

 

[revol68]

You'd find a conspiracy in an empty room, wouldn't you ...

aye and your mates would shoot it in the head 6 times for being a bit swarthy and you'd be straight on here to justify it.

 

[moon23]

a coward like yourself will always side with power.

I don't always side with power, I think you make quick judgement.

 

[gawkrodger]

Personally I don't think there should be a major reactive investigation here

To be fair to the rozzers, none of us expected anything of interest to occur either!

The whole 'oh there was anarchists trying to organise a bloc before hand' rubbish - there's one on every demo in London and almost always has fuck all impact

 

[revol68]

I don't always side with power, I think you make quick judgement.

you do, especially when superficially opposing it, they need arseholes like your as loyal opposition.

 

[moon23]

Any chance of answering my post about developing something resembling a fucking heart and mind and deciding on the actual rights and wrongs in the dispute over the cuts rather than mouthing off legalistic bullshit?

In this post of which you are so critical, detective-boy mentions "I have been trying to persuade the media today that they shouldn't be so hysterical and that, as a society, we need to accept that if we want genuine right to protest we will have to accept that sometimes a few windows will get broken.". Consider that detective-boy might be exactly the sort of person you would want making this case.

 

[detective-boy]

Powerful image. Thought provoking question.

 

[where to]

 

[revol68]

In this post of which you are so critical, detective-boy mentions "I have been trying to persuade the media today that they shouldn't be so hysterical and that, as a society, we need to accept that if we want genuine right to protest we will have to accept that sometimes a few windows will get broken.". Consider that detective-boy might be exactly the sort of person you would want making this case.

no his concern is about policing the protests it says nothing about whether he thinks the protesters are right to oppose this wave of attacks on the working class?

 

[moon23]

you do, especially when superficially opposing it, they need arseholes like your as loyal opposition.

What do you mean loyal opposition? Crickey you haven't discovered that i'm paid a retainer by the establishement have you?

 

[treelover]

in this particular case DB posted a very balanced and reasoned view and you just screamed abuse

 

[ymu]

They have been told in no uncertain terms (through public opinion, media coverage, political pressure, an official HMIC Report (Adapting to Protest) and everything else) that they had moved too far into controlling protest, to the point where it was too intrusive and was preventing lawful protest.

They have (as you would no doubt hope) responded to that and (I think quite rightly) moved back to a position where they focus on facilitating protest and they do not intervene unless there is a clear and genuine need to do so. Unfortunately that means that sometimes by the time the grounds are clear enough there is no opportunity to actually prevent significant damage. I think we saw the thirty or forty minutes where there was the stand-off outside Millbank, with the little bonfire of placards and a bit of pushing and shoving as being tolerated as being genuine protest ... but then when the windows started to be kicked in it was too late to prevent a major problem with the protestors in the building.

I have been trying to persuade the media today that they shouldn't be so hysterical and that, as a society, we need to accept that if we want genuine right to protest we will have to accept that sometimes a few windows will get broken. That said, there are a couple of questions that the police need to ask themselves: firstly did they gather all available open source (or other) intelligence suggesting that things may kick off / involve elements other than the (I am sure) totally genuine student organisers who they had judged to represent minimal threat; secondly, did they identify, and deploy sufficient resources to, potential targets like Millbank on the route and thirdly (and perhaps most importantly) how come the reinforcements were not immediately available when it did kick off. There may or may not be legitimate explanations for any or all of these questions - so much else was going on simultaneously which simply hasn't been reported that it is impossible to know whether other priorities had been identified too.

I certainly don't think that, overall, it was a "failure" by the police - yes, the occupation of the building should not have been allowed and could have gone so horribly wrong - but what we saw was, to my mind, a far more appropriate policing response to protest that what we have seen in some aspects of G20 and other events.

I think there are probably some officers (including many who got hurt ...) who would hope that what happened means the pendulum will swing back again to the G20 approach. Personally I hope it doesn't. With the exception of the building occupation, the policing of the protest overall was something the Met should be proud of, not embarassed about.

I don't really disagree with much of that - the parts that are available for me to agree/disagree with anyway - apart from the bolded bit. This is the same propaganda the coalition and their stenographers in the media have been trying. I'm not saying it's conscious on your part, but there was no 'element' other than the normal crowd you'd expect on a demo like that. There are very few masked up people in the footage - it's obvious that they're not experienced at this sort of thing, and that they're not being advised by anyone who is experienced at this sort of thing.

Whilst I think it's true that noone particularly expected this demo to kick off, it should have been obvious that there was a high risk just because it is a demo about the cuts. The police have been using this in their anti-cuts message for weeks - you'll need us when the riots start - but utterly failed to pick up on a public mood that said it was going to happen sooner or later.

The idea that it was outside provocateurs behind this is not going to gain any traction. It's just not credible.

 

[detective-boy]

and how is it 'disgusting' to occupy a building? tis legitimate protest!

There is a difference between occupying a building and disrupting it's routine activity and smashing it up, nicking stuff, terrorising the staff, etc. One may well be legitimate. The other most definitely isn't. Ordinary people going about their lawful business are entitled not to be terrified for their safety.

 

[revol68]

What do you mean loyal opposition? Crickey you haven't discovered that i'm paid a retainer by the establishement have you?

loyal opposition is those that claim to oppose it but whose opposition is so ineffectual and pathetic that it only serves to bolster it by never questioning it's central assumptions and conditions.

loyal opposition will march against the Iraq War and talk about what a criminal act it is and how many people will die because of it and yet they will applaud the police arresting anyone who actually takes a stand who engages in direct action, so much as smashes a window.

 

[detective-boy]

Having seen how pointless peaceful protest was in 2003, it just makes sense.

It raises valid questions about the coverage of very significant, but peaceful, protest about issues by the media and the notice taken of them by politicians. They should be held up to scrutiny as to why people feel the need to commit serious disorder to gain meaningful attention.

 

[killer b]

Ordinary people going about their lawful business are entitled not to be terrified for their safety.

anyone with a soul who worked there would've got masked up and joined in. in fact, maybe that's who all the masked people were?

 

[revlon]

They have been told in no uncertain terms (through public opinion, media coverage, political pressure, an official HMIC Report (Adapting to Protest) and everything else) that they had moved too far into controlling protest, to the point where it was too intrusive and was preventing lawful protest.

They have (as you would no doubt hope) responded to that and (I think quite rightly) moved back to a position where they focus on facilitating protest and they do not intervene unless there is a clear and genuine need to do so. Unfortunately that means that sometimes by the time the grounds are clear enough there is no opportunity to actually prevent significant damage. I think we saw the thirty or forty minutes where there was the stand-off outside Millbank, with the little bonfire of placards and a bit of pushing and shoving as being tolerated as being genuine protest ... but then when the windows started to be kicked in it was too late to prevent a major problem with the protestors in the building.

I have been trying to persuade the media today that they shouldn't be so hysterical and that, as a society, we need to accept that if we want genuine right to protest we will have to accept that sometimes a few windows will get broken. That said, there are a couple of questions that the police need to ask themselves: firstly did they gather all available open source (or other) intelligence suggesting that things may kick off / involve elements other than the (I am sure) totally genuine student organisers who they had judged to represent minimal threat; secondly, did they identify, and deploy sufficient resources to, potential targets like Millbank on the route and thirdly (and perhaps most importantly) how come the reinforcements were not immediately available when it did kick off. There may or may not be legitimate explanations for any or all of these questions - so much else was going on simultaneously which simply hasn't been reported that it is impossible to know whether other priorities had been identified too.

I certainly don't think that, overall, it was a "failure" by the police - yes, the occupation of the building should not have been allowed and could have gone so horribly wrong - but what we saw was, to my mind, a far more appropriate policing response to protest that what we have seen in some aspects of G20 and other events.

I think there are probably some officers (including many who got hurt ...) who would hope that what happened means the pendulum will swing back again to the G20 approach. Personally I hope it doesn't. With the exception of the building occupation, the policing of the protest overall was something the Met should be proud of, not embarassed about.

where was smellie when we need him? We should be told

 

[revol68]

There is a difference between occupying a building and disrupting it's routine activity and smashing it up, nicking stuff, terrorising the staff, etc. One may well be legitimate. The other most definitely isn't. Ordinary people going about their lawful business are entitled not to be terrified for their safety.

what like those on benefits being threatened routinely by baying rich cunts on the lunch time and evening news? like the people of Iraq and Afghanistan who had shock and awe rained down upon them whilst peaceful legal protest in this country did nothing to stop it.

 

[detective-boy]

So do you think that unless someone pays tax you they have no legitimate right to have a say in how the country is run?

To be fair it is the natural conclusion to the old "No taxation without representation" line ...

 

[moon23]

I don't really disagree with much of that - the parts that are available for me to agree/disagree with anyway - apart from the bolded bit. This is the same propaganda the coalition and their stenographers in the media have been trying. I'm not saying it's conscious on your part, but there was no 'element' other than the normal crowd you'd expect on a demo like that. There are very few masked up people in the footage - it's obvious that they're not experienced at this sort of thing, and that they're not being advised by anyone who is experienced at this sort of thing.

Whilst I think it's true that noone particularly expected this demo to kick off, it should have been obvious that there was a high risk just because it is a demo about the cuts. The police have been using this in their anti-cuts message for weeks - you'll need us when the riots start - but utterly failed to pick up on a public mood that said it was going to happen sooner or later.

The idea that it was outside provocateurs behind this is not going to gain any traction. It's just not credible.

I think it will have some traction e.g. with Sky news picking up on Urban and the Facebook groups. Face it they won't need much evidence to confirm what they are looking to confirm. Of course there were some organised people there, you could see some flags and masks. There would have been some student trot groups about as well.

 

[revol68]

Got to love DB's tagline "Ignoring the Collective" like he's some sort of rebel, aye you are ignoring the interests of the collective as you pander to the ruling elite.

 

[revol68]

anyone with a soul who worked there would've got masked up and joined in. in fact, maybe that's who all the masked people were?

exactyl, at the very least anyone other than a lackey bastard would be thinking "great, out early, watch this ruckus for a bit and then go for a pint".