krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
If it is true, it certainly is horrendous
NUS national protest against the cuts 10.11.10 [London]
- Thread starter where to
- Start date
If it is true, it certainly is horrendous
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
it isn't news though, it is naked toryism. Quite old school ranks and places thinking.
I would argue that it very much is.
I have described their approach as schizophrenic and I believe that it is - after G20 they all went into "Ooooh! Bad police! Stop being all nasty to the nice protestors!" mode, slagging off the use of containment tactics way more than could be justified. No they have gone into "Ooooh! Bad police! How did you let all those nasty protestors write nasty things on that nice Mr Cameron's wallpaper!" mode, slagging off the police's failure to use, er, containment tactics to prevent the protestors getting anywhere near Millbank.
What I would characterise as appropriate media coverage of what happened this week would look something like this:
1. Big demonstration. Lots of support - way more than anyone (NUS or police) expected. BIG message to government. (Accompanied by lots of piling on of the pressure in interviews with politicians, preventing them dodging the question by trying to focus on some broken windows)
2. General acknowledgment that the police had policed the demonstration in an approprate manner, facilitating lawful protest, tolerating minor infringements of the law (burning placards, pushing and shoving, being stationary for a while obstructing streets and causing disruption, offensive slogans on placards, etc.) where appropriate.
3. Acknowledgement of the fact that the police had NOT over-reacted when things had started getting violent (even when they got excessively violent) and encouraging this style of restrained policing of protest as compared to the more robust, interventionist, "get-in-first" tactics of G20 and other demonstrations (even going so far as to discuss the concept of the police being expected to take some minor casualties in the interests of free speech and, whilst sympathising with the individual injured officers, supporting the idea that those minor injuries are caused in the interests of a greater good (and acknowledging that they are the equivalent of the possibly non-violent person caught at the front of the crowd when the police mount a baton charge receiving injuries that cannot be justified on an individual basis (i.e. it is the crowd against which force is being used but it is an individual who actually gets the cuts and bruises.
4. Questioning the police tactics in relation to Millbank - Did they gather all the information available to them prior to the demonstration? Did they analyse it properly? Did they properly assess the risk to 30 Millbank? Did they warn the occupiers and did the occupiers put on appropriate additional security, etc? Were sufficient police (deployed and in immediate reserve) assigned to Millbank? Was a decision made soon enough to call up additional reserves to protect the building from invasion? Why did those reserves not get there in time to prevent it? - though not assuming from the outset that any fuck-ups had been made - it may just have been an inevitable consequence of unexpected things sometimes happening in less strictly policed demonstration situations.
5. Identifying the few specific serious offences (such as the throwing of the fire extinguisher, the theft of property (including a Poppy Appeal collection tin I understand ...
) and the absolute trashing of the reception area (beyond the causing of a little damage to gain access and the writing of grafitti)) and supporting the idea that they should be reactively investigated as far as possible and that those responsible, if identified, should answer to the Courts for their actions (not least because they have set back the cause of peaceful protest and direct action by encouraging the police to move back to more robust and interventionist tactics).That was in the initial stages, when there was little, if any, window smashing going on - if you look at the pictures you'll see that a few protestors got in initially (through the door, and then through one broken window) but that then other windows were broken from the inside as well as from the outside.
It all got an awful lot worse later and anyone working in the reception area (and offices up on about the fourth floor (where windows were also smashed from the inside, fortunately not causing large panes of glass to fall onto the people below, I suspect more by luck than judgement) would have been absolutely terrified!
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
there are, after all, a number of occasions on which people are actively encouraged to break windows.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
which we already know.
but lets just take it on the chin, right?
can you think of an example when evidence has come out that a party of government had planned two months before an election to ditch key promises immediately upon reaching government. i honestly can't. be it incompetence or otherwise, i can't remember that sort of evidence ever being unearthed before.
this isn't spin, or masking long term intentions, its bare-faced, cynical, lying to a degree that shouldn't be surprising, it should be shocking. and it along justifies anything and everything now coming to the scumbags.
you can't hide behind "democracy" in this context.
It most certainly can be ... not least if someone is behind them.
Just because breaking something is criminal damage at its most basic in terms of criminal offences, it does not mean that it cannot be part of some other more serious crime. At the time the windows were being broken to gain access it would probably amount to burglary (entry with intent to cause damage or steal), certainly amounted to affray (using or threatening violence causing another to fear for their personal safety), violent disorder (three or more using or threatening violence causing another to fear for their personal safety) or riot (twelve or more, ditto, but for a common purpose). In view of the size of the plate glass it may amount to an attempted assault if people were known to be close enough to be at risk from the broken pieces falling, etc.
Personally I would use the disorder as the measure of what was and was not acceptable as part of "non-violent" protest. Whilst they were outside, burning placards, throwing the odd thing, writing grafitti, chanting, breaking the odd window, doing a bit of pushing and shoving with the police, even occupying the building without using force (just by weight of numbers swarming in through doors and not doing anything significant once inside, just causing disruption) that is acceptable. When they started to smash their way in and the smash the place up to a significant degree, that is not.
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
madzone
Physically unfavourable
The pains of glass were nowhere near reception. The video clip I watched was of the windows being smashed from the inside. The reception staff were just sitting watching. I was watching it with other students and we all commented on how calm the staff seemed.
Do you include being terrified for their own safety in that? Do you acknowledge psycholgical hurt?
You failed to mention the violence by "protestors" who didn't give a flying fuck if anyone got hurt, throwing scaffolding poles through police car windows, etc which caused the police to react in the way you described ...
madzone
Physically unfavourable
Are there any pictures or videos of these people being 'terrified' or are you making assumptions?
madzone
Physically unfavourable
Tit for tat is ok then? It's ok for police to dish out violence indiscriminately if they see themselves as 'provoked'?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Peaceful protests can be effective. But violent protests are generally more effective. Collective bargaining by riot works, just don't be the poor bastard who gets caught because the authorities will try to make an example of you.
'You failed to mention the violence by "protestors" who didn't give a flying fuck if anyone got hurt, throwing scaffolding poles through police car windows, etc which caused the police to react in the way you described ...'
Apparently one of them is a Barrister now!
Apparently one of them is a Barrister now!
When I was down there on Thursday there was a Poppy Appeal box trampled to pieces on the forecourt area and poppies scattered around trampled underfoot too. The security staff said that it had been on the reception desk, along with a collection box and that like everything else in erception it had been thrown out through the broken windows and either stolen or destroyed. They said the collection box hadn't been seen since (though someone else could have taken it for safe keeping and he wouldn't have been aware I guess).
great video here:
http://london.indymedia.org.uk/videos/6010
the cops left to defend the tories in there must be raging, really isolated. i also think they made a defence holding the line outside the huge half smashed window pane, that was very dangerous for all.
http://london.indymedia.org.uk/videos/6010
the cops left to defend the tories in there must be raging, really isolated. i also think they made a defence holding the line outside the huge half smashed window pane, that was very dangerous for all.
Similar threads
