Reclaim Brixton movement - meetings and April 25th protest planned

[editor]

Wasn't it the case that at the last Reclaim Brixton march the windows were put in in an oh-so-grown-up "legitimate" protest? Shortly before everyone moved on to barnardos with some tenuous justification about historic abuse of second hand clothing or something equally sketchy. Pathetic vandals justifying criminal damage in the name of politics.

You've got just about all of your facts wrong there.
This isn't a march. It's not advertised as a march. Reclaim Brixton wasn't a march. Today's event is an assembly. And the last one passed by peacefully without any incidents whatsoever.

And remember: there's no marching.

 

[CH1]

Wasn't it the case that at the last Reclaim Brixton march the windows were put in in an oh-so-grown-up "legitimate" protest? Shortly before everyone moved on to barnardos with some tenuous justification about historic abuse of second hand clothing or something equally sketchy. Pathetic vandals justifying criminal damage in the name of politics.

I was a bit confused about the Barnados bit. But it has happened before on other demos.

Maybe someone has a beef about child migrants? Barnados were highly involved in sending "orphans" to Australia and Canada where some fell prey to violent and abusive Christian Brothers schools (which sounded more like farms operated by child labour to me).

Sounds like a more likely cause of violent emotions than abuse of old clothing.

 

[Pickman's model]

You've got just about all of your facts wrong there.
This isn't a march. It's not advertised as a march. Reclaim Brixton wasn't a march. Today's event is an assembly. And the last one passed by peacefully without any incidents whatsoever.

And remember: there's no marching.

edited: missed the do on 27/6

 

[editor]

i must have imagined the to-do at the police station then

Reclaim Brixton took place in Windrush Square and was never advertised as a march. What people chose to do after the event is up to them.

 

[Pickman's model]

Reclaim Brixton took place in Windrush Square and was never advertised as a march. What people chose to do after the event is up to them.

i was referring to the april do at which there were several processions, the june event having passed me by.

 

[editor]

i was referring to the april do at which there were several processions, the june event having passed me by.

The April event was never advertised as march either (although several estates marched to the event).

 

[Winot]

What's wrong with a march anyway

 

[editor]

What's wrong with a march anyway

Nothing at all, although legally it's a whole different ball game to a static assembly.

 

[Tricky Skills]

Here's the June assembly. It was more like a slightly rebellious school assembly than an anti-capitalist crusade. Passionate, but 100 people max. And we all sat down in a nice circle on the Windrush Square grass.

 

[Winot]

Nothing at all, although legally it's a whole different ball game to a static assembly.

Ah, gotcha. That makes sense.

 

[Sly]

I had the pleasure of staying in your area of London over the last month and witnessed how intense that main square can be sometimes - which inspired me to write this poem while I walked around Brixton one day. Hope everything works out for everyone. Cheers.

Brixton ~ 7/24/15 8:44 P.M.

Broken djembe drummer
Try beating over
Political loud speaker
Of another street sweeper
Is there no common cause in the volume of all

The rich, white lady
Violent waving
The same bookend
As the ISIS trend
What’s so unbelievable about these non-believers

Fashion friendly yuppie
Sharply selling
Corporate coupons
To demographics’ piss-ons
Do bad people find places that are good to their people

The poor, black beggar
Thinks you were
Worth the same name
As the KKK
Because you didn't give smokes to those hungry throats

Sarcastic graffiti artists
Covering comics
To fight each other
Over who’s owner
Superheroes forgetting their need to be heroic

The cheat drug dealer
Peddling bad healer
The same ethics
As fast food practice
Are there legal differences if illegal is indifferent

Paradise door bouncer
Judging suitors
In need of drink
Relief from street
Can the sour come cleaner than the sweeter seem dirty

Stoned, hippie baby-doll
Crying on the wall
An empty list
To help the homeless
If it was the thought that counted you’d give it a second thought

There’s writing on the mall
“Everything must fall”
The reality of these estates
Neighbors have sponsored window frames
The dog house was condemned to be an H&M
And Ronald bought the back yard
They’re growing grass again in the parks
For the college kids to drink their budgets
Within the bars of the freshly painted fences
Police officers finally offered up some policy
Protecting the welcoming of Tesco’s new community
They’re directing the rich to watch the signs
That read “CCTV is watching live”
Criminals best dare to be aware
No picking pockets on the stairs
On the way down to the tube to the next ghetto
Rent will be too low to feel like home sweet home
Just remember the month you lived before being evicted
From a place safe enough for you to stop staying in
Water filled the stones again almost miraculously
Everything got boring after it got clean – socially
But tourists seem to like the area for its mundanity
Every aisle is marked for easy opportunity
It’s never hard to get around
When everywhere is just like your hometown
See, Electric Avenue couldn’t keep the lights lit
So Starbucks is expanding its campaign to kill Brixton

‘Race’ games causing tension
Distraction
In a class system situation

We’re all one race, every person
Human
On Mother Earth’s skin

Poor is poorest poured empty
Solitary
Under the rich’s full capacity

We’re all one cause, equally
Solidarity
Out of love to live peacefully

The out with the old, in with the new mentality
Died of old age in the birth of its second second
Naturally
Sisters take off your leopard skins
And hand them to bare brethren
Some things are going to fall this autumn
Back to school sales on businesses at the bottom
Whose owners can’t afford
To have their voices heard
Inconvenient citizens at fault
For supporting convenient parts
Everyone is guilty
For the fast food need
The daily clothes shopping
Every single cup of coffee
And every distraction in the way
Experiencing life through microwaves
Everything that was wanted
Now wants everything
We could not see
How what made life an easier hell
How our conveniences always inconvenienced someone else
We’ll just take turns being that someone else
‘Til someone tells the rich to sell themselves
There’s a fire sale in the clearance part of town
No one’s stopping crime
They’re just moving it around
But if there was ever a time to stand still with shame and guilt
To change the narrative of a planet burning out
Brixton, the time is now.

 

[friendofdorothy]

Wasn't it the case that at the last Reclaim Brixton march the windows were put in in an oh-so-grown-up "legitimate" protest? Shortly before everyone moved on to barnardos with some tenuous justification about historic abuse of second hand clothing or something equally sketchy. Pathetic vandals justifying criminal damage in the name of politics.

Damaging property is a historic form of political protest, and the media always calls it vandalism, equating it with some mindless form of destruction. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/57781419 it's nothing new. Our system of law values property above people, so attacking property is a logical thing to do.

Its only a shame they didn't daub the windows or hand out leaflets with the message they wanted to get across so it appeared in the media ignorant of the wrongs done by Barnardos, so the public would understand why they had chosen that particular charity as a target.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Also, Foxtons.

Bricking a Foxtons during a protest is like picking up some litter and putting it in the correct recycle bins.

 

[BigMoaner]

Damaging property is a historic form of political protest, and the media always calls it vandalism, equating it with some mindless form of destruction. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/57781419 it's nothing new. Our system of law values property above people, so attacking property is a logical thing to do.

Its only a shame they didn't daub the windows or hand out leaflets with the message they wanted to get across so it appeared in the media ignorant of the wrongs done by Barnardos, so the public would understand why they had chosen that particular charity as a target.

they can smash up any property if it's "a logical thing" to do, as long as it's not mine.

 

[SpamMisery]

Our system of law values property above people

How do you mean?

 

[friendofdorothy]

I thought that was the historic basis of alot of our laws. Certainly it did when suffragettes where around or when Barnados sent children away with permission of their parents. Perhaps I should have phrased that in the past tense - 'Our system of law valued property above people, so attacking property was a logical thing to do.'

When I heard some of the punitive sentences handed out to looters after the 2011 rioting I thought that our law still overvalues property. What do you think?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Wasn't it the case that at the last Reclaim Brixton march the windows were put in in an oh-so-grown-up "legitimate" protest? Shortly before everyone moved on to barnardos with some tenuous justification about historic abuse of second hand clothing or something equally sketchy. Pathetic vandals justifying criminal damage in the name of politics.

Interesting. So much excrement in a single post from someone who usually prides themselves on being well-informed.

 

[SpamMisery]

I thought that was the historic basis of alot of our laws. Certainly it did when suffragettes where around or when Barnados sent children away with permission of their parents. Perhaps I should have phrased that in the past tense - 'Our system of law valued property above people, so attacking property was a logical thing to do.'

When I heard some of the punitive sentences handed out to looters after the 2011 rioting I thought that our law still overvalues property. What do you think?

Fair enough. When I read it I just thought: "if I smashed in a window, I'd get a bollocking; if I did the same to someone's face, I'd get a heavier penalty". But I'm not a lawyer, judge, policeman or thug with a history of violent crime so I'm probably wrong.

 

[friendofdorothy]

Fair enough. When I read it I just thought: "if I smashed in a window, I'd get a bollocking; if I did the same to someone's face, I'd get a heavier penalty". But I'm not a lawyer, judge, policeman or thug with a history of violent crime so I'm probably wrong.

I don't know either - there's probably an urb with more experience who can put us right.

 

[Gramsci]

Fair enough. When I read it I just thought: "if I smashed in a window, I'd get a bollocking; if I did the same to someone's face, I'd get a heavier penalty". But I'm not a lawyer, judge, policeman or thug with a history of violent crime so I'm probably wrong.

In the case of violence against property which is considered to be part of a riot what Judges/ police call "exemplary" sentences are handed down. That is you get more time for it than if you had done the same act on a drunken Saturday night. One thing the State does not like is when the ordinary Joe decides to threaten social "order".

 

[Gramsci]

I thought that was the historic basis of alot of our laws. Certainly it did when suffragettes where around or when Barnados sent children away with permission of their parents. Perhaps I should have phrased that in the past tense - 'Our system of law valued property above people, so attacking property was a logical thing to do.'

When I heard some of the punitive sentences handed out to looters after the 2011 rioting I thought that our law still overvalues property. What do you think?

You are correct. Its also something that’s been contested. Its the concept of private property that is defended by the State that provides one of the basis for modern Capitalism. Loss of common land and enclosures in 19C is one aspect of it.

Bringing up the Suffragettes is interesting. They did do attacks on property as part of the campaign for the vote.

Are posters here saying that was out of order? That they should have lobbied peacefully like the Suffragists?

 

[BigMoaner]

Depends whose property they are attacking. And depends on your definition of property (i.e. are we just talking bricks and mortor/land or does it extend to other types of property such as cars, personal items, etc?). if it's the property of those withholding the vote then perhaps justified. which is far different than saying "it is logical to attack property as the state values it more than humans". it'd be more "logical" to attack the state, surely - rather than what people own?

 

[ddraig]

How do you 'attack the state'?

 

[Greebo]

How do you 'attack the state'?

The same way you eat an elephant; bit by bit, and preferably with a lot of help.

 

[friendofdorothy]

Depends whose property they are attacking. And depends on your definition of property (i.e. are we just talking bricks and mortor/land or does it extend to other types of property such as cars, personal items, etc?). if it's the property of those withholding the vote then perhaps justified. which is far different than saying "it is logical to attack property as the state values it more than humans". it'd be more "logical" to attack the state, surely - rather than what people own?

I was only talking about the attack on the Barnardos shop, and using the example of the suffragettes damaging public buildings (govt offices, shops and post boxes)

I don't think that there is any justification to damage private individuals homes or property.

 

[Winot]

I was only talking about the attack on the Barnardos shop, and using the example of the suffragettes damaging public buildings (govt offices, shops and post boxes)

I don't think that there is any justification to damage private individuals homes or property.

The suffragettes didn't have the vote, obviously, so they should be given more latitude when it comes to 'illegal' activity. Similarly for apartheid South Africa.

 

[editor]

The suffragettes didn't have the vote, obviously, so they should be given more latitude when it comes to 'illegal' activity. Similarly for apartheid South Africa.

How about this one?

Four women walked free from Liverpool Crown Court yesterday after a jury found them not guilty of criminal charges despite their admission that they did more than pounds 1.5m worth of damage to a Hawk warplane.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pounds-15m-hawk-attack-women-freed-1331285.html

 

[Winot]

How about this one?

A good advert for Jury trials.

 

[Pickman's model]

I was only talking about the attack on the Barnardos shop, and using the example of the suffragettes damaging public buildings (govt offices, shops and post boxes)

I don't think that there is any justification to damage private individuals homes or property.

i do. for example, we've all heard what rachman did to his own tenants. i wonder whether that might have stopped sooner had he suffered the same treatment.

 

[ViolentPanda]

How do you 'attack the state'?

I could tell you that, but then the state would know how I'm attacking them.