N_igma
Epistemic nuisance
It's an MI5/Rupert Murdoch conspiracy.
Weds 1st April: G20 protests - discussion, reaction and chat
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
It's an MI5/Rupert Murdoch conspiracy.
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
sums it up for me
I have a theory, based on chatting to officers and journalists today, about why the police charged the climate camp protesters. Only a theory, mind. Perhaps Agricola and PBP can shed some light?
There was a group of pissed teenagers being complete wankers at the BoE demo - you can glimpse them in a few of the videos - they're dancing, shouting, flailing their arms and pushing people around - they're completely off their tits. They made up a large part of the BoE crowd yesterday but the press and the protesters didn't mention them or film them or photograph them because they're just embarrassing fuckwits.
Said fuckwits left the BoE demo and headed towards the climate camp. Officers are a bit paranoid about being trapped between groups of protesters so somebody gave the order to move the campers along the street.
I'm not condoning it, but it needs to be explained. Perhaps the barrister who was kettled can use her influence to get an enquiry going? From the videos and photos we've all seen it looks like a fair few officers should be done for assault or ABH.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
I see your point, and leaving a few poor sods out there horribly outnumbered and with their arses hanging in the breeze despite the vast numbers of police who were clearly ready for action does seem rather dodgy. A tactic simillar to that of the playground bully sticking his chin out at you and saying "go on, you can have the first punch for free" before getting six of his mates to beat you senseless whether or not you took him up on his offer.
That's my thought about the whole kettle tactic. If faced with an actually violent and angry crowd, Gold would be telling Silver to pick some plod to sacrifice.
No, its the 'new style' policing.
You do have a point about the idea of marching everyone to a single location: having four marches was a kind of riff off of J18, but the whole point back then was that they all started at Liverpool Street and headed off in *different* directions making it impossible for the police to pre-position themselves and prepare.
They all ended up eventually at the same place which was kept secret beforehand. While that location was, like most of the City, narrow, it had various alleyways and the layout made it far hard than the BoE to surround (they never managed to).
The fact that this Chris Knight character seems to have been somehow involved with this decision/planning, also with the talking-up of violence beforehand (even if he was trying to be "funny"), and with the Alternative Summit which was cancelled at the last minute with no alternative venue in place (and the original venue being a bad place anyway)... plus his fairly micky-mouse presentation and politics ... it does make you wonder if someone either put him up to it, or if his group got a whole bunch of mysterious assistance, funding, suggestions/ideas, volunteers and media coverage from the 'powers that be' (whichever branch takes your fancy) precisely because it was so crap (ie easy to deal with). However it is easier to identify this (people were saying similar things last week) than it is to mobilise an alternative late in the day.
It could be argued that having lots of small groups doing things throughout the City would be far harder for the police to prevent, and would have disrupted the City even more as the police chased anyone and everyone around the place and tried to shut down everywhere, potentially causing chaos. However it is only a small minority of people who ever turn up in small groups with specific plans and most people just want and/or need a simple 'plan' (ie meet @ location A @ time X). Being in a large crowd with a common aim, being able to see everyone, and the banners and music and performers etc, listen to people speak, do a bit of shouting, wave your signs around, meet your mates, have a picnic ... get some TV media coverage, then go home: this is what most people want to achieve. Yes you could cause a lot more chaos if the city was full of roaming bands of people hell-bent on smashing and looting and beating up anyone they didn't like, but that isn't what most people actually want to do or believe in doing.
You are missing the point of what this is all about for most people.How it should be done:
If people want random violence they have that in everyday life - just go out stabbing and robbing people or get drunk and pick a fight or go out destroying stuff. There are plenty of wankers in England that do just that, just for kicks. That isn't anything to do with what this is all about, but you just don't seem to get it.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Who'll pick the person to lead this inquiry? If it's like previous "inquiries" conducted by a government-appointed judge investigating government-defined terms of reference, it's likely to be a whitewash.
Unless there's clear evidence of assault that can be handed over to the CPS, the only legal recourse I can see working is a trial at Queen's Bench before a civil jury for a claim of false imprisonment. If this is not possible for whatever reason, I don't see what the law can do, which is a dismal state of affairs for English liberty.
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
its fucking toy town stuff.
lostexpectation
New Member
funny i thought the plan was not to get into big groups
some good pics here like the washed out ones at the bottom
http://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/426168.html
oh these are fantastic
http://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/426199.html
some good pics here like the washed out ones at the bottom
http://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/426168.html
oh these are fantastic
http://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/426199.html
N_igma
Epistemic nuisance
Nah I do get it, successful peaceful protests (Iraq war being the main one) have proven to be absolutely useless in getting the Government to listen to you. There's only one step up from that, full on violence. Plus it's good craic fucking shit at the police. *sarcasm*
The Rising of the Flags above the Bank of England please do not try this at home kids.
That is truly the worst video I have ever seen.
It's the visual equivalent of word salad.
Not surprising that someone so interested in troofers has no more idea how to tell a coherent story - or to tell what is a coherent story - in pictures than they do in any other medium.
You can't point to one single failure (or one single success) and based your entire argument on that. Some protests have a big impact and others don't. An impact might mean getting exactly what you demand, other times you don't achieve that, but still achieve something, even if it is just more supporters or members or publicity than otherwise.
It is crazy to argue that any and every campaign should be escalated to full-on warfare the minute you don't get what you demand, even if it was actually possible (which it isn't in any case). You have to have a fairly psychopathic mindset to think in such a way - if you are being serious - or maybe you are just giving it the same fantasy macho egotist big-man bollocks that creates a lot of problems in the world that people are protesting about in the first place.
(eta 'just')
I enjoyed seeing the 'spiderman' guy putting the banners up, but I still want to know how he managed to get up there and hang on!
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
How it should be done:
Can you think of any other way to change things other than reduce them to ashes, or were you planning to live out the rest of your life scrubbing around in the ashes of your own folly?
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
The police themselves said they expected it to get violent (and were predicting far worse than anything that occurred).
what's your point caller
Didn't Charlie Brooker show an interview recently with a renowned psychologist on media involvement in reporting of violent acts? I'll try to find a link to it online. I think it might have some relevance and cautions re. police predictions.
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
*Obligatory posterior-covering post*
Should the old bill be snooping on this thread (in an official capacity, that is) I'll just take this opportunity to say I don't support any unlawful use of violence whatsoever.
If the OB are reading this thread (and they're as entitled to as anyone else is), then perhaps they might take this opportunity to reflect on the psychological and physical consequences of their predictions.
tangentlama
Nameless voices crying
Highlighted in red - absolutely agree.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Indeed. Of course the police are entitled to read the thread. My flippant post was true enough, though: I only support peaceful protest, and I'm ashamed to say predictions of rioting got me thinking the worst. It's not my place to comment on police intel I haven't seen; maybe the predictions of violence were reasonable given what officers had. The police can't be omnipotent.
All I can comment on are tactics that appear to be both unjust and ineffective.
None of this is questioning the courage and professionalism of those officers who were put in a difficult situation and tried to do the best they could given the circumstances.
N_igma
Epistemic nuisance
Perhaps, still don't think peaceful protests are the way forward. You can have all the supporters you want but it still won't bring change.
Are you related to Shakespeare?
Weren't you the person who was posting twitter messages last night?
lostexpectation
New Member
so any footage of late night april first, or 12 when they finally cleared the camp, not that i like watching it
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Depends where those supporters are. An alliance between supporters in the halls of power and protesters can be effective.
But if such an alliance doesn't exist, it isn't an excuse to commit criminal damage. My opposition to collective detention comes from the same place as my condemnation of idiots smashing windows: a belief that the rule of law is precious.
N_igma
Epistemic nuisance
The predications included all sorts of bizarre and crackpot claims, and were referencing plans posted on non-existant 'websites' that at least some people here would surely have heard about. Claims that his was goin to be worse than anything seen before, that various long-defunct groups were 'reforming', mentions of a shopping list of every single stunt that had been done before. The whole thing was hysterical hype. The police probably did more publicity work and drummed up more attenders than anyone else.
I can't help thinking that the Met relished the opportunity to show off and flex their muscles and 'event management skills' to the various security teams tagging along with the 20-odd heads of government - presumably they they needed to ensure they got a decent number of human punch-bags turn up for the purpose.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Edmund Burke was talking about Irish Catholics disenfranchised by law. Not the same situation, is it?"The half citizen becomes the full Jacobin."
It's just as likely that senior officers in the three police forces involved (BTB, Met, & City) over-reacted and inadvertently helped to inflame the situation with draconian tactics. I find it hard to believe commanders would put their officers in needless danger, which provoking a confrontation would entail. There are likelier explanations.
But regardless, we're unlikely ever to know the full motives of those involved. Having sweeping tactics like "kettling" declared illegal is the most effective means of preventing a repeat. Such tactics are tempting, and will inflame the situation if they're deployed with the best will in the world.
Let's take the issue of climate change for example: unless you do have enough supporters for a decent policy then you won't get the change needed. I can't see how getting violent is going to get you very far with an issue like this. Can you explain how it would go exactly? Can you join the dots between your initial burn-the-town riot to the desired outcome? And are you going to throw a hissy-fit and burn things every time you run into a delay or policy disagreement? How would you deal with international disagreements? Invade the dissenting countries and burn them down? I'm open to your idea if you can explain how it is meant to work, but right now I just don't get what you are talking about.
They would easily be able to rationalise it by arguing that they were "taking control of the situation" or "taking the initiative" by shaping events rather than simply reacting to them passively. They would be able to make arguments such as it is safer to aim at getting things resolved before dark, hence 'hurrying events along' - and it is ages-old military doctrine to pick your own battle field. They would consider that other scenarios also carry risks, so they would see themselves as choosing the least-bad option. I am sure they probably buy into their own 'for the greater public good' shit that all roads to hell are paved with.
N_igma
Epistemic nuisance
I think it's quit apt. The Government should do its best to protect the interests of it's citizens, time and time again it's failing and it's making people react.
What will protesting do? I've given you an example where over a million people turned out in protest of a Government policy, it didn't work. It really doesn't matter what the particular issue is, it's how the people deal with that. Peaceful protests don't seem to work anymore. Then again, play your bongos and smoke joints, no skin off my nose.
Similar threads
