Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Weds 1st April: G20 protests - discussion, reaction and chat

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.
And unlike Irish Catholics pre-1829, we have the right to do something about it. Yet we keep electing the same useless parties, largely out of tribalism.

If you have the right to advance your opinions by violence and vandalism, so do your opponents. Bloody chaos reigns. If widely adopted, this position would tear society apart, and make might right. Which is why I wish the people who employ it a swift trip to lock-up. :)
 
I've given you an example where over a million people turned out in protest of a Government policy, it didn't work.
Firstly, look at history and you'd find many protests that did "work", and others that didn't "work". Taking one case doesn't prove a universal truth that they always work or never work.

Secondly, there is not just one single outcome of a demo: the anti-war demo helped create a whole new political alliance and a continuing campaign that is still continuing. If it had never happened or had been tiny instead of massive then a lot of other things would no have followed on, so you are actually incorrect to imply that it had no impact or was not worth doing. Moreover if it hadn't happened that in itself could have been even more damaging - for example of people's impressions of the British public and its values.

Finally, people *have* taken violent action in protest against the war (and other UK foreign policy) by exploding bombs that killed 54 people on 7th July 2005 for example. Can you explain how that has 'helped'? Maybe those murders did have an impact but was it any greater or more constructive than the million people marching?

You can't just claim 'protest doesn't work we need violence' without explaining how this violence is a) justified in this context and b) will actually achieve what you claim it will.

Your current argument is that of a highly dangerous baby having a lethal temper tantrum. Don't immediately get your own way? Start killing people!
 
Naivety! Great wee word.

I'm not an arsehole, just drank a lot of drink tonight. I'm not sure if I control it or it controls me. Have a good night/morning all the same. :)
 
I thought it was actually a pretty good idea, especially as they were going to great lengths to push non-violence. If you're looking to win hearts and minds in the general population, then nice articulate middle class kids being kicked in the head by the cops for basically having an extended tea party are quite useful.

Well, quite :D
 
It would be great if someone drew up a "bull-shitters list" - all the journalists who have written shite about 1st April, versus those who have given accurate reports.

For example, for the BBC Ben Brown was good all day, on the ground at the BoE, but by that evening his reports had been re-written and edited to tell a completely different story, parroted by the talking-head anchor back in the studio. It is unclear who exactly was responsible for doing this. There was also good live coverage for the first two or three hours, but 'co-incidentally' when the police started getting violent the coverage got really patchy and they just started showing pre-recorded and out-of-context clips on repeat, despite having a team on the ground.

Yep. And yesterday when he was covering the summit, he kept referring to the hardcore anarchists of the day before blah blah. Completely different stance.

Its legality is not "unknown". There has been a lengthy case that went as far as the House of Lords that determined it is legal, and it is about to go to the ECHR where they too will probably find that it is legal.

This case? http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090128/austin-1.htm

37. If measures of this kind are to avoid being prohibited by the Convention therefore it must be by recognising that they are not within the ambit of article 5(1) at all. In my opinion measures of crowd control will fall outside the area of its application, so long as they are not arbitrary. This means that they must be resorted to in good faith, that they must be proportionate and that they are enforced for no longer than is reasonably necessary.

39. The intention of the police was to maintain the cordon only so long as was reasonably thought necessary to achieve those purposes and it is accepted by the appellant that the cordon was not maintained longer than was necessary to achieve those purposes. In the circumstances the confinement and restriction of movement that the cordon inevitably imposed on those within it did not, in my opinion, constitute an Article 5 deprivation of their liberty.

60. In such cases, it seems to me unrealistic to contend that article 5 can come into play at all, provided, and it is a very important proviso, that the actions of the police are proportionate and reasonable, and any confinement is restricted to a reasonable minimum, as to discomfort and as to time, as is necessary for the relevant purpose, namely the prevention of serious public disorder and violence.


I dont know, I wasnt there and nor have I seen any footage from when they (the climate camp) were kettled; though admittedly earlier on they did look fluffy.

https://london.indymedia.org.uk/videos/993

http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/ccaCity/gallery4/index5.html
 
Frustratingly, I can't find why this case wasn't tried by jury. This link from HM Court Service says that: "Claims for damages for libel and slander (defamation), fraud, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment will be tried by a Judge and jury unless the court orders trial by a Judge alone." So it seems the 1981 Act is still in force.

I can't find any reference to a judge denying trial by jury. All I can think of is that it was a bench trial because the claim was also under the ECHR. This feeble convention distinguishes between "restriction of liberty" and "restriction of movement". From the Court of Appeal ruling linked to above: "The European Court has said that under its established case law article 5 is not concerned with mere restrictions on liberty of movement."

It directs me to Article Two: "Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence".

This is qualified in sweeping terms by Section Four: "The rights set forth in paragraph 1 may also be subject, in particular areas, to restrictions imposed in accordance with law and justified by the public interest in a democratic society."

In short, the ECHR defines liberty quantitatively, not qualitatively. This is demented. To state the obvious: restriction of movement *is* a restriction of liberty. I'd love to know which judge invented this absurd distinction.

From a layman's POV, people detained this time around should pursue a claim of false imprisonment alone at Queen's Bench, with no reference to the useless Euro law. I'd like to think an English jury would have more common sense than waffling conventions and the judges who are bound by them.
 
Chancellor blustering on Today programme.
Going on about New World Order (I kid you not) and evading questions on rising unemployment.
 
I thought it was actually a pretty good idea, especially as they were going to great lengths to push non-violence. If you're looking to win hearts and minds in the general population, then nice articulate middle class kids being kicked in the head by the cops for basically having an extended tea party are quite useful.

Some pressure on the fluffy bunny bashing here -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/03/g20-protests-police-tactics

The police had earlier said they would ask the protesters, whom they acknowledged were peaceful, to move as night fell. Commander Simon O'Brien, said his officers would be "politely and proportionately" asking campers to move on.

But one eyewitness, Martin Horwood, the Liberal Democrat MP for Cheltenham, said dogs were used on protesters near the camp. James Lloyd, a legal adviser in the camp, said riot police forcefully cleared the area using batons around midnight.

"There was no announcement, the riot police just started moving forward very quickly from the south," he said. "They were pushing everyone back, pushing forward quickly. They caused panic, people were screaming and shouting ... There was a person in a wheelchair struggling to move, being pushed forcibly by them. It was totally disproportionate."

Another eyewitness, Ashley Parsons, said: "The violence perpetrated against so many around me over that hour was sickening and terrifying.

"Without warning, from around midnight, the police repeatedly and violently surged forwards in full riot gear, occasionally rampaging through the protest line and deliberately destroying protesters' property, some officers openly screaming in pumped-up rage."
 

From that article:

John O'Connor, a former Met officer, criticised the tactic. "They are using this more and more," he said. "Instead of sending snatch squads in to remove those in the crowd who are committing criminal offences, they contain everyone for hours. It is a retrograde step ... it is an infringement of civil liberties."

And yet he penned this gem yesterday:

G20: The upside of 'kettling'

Good grief.
 
Maybe so, but what's the alternative? Support for law and order has become synonymous with authoritarianism. If people are to be persuaded to get off that dangerous road, they need to feel there are more than two options.

There isn't an alternative really and you're right. I was just in a glass-half-empty frame of mind!
 
Just read this post on another forum.

i was up at the climate camp, had the nicest most peacefull attitude all day there with banners sayin dont sell carbon deficit when you can sell cake, and similar themes, there were some of the hardcore anarchist groups down at the bank of england, which i dont think helped matters down there, but in the evening at climate camp the police kettled off the whole camp, and then they kettled off the groups at either end trying to get to the camp later on, once it got dark things changed rapidly tho, with new heavier looking riot police comin in better equipped, we decided to walk up onto an archway that you could sit on to get a better view, and was soon lookin down at where we had been, and everyone was gettin beaten for no reason, no provocation, they were all holding their hands up whilst the police hit them with sheilds and batons. this was only the beginning, after bein asked to clear the ledge by the police tellin em no way were we comin down into that area, they brought in guys in full riot gear with grapplin hooks and harnesses.

so after comin down we ended up behind the police line at the north end of climate camp where there were again 2 lines, stood round with a few ppl maybe 10 or 15 at most, only two of em i knew, they suddenly moved in 15 dogs behind us and a line of coppers the other side and started pushin us into the dogs towards the back of the existing police lines, was fuckin terrifying, we were then pushed back up the road, and pushed over a short wall where me and 3 other ppl were helpless on our backs, and having our legs beaten with batons while tryin to get up. managed to find my feet, somehow, only to be hit in the throat by a copper usin his sheild as a weapon, and then smacked across the back of the head and knocked out, luckily some random people picked me up and helped patch my head up, whilst we were essentially run out of the camp, they pushed in surges, running straight at us, i could barely walk and was having to run, pushed us straight down the road into heavy traffic, i saw a woman on her way home, bravely ride her bike through the protesters straight towards the police, and they hit her a few times and sent her down a side alley once they realised she wasnt protesting, but a lot of the people running with us werent protesting either, and were just normal people curious about all the fuss, and climate camp wasnt a riot so i dont understand why riot tactics were used.

saw some fuckin horrible things in the last 48 hours, today there was still a smaller protest down at the bank of england, only a hundred maybe 200 people, but the police were kettling them still, i saw them pull a group of anarchists out past police lines, into the little square where me and a few freinds were standin, and then singled out 1 guy in the middle of the crowd, outside the police cordon, watched 3 coppers walk out of the cordon and two come in behind the man and just jump him and kick the crap out of him whilst the rest of them then surrounded him so we could not help him. now i dunno about you when i see someone bein hurt for no reason, especially as he was out of the police lines and unlikely to carry on causin too much trouble, then i would generally try and help, but to be beaten back for just standing in the wrong place at the wrong time i thought was a bit much. and they knocked my camera out of my hands too while doin this so i lost all footage of the evening before.
 
I have just sent a polite but strongly-worded letter to my London Assembly member requesting that he take the matter up with the Met Police Authority. I suggest it'd be a good idea for other people to do the same. It probably won't do any good, but the more people who write in, the harder it will be for them to ignore it.
 
Chancellor blustering on Today programme.
Going on about New World Order (I kid you not) and evading questions on rising unemployment.
They've been openly using the term "New World Order" for quite some time. It's not a big secret conspiracy any more. They want a one world goverment, with a 1 world currency.
 
A question to people who are more involved than me. But why do protesters in the UK not use human chains more regularly. Especialy to resist police moving people around, front row turns it back to the police and forms a chain, and uses there legs and a lower postior to drive back at the thin blue line..... or people sitting down and forming chains that are virtualy unmovable.

The way that police force people back is by a "shove and hold" like a rugby scum. They use there shields to push someone a short distance and then hold that for a few seconds. A decent counter to this is for the protesters to also use the same trick by everyone pushing at the same time, you just have a "1-2-3-shove-1-2-3-shove" chant in the crowd to time it.

This is pretty basic stuff used in other parts of the world.
 
A question to people who are more involved than me. But why do protesters in the UK not use human chains more regularly. Especialy to resist police moving people around, front row turns it back to the police and forms a chain, and uses there legs and a lower postior to drive back at the thin blue line..... or people sitting down and forming chains that are virtualy unmovable.

The way that police force people back is by a "shove and hold" like a rugby scum. They use there shields to push someone a short distance and then hold that for a few seconds. A decent counter to this is for the protesters to also use the same trick by everyone pushing at the same time, you just have a "1-2-3-shove-1-2-3-shove" chant in the crowd to time it.

This is pretty basic stuff used in other parts of the world.

good point, but on the 1st of april.. i think a truncheon across the skull would soon be used to assist with the unlocking of the arms.
 
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.

Are the numbers on the riot helmets specific to individual officers? Perhaps individual officers can be identified from the original uncompressed version of the video on youtube?
 
Well, if the filth carry on like this there'll be some nutjob doing another Blakelock. Only so much battering people can tolerate before they snap.
 
Are the numbers on the riot helmets specific to individual officers? Perhaps individual officers can be identified from the original uncompressed version of the video on youtube?
No they identify units, their numbers are alot harder to identify.
But the Camp Climate legal team were very conspicuous in showing themselves to be taking down indivual officers numbers, ensuring the officers seen them doing it.
 
That's a shame. I was hoping it might be possible to do a 'name and shame' site of the more violent officers.

If the original uncompressed video shows their faces clearly it might still be worth doing.
 
nick h. said:
How about a 'name and shame' site?

You'll be looking for a web host on Mars, paid for in roubles, cash.

Be aware that the Police Federation is very, very keen to prosecute for anything resembling defamation of any officer - and very good at it. This would, as a rule of thumb, be a risk if any defamatory statement were made that identified a unit, not just an individual officer.

The legal way to do it would involve getting an official complaint under way and submitting evidence to that. This would hush it all up for years. Some may say that's the point of the official process.
 
Back
Top Bottom