29 Mar 2009
Media coverage for the upcoming G20 protests in London - especially for "Financial Fools Day" seems intent on branding anarchists as the bad guys - but how much are they in control? On the one hand is the suggestion that they are are a bunch of deadbeat layabouts. And yet it's proposed that they are are so well organised that a handful of them can control tens of thousands - that rioting will ensue and the protests will be a dangerous place to be.
How much is scaremongering to stop people joining in what might simply be a nice day out and a picnic lunch?
comments . . . | |
| 29 Mar 2009 CoralBloom | All of it. I've noticed something over the past few years that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. When I first started out on life as a student, everyone participated in politics. There were regular demonstrations - the threat of paying for higher education was around even in the early '80s. My science course meant I had a full day every day at Uni so attending marches was really limited. But they happened all the time. Sit-ins were a regular event. Arts and Social Science students with no labs to attend were kept really busy on a whole range of demos and issues. Remember Barclays Bank, amongst many other companies, being associated with the not so nice side of South African politics all those years ago? There were sweets banned from most UK uni campuses, by the student councils since they were associated with Pretoria. No self-respecting student would have avoided a demo and the mandatory attendance in the pub afterwards. And no graduate would admit to even interviewing with them. Now, no students demonstrate. The attitude is "I mean, for goodness sake, to demonstrate, why would you do that, that is crazy. You'll get into trouble doing stuff like that"! Every time I've seen serious trouble at an international demo I've always asked myself 'How many of them are paid to do it as agent provocateurs like I was taught about in history class at school?' The great and the good so obviously need trouble to allow them to discredit any challenge to their authority and proposals. No doubt the mainstream media will then do their best to miss the point of any demos as is their habit. |
| 29 Mar 2009 CoralBloom | Mark Thomas is good at demonstrating Listen to this if you already haven't http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRGZr2m4r7M If we really are going to have work for benefits, then I'm up for it if this is considered as available work! |
| 29 Mar 2009 John Bray | An article to read on the subject. |
| 05 Apr 2009 Rahere | OK, you're learning. 1. Pre-spin. Did you notice how the news BEFORE the Tuesday demo was full of "this will be a bunch of trouble" and once they'd persuaded people not to turn up it became "a calm and peacable protest"? 2. Imbalanced emphasis. Again, when there was a bit of resistance, it fed the press' preconceived Wombles scenario. This is why the Wombles have shot themselves in the foot, they're ineffectual, and why Common Purpose, albeit every bit as dangerous, is much more effective, as they have taken control of chunks of the Press. What you've got to do is start spinning from the Guardian and the Independant. 3. A refusal to listen. "Protest as much as you like, it means you're powerless and can therefore be ignored. We've considered your position and have not adopted it anyway." However much Common Purpose may control the Press, they have still missed the main target. The Press only works if there's energy: and control over the Power behind the power is the second part of any coup. That's why the power utilities have been ripping us off, HMG's shit scared they'll turn uncooperative: we're partly dependant on their continental systems and the payback for our "We hate Europe" sentiment is that Europe's none too fond of us either. 4. However, the scalded-cat reaction of the Government to the Lindsey Oil refinery and Longannet power station strikes, which really made them get off their fat arses and do something other than padding their expenses claims. 5. When you add to it the Kettle technique, building the first-against-the-wall database (despite the European Court of Human Rights) of people who dared to stand up for themselves, things take a different turn. There's a certain amount of precedent building here: the dismissal of the first case and appeal by a protester, Lois Austin, caught up in the 2001 Oxford Street abuse in Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5; [2009] WLR (D) 26 established the right of the Police to use crowd control measures within the strict limitation that the practice must be resorted to in good faith and not be arbitrary: in other words, the corralling of the Bank participants for the purpose of recording their identities on film is probably a breach of their Human Rights. To this end, it is eminently likely that the Learned Law Lord's comments will cause this to be referred to join the one hundred thousand cases backlogged before the European Court of Human Rights: the distinction being that although the Court tends to deal with similar cases in bulk (memories of Judge Jeffries spring to mind), in this instance there is a clear need to establish a more solid interpretation of Primary Constitutional Legislation, a direct appeal to the core of their purpose, and that is one of the two priority classes they respect (the other being the rights of the staff of the International Civil Service, who have no jurisdictional appeal available to them beyond the first-level procedures established in their own Organisations, which are adjudicated by senior members of the Civil Service legal services of the very Nations which are the usual cause of the problem). In case it should be useful to members in the future, the appellants barristers were Doughty Street Chambers, which makes the defeat not that unusual given one of their leading QCs is Helena Kennedy, who is also a leading light in Common Purpose... There is another case which already leads the way in this respect, Storck vs Germany, in which someone was incarcerated in a psychiatric institution in a situation which failed to respect the relevant law, and who was forcibly returned to the institution by the German police when she escaped. Although (Para 93) constrained by post-hoc decisionmaking, the failure of National Courts to interpret the law in the context of Art 5.1 of ECHR and the de-facto involvement of the public authorities (Para 146), the Court found, in effect, that the German police were guilty of a breach of her Human Rights in 1979 when they returned her to the hospital: the Police have a responsibility to the individual to act proportionately, beyond the Public Order question. The other case was that of a passer-by, Geoffrey Saxby. Grouping his appeal with Lois Austin's was prejudicial to his case on the criteria used by the Law Lords, but he seems to have abandonned any further appeal, presumably on expense criteria. Stepping back from the legalese, we cans ee there's a question of proportion to be examined. At Oxford Circus, it took seven hours to release 10000 protestors: in the City, it took them about 6 hours to release less than 4000, and this very shortly after the Law Lords definition of their concerns about the limits of Police authority. In both instances, what was initially a tolerable situation turned to trouble after about six hours: we now see the likelihood of further action against the police as this time they seem to have killed an innocent passer-by, mistaking him for a protester - not that that is the least excuse. In passing, there is a further journalist statement being broadcast by the BBC confirming the earlier police assault. That seems to set a new low in the key criterion, therefore, and there may be repercussions. And that is therefore why anyone with a serious intent to defend their liberties should steer clear of such activities, but go about recovering their rights through the ballot box and indirect procedures. |
| 05 Apr 2009 kiki-dread | They were mainly white protestors as black protestors already know about how the so called law abuses the law |
| 07 Apr 2009 Rahere | Dear Kiki Rahere's white - but members of his family died at Deptford, Rahere won't add more because it'll help identify him. If the above weren't bad enough, Rahere was even more offended by the Babylon Broadcasting Corporation last night - every possible quibble to avoid accusing the police of at best manslaughter, and at worst premeditated murder through lack of performance of their duty of care. They had their vans easily available just behind, on Cornhill, so claiming an ambulance couldn't get to him because of the crowd is sheer nonsense. Remember how I've shown the roots of these child abusers run straight back to Nebuchadnezzar? For Rahere, it's no longer figurative, it's no longer by the Rivers of, these are in thrall to the same evil. Let the communities put it on record - it's no longer possible to collaborate with them, we are now in a Police State and the only thing to do now is sack the lot, starting by arresting every single copper present in that squad on a holding charge of dereliction of public duty. Giving anarchy a bad name? Giving Law a terminal disease. Rahere has been responsible for cleaning up another corrupt police state, and can't see much difference between that one and this - he's actually an honorary member of the police units of at least two other European States as a result, but cannot lend his voice in support of these thugs. |
| 07 Apr 2009 kiki-dread | The Psalms 26 A Protestation of Integrity |
| 09 Apr 2009 Rahere | Just to add to the dismal condemnation of lack of context, in Slovakia, a country which is somewhere on the boundaries of second and third world, they recently discovered film of cops forcing two gypsy lads to rough each other up before setting the dogs on them. The lads survived, the cops were suspended the second what they had been up to became evident. We rank lower than that now, thanks to Jackboot's wonderful sense of Justice. |
| 11 Apr 2009 Rahere | And now to add to the mix, we discover that the police engaged in the kettling were hiding their badges to avoid being held repsonsible for their deeds. That demonstrates that they were well aware of the marginality of their actions, which completely disqualifies them from their functioon and puts them firmly into the category of criminals, if only through dereliction of their duty. |