G20 demonstrations

oh come on, chris. don't be stupid. protesting is an important right in a democracy. police shouldn't be allowed to shut that down, just because the numbers swell beyond what they think they can control. clearly proper guidance is needed, and cops that break that should be punished.

which is why i referred specifically to articles about people who admit to breaking the law having a whinge about the standard police response to the laws they broke.

You can see this as some whinny brats breaking the law, but this needs to be seen in the broader context.

People gathering to commemorate the death of an innocent man through the illegal and violent actions of an officer the previous day, these people gathering to pay their respects are hassled, held captive against their will and under no charge, pushed around, they are not violent, nor are they 'smashing shit up".

They do not deserve to be beaten with batons or shields, it is simply bad policing.

which is why i referred specifically to articles about people who admit to breaking the law having a whinge about the standard police response to the laws they broke.

Where exactly in the articles you linked to do you find any evidence that the protesters concerned broke the law?

The closest I can find to that is Nicola Fisher stating that she pushed the officer who had first pushed her. Is that what you mean?

The police protecting property, and trying to keep the peace is "totaly un-kewl".

If you were suggesting that this is what was taking place that day, this would be rather naïve.

EDIT: tynan beat me to it.

Did Henry David Thoreau have a liberal media whinge when he didn't pay taxes to support the war? NO! He asked to be arrested because he had broken the law and that was the consequence. He would rather be incarcerated, then do something he found immoral, that is respectable.

I haven't read Thoreau on this, but will do so soon. A quick Google reveals Thoreau's essay to be readily available on-line:

http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html

FYI the origins of this dilemma in world literature go back to the drama of Plato's Crito, in which Socrates is addressed by the personified laws of Athens (whose words he himself speaks). Socrates is in prison for various offences and is offered the chance to escape by his wealthy and influential associate Crito, but refuses.

It is often assumed that the reason why he refuses are the 'reasons' given in the speech by the laws, but there are a considerable number of reasons why this facile reading doesn't stack up. A bit too complex to relate here in full.

A quick superficial search of Thoreau's essay doesn't suggest that Plato is referenced, but I can't imagine that he wouldn't have been aware of the dialogue. I haven't gone looking for discussions of such an influence yet, but I'm sure there are many.

oh come on, chris. don't be stupid. protesting is an important right in a democracy. police shouldn't be allowed to shut that down, just because the numbers swell beyond what they think they can control. clearly proper guidance is needed, and cops that break that should be punished.

I think protest and civil disobedience are important if you want to change the world, but I firmly believe that accepting the consequences is an important part of civil disobedience and what gives it its power. Hence why I will respect H.D. Thoreau or Gandhi's followers or the IRA or the men and women who fought in the Spanish Civil War or the White Russians or the kids who took part in the LA, Tottenham, Brixton or Paris riots and not the activist in question.

which is why i referred specifically to articles about people who admit to breaking the law having a whinge about the standard police response to the laws they broke.

The fact that a seemingly unconcerned individual died near by is neither here nor there, to the facts of the above cases. It is an argument that will be used to sway emotion and disrupt the course of logic dealing with the facts of the case.

It "sucks hard" when you want to riot and the police get in the way, they totally should just let you "smash shit up" until your ready to go back to art school/ SOAS. The police protecting property, and trying to keep the peace is "totaly un-kewl". Maybe when you show off your "riot bruse" later you can "get laid" by a "crust girl".

Is being conservative the hip new thing in Williamsburg, Chris?

Is being conservative the hip new thing in Williamsburg, Chris?

Ronald Regan is my coke dealer.

In a sort of related note, on BBC1 Panorama, right now, "What ever happened to People power"
*
"Panorama" asks if the police tactics aimed at preventing 'troublemakers' taking over the demonstrations are eroding the freedom to protest"*

Pretty sure the G20 may get mention and stuff.

Hence why I will respect H.D. Thoreau or Gandhi's followers or the IRA .....

Err, what?

Err, what?

I don't think he talking about the violent sectarian pricks in shell suits who knee cap 17 year old boys in the toilets of their local pub - he's talking about the handsome horse riding shoulder length auburn haired romantic Hollywood freedom fighters.

Americans seem to have an unhealthy obsession with the Irish and Ireland so I wouldn't know what he's thinking

I think protest and civil disobedience are important if you want to change the world, but I firmly believe that accepting the consequences is an important part of civil disobedience and what gives it its power. Hence why I will respect H.D. Thoreau or Gandhi's followers or the IRA or the men and women who fought in the Spanish Civil War or the White Russians or the kids who took part in the LA, Tottenham, Brixton or Paris riots and not the activist in question.

Chris, did you get someone to proof-read your posts or have you gone back to school to learn spelling? Even the capitalisation is spot on.

Chris, did you get someone to proof-read your posts or have you gone back to school to learn spelling? Even the capitalisation is spot in.

That just means he's drunk again.

That just means he's drunk again.

Or in remission.

Sorry, rimissen.

police report on how the met handled the g20 protests is out today

Those of you interested in policing of protest I would highly reccomend watching yesterday's Panorama on People Power:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/

Some new footage but a bit of a rehash of old stories if you've been following the g20/climate camp coverage...

I think protest and civil disobedience are important ... Hence why I will respect ... the IRA

1. 3000 civilians killed is kind of terrorism
   
2. terrorism is NOT civil disobedience
   
   

having respect for people who are willing to kill innocent people just because you percieve them as willing to accept the consequences is fucked up.

Those of you interested in policing of protest I would highly reccomend watching yesterday's Panorama on People Power:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/

Some new footage but a bit of a rehash of old stories if you've been following the g20/climate camp coverage...

I mentioned it earlier.

. Hence why I will respect...the IRA .

you fucking cunt.

In a sort of related note, on BBC1 Panorama, right now, "What ever happened to People power"

"Panorama" asks if the police tactics aimed at preventing 'troublemakers' taking over the demonstrations are eroding the freedom to protest"

Pretty sure the G20 may get mention and stuff.

Those of you interested in policing of protest I would highly reccomend watching yesterday's Panorama on People Power:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/

Some new footage but a bit of a rehash of old stories if you've been following the g20/climate camp coverage...

It's quite concerning that I don't even feel I can talk about my concerns regarding privacy and going to protests, let alone go along to one...

It's quite concerning that I don't even feel I can talk about my concerns regarding privacy and going to protests, let alone go along to one...

go it's fine, this is a safe space, we'll replace the speck of dust etcetc

Law Lords' ruling challenged in ECHR tomorrow:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/19/metropolitan-police-kettling-human-rights

I found this interesting, after the conversation upthread:

"The law lords said theirs was a "pragmatic approach" that took into account the reason police decided to contain the demonstrators. However, for containment to be lawful, they ruled police must use the tactic in good faith, proportionately and for no longer than is necessary.

"Recently, it emerged that Met commanders at the G20 were unaware of their legal obligations in the Austin ruling. They also appear to have authorised containing protesters from the outset, and before there had been any significant cases of violence from people."

Could it really happen...?

probably not. "wouldn't be in the public interest" "officer was acting in the execution of his duty" "officer was using authorised techniques"

usual bullshite.

"Over 190 premises were visited during a CCTV trawl. This resulted in footage being obtained from more than 220 cameras. In addition, police footage has been reviewed, including that taken from police evidence gatherers and the police helicopter, as well as footage from people's mobile phones and cameras. This amounted to over 1,200 hours of footage, which has been reviewed by a dedicated team of IPCC investigators."

Statements were taken from 193 members of the public, as well as police officers and staff, and medical experts.

If this amount of effort and collated evidence put into a case amounts to nothing.. then what is the point?!
Will you not just get a bunch of frustrated activists angry there was no obvious justice and a huge flash point next year? be interesting to see the police attitude to media next year. this year it got stung by it, that wont happen again...

if some kind of charges aren't pressed, the public's faith in the ability of the police force to safeguard us and police themselves will be destroyed.