AntiCuts Demo - 9 Nov

SimonAH

Drysuitdiver wrote:

Mad Roadie wrote:

bring out the watercannon on the lot of them

convert one to fire soap too. that will shift em

So, is Lunnon on fire yet?

dhope

nich wrote:

I think my path to wasabi may be blocked, and I really want katsu curry :x

I'm just near St Pauls and can see a few police out the window, I'm sure many more are around the corner

Hope it turns out to be peaceful.

Wasabi was fine for Chicken Yakisoba. I cannot comment on Katsu.

MaxwellBygraves

Mad Roadie wrote:

bring out the watercannon on the lot of them - the world is in crisis, this just makes it worse

Guess that's what BR should of done at everyone who moaned at the new layout then eh?

They have the right to protest just as much as you do - disagree by all means, but it is their right.

ToeKnee

I recon I've cracked how to get 6 bikes onto my new Subaru … now I think I need a watercannon too … how many bikes and I going to have to leave at home?

W1

Sketchley wrote:

Just found this via / Twitter / Sky News. I'll take back the comments above, looks like the organisers are doing something.

That looks like the police doing something, not the organisers.

sketchley

Says we are working hard with event organisers. Benefit of the doubt I know but assuming that's not a lie.....

rick_chasey

"....working with event organisers..." ?

W1

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Mad Roadie wrote:

bring out the watercannon on the lot of them - the world is in crisis, this just makes it worse

Guess that's what BR should have done at everyone who moaned at the new layout then eh?

They have the right to protest just as much as you do - disagree by all means, but it is their right.

You're not the first to mention this "right" but I've quoted your post as it's the most recent.

The right to protest goes hand in hand with the responsibility not to engage in mindless thuggery and violence as part of a protest. If a protest cannot go ahead without an element of the protestors using vandalism and violence then the "right" to protest should be curtailed. If that effects innocent protestors, then they ought to attend to the elements within their own groups to ensure that such behaviour doesn't occur. In fact, the innocent and genuine protestors should be as angry with those who seek to disrupt the protest as they seem to be with the police, who have an obligation to protect the public and should do so over and above any "right" to protest.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

"....working with event organisers..." ?

If that was on the event organiser's headed paper, it would be better evidence that they are interested in a peacful protest. As it is, it's a letter from the rozzers, not the organisers.

rick_chasey

W1 - how do you stop someone walking up to a policeman and slapping him round the face during the protest?

You're being silly - and stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's up to the police to uphold law & order, not the legitimate protesters, and it's up to the police to let people express their democratic rights.

Just because the guy standing next to you is kicking off shouldn't mean your right gets trampled on.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

It's not naiive - it is the least that should be expected from a properly organised and managed protest. Not all protests manage to decend into violence and thuggery - I wonder why that is?

Whether those who want to legitimately protest are in fact quite content for the hooligans to turn up and add some publicity to the protest - well, who can say....

Given the attitude that you've crystallised into regarding protesters, which is not enormously uncommon, I'd suggest it is not the kind of publicity they want, nor they seek.

I think you'd agree that it should be up to the police to protect the democratic rights of those who want to peacefully protest from those who do not, as well as the police themselves.

"All publicity is good publicity"? Who can say what they think - suffice to say I wouldn't be surprised if the view of at least some of the protestors is that the negative association with any violence is worth the press attention of the cause. I personally think that's counter productive.

I agree with your last point, but as I said above the "right" to protest goes together with the responsibility to do so safely and properly.

keyser__soze

W1 wrote:

The right to cycle goes hand in hand with the responsibility not to engage in mindless red-light-running and pavement cycling as part of cycling. If a cycle cannot go ahead without an element of the cyclists cycling on the pavement and running red lights then the "right" to cycle should be curtailed. If that effects innocent cyclists, then they ought to attend to the elements within their own groups to ensure that such behaviour doesn't occur. In fact, the innocent and genuine cyclists should be as angry with those who seek to disrupt the cycle as they seem to be with the police, who have an obligation to protect pedestrians and should do so over and above any "right" to cycle.

There, brought it back in line with the forum it's posted in Now replace protestors/cyclists with religions and see how it reads.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 - how do you stop someone walking up to a policeman and slapping him round the face during the protest?

You're being silly - and stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's up to the police to uphold law & order, not the legitimate protesters, and it's up to the police to let people express their democratic rights.

Just because the guy standing next to you is kicking off shouldn't mean your right gets trampled on.

You again seem to be bleating about "rights". What about the "rights" of someone not to have their windows kicked in? Or the "right" of the police not to be attacked?

Why do you think the right to protest in this way should trump all other rights?

As I say, if protests are not suitable organised and managed, they shouldn't be allowed. That may increase the groundswell of opinion of the actual protestors against those who are the ones threatening their right to protest. If the guy beside you is kicking off, the best way to avoid your rights being trampled on is to stop him - if enough people cared that much, the small element of trouble-makers wouldn't be able to do what they want - and they might stop turning up.

rick_chasey

*sighs* when I talk about protesters, I'm talking about people protesting legitimately.

When I talk about protesters, I do NOT refer to people who want to be violent and be civilly disobedient.

Rights of protester should be protected from violence and intimidation, whether it be from people who want to riot or not. > in the same way people who are not involve should be protected too.

So, I'll ask again, why should a legitimate protester have their rights trampled on if some numpty standing next to them hits a policeman?

notsoblue

Ugh, looks like the anarchists have turned up. Some of them have come all the way down from Newcastle by the looks of it. My sympathies are with the protesters and the police that have to deal with the tw4ts.

rick_chasey

I saw an anti-cuts march in Barcelona when I was there the other day.

Weren't any police at all.

I can see 5 helicopters hovering now outside my office window.

iPete

Yup, they are passing by my office in Farringdon, one of the first banners read Protect the right to protest, fair play.

Not sure about all the choppers overhead!

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

So, I'll ask again, why should a legitimate protester have their rights trampled on if some numpty standing next to them hits a policeman?

W1 doesn't give a shit about the other protesters.

Clever Pun

Keyser__Soze wrote:

W1 wrote:

The right to cycle goes hand in hand with the responsibility not to engage in mindless red-light-running and pavement cycling as part of cycling. If a cycle cannot go ahead without an element of the cyclists cycling on the pavement and running red lights then the "right" to cycle should be curtailed. If that effects innocent cyclists, then they ought to attend to the elements within their own groups to ensure that such behaviour doesn't occur. In fact, the innocent and genuine cyclists should be as angry with those who seek to disrupt the cycle as they seem to be with the police, who have an obligation to protect pedestrians and should do so over and above any "right" to cycle.

There, brought it back in line with the forum it's posted in Now replace protestors/cyclists with religions and see how it reads.

very good

Clever Pun

Rick Chasey wrote:

*sighs* when I talk about protesters, I'm talking about people protesting legitimately.

When I talk about protesters, I do NOT refer to people who want to be violent and be civilly disobedient.

Rights of protester should be protected from violence and intimidation, whether it be from people who want to riot or not. > in the same way people who are not involve should be protected too.

So, I'll ask again, why should a legitimate protester have their rights trampled on if some numpty standing next to them hits a policeman?

what about the Dale farm protests? they were protesting and called protesters yet don't fit the rest of your remit, it's not always down to the more enlightened of us it's down to general consenus... the greater good if you will

in answer to your final question: they are both legitimate protesters until the punch is thrown(provoked or not) then the whole group will be punished (unless the offender is brought forward which is what W1 is alluding too)... not unlike being at school

rick_chasey

Fair point. - to the dale comment anyway.

rick_chasey

Clever Pun wrote:

in answer to your final question: they are both legitimate protesters until the punch is thrown(provoked or not) then the whole group will be punished (unless the offender is brought forward which is what W1 is alluding too)... not unlike being at school

That's the bit I ultimately disagree with.

You'd think / hope that the police would have a finger on people who cause this kind of trouble - rather like they do on football hooligans.

Then their presence can be avoided, and there would be less hassle, so less police, etc.

Wrath Rob

Lots of noise over on Moorgate. I'm just the other side by the bottom of Liverpool St and can hear lots of helicopters. Earlier there were some crusty students walking down the road by our office, escorted by a token police man. Can't comment on what its like over on Moorgate though, and I can't be bothered to go and have a look. Some of us have work to do these days. You know, to pay taxes and stuff

rick_chasey

Apparently, people at the protest are (predictably) unhappy with heavy handed use of plain clothed police arresting people.

^ I remember being taught at school how that was use of use of plainclothed officers during demonstrations was an example to give for signs of a police state > and we were shown pictures and videos from GDR protests.

*sighs*

What's the point of having a democracy, if this is what it's like?


I need to move country. Now, to persuade my girlfriend...

MaxwellBygraves

W1 wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Mad Roadie wrote:

bring out the watercannon on the lot of them - the world is in crisis, this just makes it worse

Guess that's what BR should have done at everyone who moaned at the new layout then eh?

They have the right to protest just as much as you do - disagree by all means, but it is their right.

You're not the first to mention this "right" but I've quoted your post as it's the most recent.

The right to protest goes hand in hand with the responsibility not to engage in mindless thuggery and violence as part of a protest. If a protest cannot go ahead without an element of the protestors using vandalism and violence then the "right" to protest should be curtailed. If that effects innocent protestors, then they ought to attend to the elements within their own groups to ensure that such behaviour doesn't occur. In fact, the innocent and genuine protestors should be as angry with those who seek to disrupt the protest as they seem to be with the police, who have an obligation to protect the public and should do so over and above any "right" to protest.

Why do you put the word right in quote marks? The right to an opinion and free speech should be the cornerstone of any democratic society. For me and for you, for everyone.

The vast majority of peaceful protesters are there to show their dissatisfaction at tuition fees, the recent government white paper on higher education and the cuts. What are they supposed to do, just go away because they have a different opinion to yours?

This is too important just to 'silence', it needs to go ahead and peoples voices need to be heard. Instead of opting to shoot them, which I think is outrageous, why not address their concerns? Give them a reason to not be angry? Protesting is a valuable, fundamental right.

SimonAH

Rick Chasey wrote:

Apparently, people at the protest are (predictably) unhappy with heavy handed use of plain clothed police arresting people.

^ I remember being taught at school how that was use of use of plainclothed officers during demonstrations was an example to give for signs of a police state > and we were shown pictures and videos from GDR protests.

*sighs*

What's the point of having a democracy, if this is what it's like?


I need to move country. Now, to persuade my girlfriend...

+1

SimonAH

I may not agree with your protest (and in fact I do not agree with their protest) but I will defend with my life your right to protest......or some similar paraphrasing.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

*sighs* when I talk about protesters, I'm talking about people protesting legitimately.

When I talk about protesters, I do NOT refer to people who want to be violent and be civilly disobedient.

Rights of protester should be protected from violence and intimidation, whether it be from people who want to riot or not. > in the same way people who are not involve should be protected too.

So, I'll ask again, why should a legitimate protester have their rights trampled on if some numpty standing next to them hits a policeman?

They shouldn't. But if the police are forced to take action, and innocent protestors are caught up (or have their "right" to protest curtailed) the focus of the blame should not be the police (who are "the effect"), but should be aimed squarely at the scumbags ("the cause").

No protestor should be wearing a face mask - if you believe in a cause enough to take a day off work [cough] then you should be happy to show your face. If you're wearing a mask the police should have the power to remove you from the protest.

rick_chasey

Reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTg0v7KLqo8

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

in answer to your final question: they are both legitimate protesters until the punch is thrown(provoked or not) then the whole group will be punished (unless the offender is brought forward which is what W1 is alluding too)... not unlike being at school

That's the bit I ultimately disagree with.

You'd think / hope that the police would have a finger on people who cause this kind of trouble - rather like they do on football hooligans.

Then their presence can be avoided, and there would be less hassle, so less police, etc.

I'm sure they do - like inserting undercover officers into the crowd to gather intelligence regarding plans to engage in violence etc? You can't have it both ways.