AntiCuts Demo - 9 Nov

Gallywomack · November 2011

Well by all accounts it got a lot of coverage on Sky News - who were in no way hoping it'd all descend into violence and chaos so they could have lots of good telly to broadcast, no siree bob.

Clever Pun · November 2011

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15678275

thoughts? given Rick's pro-protest stance, I'd like to read what he's got to say

rjsterry · November 2011

Clever Pun wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15678275

thoughts? given Rick's pro-protest stance, I'd like to read what he's got to say

They've tried something similar before in Wooton Bassett (I think) under a different name. Personally I'd let them protest so that everyone can see them for the bunch of deluded w*****s with a poor grasp of history and current affairs they really are, but I can see why the likely ensuing ruck with the EDL makes it more sensible to just keep them out of the way.

rick_chasey · November 2011

rjsterry wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15678275

thoughts? given Rick's pro-protest stance, I'd like to read what he's got to say

They've tried something similar before in Wooton Bassett (I think) under a different name. Personally I'd let them protest so that everyone can see them for the bunch of deluded w*****s with a poor grasp of history and current affairs they really are, but I can see why the likely ensuing ruck with the EDL makes it more sensible to just keep them out of the way.

Quite.

FWIW - I remember during the wedding of princess Maxima and prince Willem Alexander they'd actually set aside a certain amount of space on the wedding carriage route for protesters.

rjsterry · November 2011

Gussio wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I mean things have been better, but I don't think that's confined to the UK.

Michael Portillo spoke at a dinner I attended yesterday evening. Not got much time for him, but one the things he pointed out is that the current "global" crisis only relates to around 40% of the world by GDP. The remaining 60% is experiencing growth of around 6%. I can't vouch for the veracity of the numbers, but it did get me thinking about how quickly the economic shift is taking place from West to East. There are places with better growth prospects than the UK (and the West in general), but in many instances you'd have to balance that prospect of growth with serverely curtailed individual rights. Good food in China and India, mind you.....

I'm sure the figures aren't far off. Various African countries are certainly what they call "emerging markets" - mind you, they are starting from a (relatively) very low base. 6% of not very much is still not very much. I think there's also a big question over how sustainable the growth of India and China is given that the people who buy all their exports (us) are a bit short at the moment.

Greg T · November 2011

rjsterry wrote:

I think there's also a big question over how sustainable the growth of India and China is given that the people who buy all their exports (us) are a bit short at the moment.

Apparently the killer metric for the emerging markets isn't growth its population demographics.

Young tiger economies have large cheap workforces with low levels of government intervention and taxation. They can undercut the competition through labour rate arbitrage and benign taxation that leads to high profits and inward investment.

However . . .

Increased wealth brings urbanisation and increased longevity - the populations live longer lives and need looking after later.

http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2011/09/14/east-asia-end-of-demographic-dividend/#axzz1dJXcQuFY

Taxation and spending . . . .

W1 · November 2011

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Look, I don't know much about policing, but my gut instinct says that the amount of police used and the letters they sent out constituted a form of intimidation. I'm also instinctively unsettled with the use of plainclothed police in instances like this.

I tend to agree with Maxwell that I'm not comfortable with the police deciding, who should protest and where > but by and large it was peaceful, so there can't be too many complaints > as long as it was peaceful for the right reasons > i.e. not out of fear of being arrested for legitimately and fairly protesting.

I objected to the way the police handled this one - do it here, do it our way, leave when we want, don't outstay your welcome, no peaceful protesting by Trafalger etc. etc.

And why did the police have no choice but to act in that way? Because the right to protest had been abused previously. So of course it had to be controlled, unless you support allowing violent protests to go unchecked (including intimidating those who want to protest peacfully)? You can't have it all ways, a balance has to be drawn somewhere.

W1 · November 2011

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

W1 wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

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 shoot about the other protesters.

I give more of a shoot about people not involved in the protest at all, but who have to deal with the consequences.

There was virtually zero trouble today. Shame on the police - removing people from Trafalger square who wanted to protest peacefully and democractically? So the message is - protest how and when we say so. Very worrying.

They removed people who wanted to do "another St Pauls", a "protest" which should also be curtailed now (probably at night, when no-one is around).

Seriously?! Think what you are saying. You want a society and police force that can intimidate (as we have seen in the last few days) and can remove protesters for 'being there'...just because you don't like them?!

I wouldn't wish that on anyone - I'll say it again, disgusting behaviour from the police.

I want a police force who protect people and businesses from violent thugs trying to get away with criminal behaviour under the auspices of a "protest", yes. Don't you?

I also don't want a bunch of hypocrites littering London with their empty tents and ignorant "demands". Particularly if they are doing so in conflict with local businesses, tourists, private land etc etc for weeks at a time.

HebdenBiker · November 2011

W1 wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

W1 wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

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 shoot about the other protesters.

I give more of a shoot about people not involved in the protest at all, but who have to deal with the consequences.

There was virtually zero trouble today. Shame on the police - removing people from Trafalger square who wanted to protest peacefully and democractically? So the message is - protest how and when we say so. Very worrying.

They removed people who wanted to do "another St Pauls", a "protest" which should also be curtailed now (probably at night, when no-one is around).

Seriously?! Think what you are saying. You want a society and police force that can intimidate (as we have seen in the last few days) and can remove protesters for 'being there'...just because you don't like them?!

I wouldn't wish that on anyone - I'll say it again, disgusting behaviour from the police.

I want a police force who protect people and businesses from violent thugs trying to get away with criminal behaviour under the auspices of a "protest", yes. Don't you?

I also don't want a bunch of hypocrites littering London with their empty tents and ignorant "demands". Particularly if they are doing so in conflict with local businesses, tourists, private land etc etc for weeks at a time.

W1, I think you're overdoing the "violent thugs" label. Peaceful civil disobedience is the greatest length to which most protestors will go. Looking back through history, I doubt you'd disagree with the tactics of the Suffragettes, given what they achieved, or the Civil Rights protest movement in 1960s America. A huge number of conservative-minded people at the time (and perhaps you'd have been among them) considered both the Suffrragettes and black rights protestors to be dangerous hooligans. There aren't many who would still think that today. I don't believe you do either.

Those (like me) who support the anti-cuts cause, and indeed the Occupy cause, believe, just like the other groups mentioned, that they have a duty to change society for the better, for everyone, including you. Making a benign (and therefore peaceful) nuisance of themselves is a powerful way to make themselves heard. You may disagree with the cause and I respect that. I do firmly believe that, just like the Suffragettes and just like Dr King and his supporters, history will view the current protesters as standing up for an important principle.

Regardless of whether you agree with the cause, the right to peaceful protest is absolutely key to a free society. This does not mean "protest until the police tell you to go home". It does not mean "stand in a police kettle for several hours and be hit if you try to leave." The police do not own the streets. You and I do.

NB - the "empty tents" tabloid myth has been completely discredited.

MaxwellBygraves · November 2011

HebdenBiker wrote:

W1 wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

W1 wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

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 shoot about the other protesters.

I give more of a shoot about people not involved in the protest at all, but who have to deal with the consequences.

There was virtually zero trouble today. Shame on the police - removing people from Trafalger square who wanted to protest peacefully and democractically? So the message is - protest how and when we say so. Very worrying.

They removed people who wanted to do "another St Pauls", a "protest" which should also be curtailed now (probably at night, when no-one is around).

Seriously?! Think what you are saying. You want a society and police force that can intimidate (as we have seen in the last few days) and can remove protesters for 'being there'...just because you don't like them?!

I wouldn't wish that on anyone - I'll say it again, disgusting behaviour from the police.

I want a police force who protect people and businesses from violent thugs trying to get away with criminal behaviour under the auspices of a "protest", yes. Don't you?

I also don't want a bunch of hypocrites littering London with their empty tents and ignorant "demands". Particularly if they are doing so in conflict with local businesses, tourists, private land etc etc for weeks at a time.

W1, I think you're overdoing the "violent thugs" label. Peaceful civil disobedience is the greatest length to which most protestors will go. Looking back through history, I doubt you'd disagree with the tactics of the Suffragettes, given what they achieved, or the Civil Rights protest movement in 1960s America. A huge number of conservative-minded people at the time (and perhaps you'd have been among them) considered both the Suffrragettes and black rights protestors to be dangerous hooligans. There aren't many who would still think that today. I don't believe you do either.

Those (like me) who support the anti-cuts cause, and indeed the Occupy cause, believe, just like the other groups mentioned, that they have a duty to change society for the better, for everyone, including you. Making a benign (and therefore peaceful) nuisance of themselves is a powerful way to make themselves heard. You may disagree with the cause and I respect that. I do firmly believe that, just like the Suffragettes and just like Dr King and his supporters, history will view the current protesters as standing up for an important principle.

Regardless of whether you agree with the cause, the right to peaceful protest is absolutely key to a free society. This does not mean "protest until the police tell you to go home". It does not mean "stand in a police kettle for several hours and be hit if you try to leave." The police do not own the streets. You and I do.

NB - the "empty tents" tabloid myth has been completely discredited.

+ lots, well said.

notsoblue · November 2011

HebdenBiker wrote:

W1, I think you're overdoing the "violent thugs" label. Peaceful civil disobedience is the greatest length to which most protestors will go. Looking back through history, I doubt you'd disagree with the tactics of the Suffragettes, given what they achieved, or the Civil Rights protest movement in 1960s America. A huge number of conservative-minded people at the time (and perhaps you'd have been among them) considered both the Suffrragettes and black rights protestors to be dangerous hooligans. There aren't many who would still think that today. I don't believe you do either.

Those (like me) who support the anti-cuts cause, and indeed the Occupy cause, believe, just like the other groups mentioned, that they have a duty to change society for the better, for everyone, including you. Making a benign (and therefore peaceful) nuisance of themselves is a powerful way to make themselves heard. You may disagree with the cause and I respect that. I do firmly believe that, just like the Suffragettes and just like Dr King and his supporters, history will view the current protesters as standing up for an important principle.

Regardless of whether you agree with the cause, the right to peaceful protest is absolutely key to a free society. This does not mean "protest until the police tell you to go home". It does not mean "stand in a police kettle for several hours and be hit if you try to leave." The police do not own the streets. You and I do.

NB - the "empty tents" tabloid myth has been completely discredited.

+1 Well said.

rick_chasey · November 2011

Bloody stude....oh, wait.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/1 ... ters-peace

police arrest 156 EDLers, suspected of planning to 'target' the guys in tents at St Pauls.

Edit: other papers are saying 57 EDLers.

Me thinks Guardian is 99 people too many.

rick_chasey · November 2011

Kinda interesting that EDLers, who you'd imagine are not likely to be well off, would have a lot of criticism for the occupy campaign.

Does the EDL support big naked capitalism?

rick_chasey · November 2011

Speaking of which, was reading here that the EDL marches cost Blackburn police £500,000.

I'm disappointed that W1 wasn't suggesting they shouldn't mark in these tough times, where belts need to be tightened.

notsoblue · November 2011

_

HebdenBiker · November 2011

Rick Chasey wrote:

Kinda interesting that EDLers, who you'd imagine are not likely to be well off, would have a lot of criticism for the occupy campaign.

Does the EDL support big naked capitalism?

It's not that they are in favour of "naked capitalism"; it's that they are against what they see as a threat to the "status quo". They are reactionary, or conservative, or authoratarians, depending on whether you want to explain them in sociological, political or psychological terms. They are predisposed to view the St Pauls protesters as "layabouts" or as threats to the fabric of society. To those with an authoritarian personality, almost everything is a threat to society. Authoritarians are naturally inclined to align themselves with structures representing order and authority; government, the police, the military, etc, and to oppose those that represent an "out group"; different races, left-wing protesters, environmentalists, whatever. Authoritarians have always opposed the identity politics which began (in modern times) with the women's suffrage movement, then bloomed in the late 1960s with feminism, gay rights and racial equality. The articulate authoritarian will dismiss these interest groups using broad terms such as "Cultural Marxists".

Authoritarians can usually be seen to advocate the use of executive power to "crush" these voices, which is why you will hear them saying things like "the police should baton charge them", "they should all be sent back home" or, as I read on the Telegraph website the other day, "people who won't wear a poppy should have a bayonet stuck in them, to see how they like it."

The maddening thing about authoritarians is that their instincitve opposition to change means that they often speak out against their own best interest; against, for example, those who are campaigning for a fairer society and a more equal distribution of wealth. The EDL is made up of working-class people who are dissatisfied with the inequalities in society. But they are instincitively disinclined to blame the culprits (big business, the financial sector and a compliant government) so instead they need another scapegoat; in their case, British Muslims.

Personally, I sympathise with the EDL's dissatisfaction but for the reasons given above I disagree with the objects of their rage. They are angry with the wrong people.

W1 · November 2011

HebdenBiker wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Kinda interesting that EDLers, who you'd imagine are not likely to be well off, would have a lot of criticism for the occupy campaign.

Does the EDL support big naked capitalism?

It's not that they are in favour of "naked capitalism"; it's that they are against what they see as a threat to the "status quo". They are reactionary, or conservative, or authoratarians, depending on whether you want to explain them in sociological, political or psychological terms. They are predisposed to view the St Pauls protesters as "layabouts" or as threats to the fabric of society. To those with an authoritarian personality, almost everything is a threat to society. Authoritarians are naturally inclined to align themselves with structures representing order and authority; government, the police, the military, etc, and to oppose those that represent an "out group"; different races, left-wing protesters, environmentalists, whatever. Authoritarians have always opposed the identity politics which began (in modern times) with the women's suffrage movement, then bloomed in the late 1960s with feminism, gay rights and racial equality. The articulate authoritarian will dismiss these interest groups using broad terms such as "Cultural Marxists".

Authoritarians can usually be seen to advocate the use of executive power to "crush" these voices, which is why you will hear them saying things like "the police should baton charge them", "they should all be sent back home" or, as I read on the Telegraph website the other day, "people who won't wear a poppy should have a bayonet stuck in them, to see how they like it."

The maddening thing about authoritarians is that their instincitve opposition to change means that they often speak out against their own best interest; against, for example, those who are campaigning for a fairer society and a more equal distribution of wealth. The EDL is made up of working-class people who are dissatisfied with the inequalities in society. But they are instincitively disinclined to blame the culprits (big business, the financial sector and a compliant government) so instead they need another scapegoat; in their case, British Muslims.

Personally, I sympathise with the EDL's dissatisfaction but for the reasons given above I disagree with the objects of their rage. They are angry with the wrong people.

You and Rick Chasey must get on like a house on fire - he's also keen on Wikipedia psychology and pigeon holing.

W1 · November 2011

Rick Chasey wrote:

Bloody stude....oh, wait.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/1 ... ters-peace

police arrest 156 EDLers, suspected of planning to 'target' the guys in tents at St Pauls.

Edit: other papers are saying 57 EDLers.

Me thinks Guardian is 99 people too many.

Now that is far, far more aggressive action by the police then strictly enforcing the student protest. Why aren't you bleating about the EDL's right to protest Rick? What about their freedom of speech? This should make you far more angry than the police action "against" the student protestors.

I can imagine this is the sort of thing that make liberal hypocrites implode....

W1 · November 2011

notsoblue wrote:

HebdenBiker wrote:

W1, I think you're overdoing the "violent thugs" label. Peaceful civil disobedience is the greatest length to which most protestors will go. Looking back through history, I doubt you'd disagree with the tactics of the Suffragettes, given what they achieved, or the Civil Rights protest movement in 1960s America. A huge number of conservative-minded people at the time (and perhaps you'd have been among them) considered both the Suffrragettes and black rights protestors to be dangerous hooligans. There aren't many who would still think that today. I don't believe you do either.

Those (like me) who support the anti-cuts cause, and indeed the Occupy cause, believe, just like the other groups mentioned, that they have a duty to change society for the better, for everyone, including you. Making a benign (and therefore peaceful) nuisance of themselves is a powerful way to make themselves heard. You may disagree with the cause and I respect that. I do firmly believe that, just like the Suffragettes and just like Dr King and his supporters, history will view the current protesters as standing up for an important principle.

Regardless of whether you agree with the cause, the right to peaceful protest is absolutely key to a free society. This does not mean "protest until the police tell you to go home". It does not mean "stand in a police kettle for several hours and be hit if you try to leave." The police do not own the streets. You and I do.

NB - the "empty tents" tabloid myth has been completely discredited.

+1 Well said.

Not well said at all.

The "cuts" are simply a curb on previously excess government spending and waste. They are in no way comparable to the inhuman and degrading treatment against which the Suffragettes and the Civil Rights Movement. In fact to compare them is, in my view, somewhat offensive and disingenous.

I also do not agree that this a "protest", nor in fact "peacful" or benign. It is a long term trespass, used as a form of blackmail which is purported to speak for the majority. But the majority have already spoken, and the elected representatives are doing what they proposed. In fact, for the government to reverse their cuts proposals on the basis of a few students sleeping in tents would be deeply undemocratic.

rick_chasey · November 2011

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Bloody stude....oh, wait.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/1 ... ters-peace

police arrest 156 EDLers, suspected of planning to 'target' the guys in tents at St Pauls.

Edit: other papers are saying 57 EDLers.

Me thinks Guardian is 99 people too many.

Now that is far, far more aggressive action by the police then strictly enforcing the student protest. Why aren't you bleating about the EDL's right to protest Rick? What about their freedom of speech? This should make you far more angry than the police action "against" the student protestors.

I can imagine this is the sort of thing that make liberal hypocrites implode....

Ah look. I was always disappointed Teresa May banned the odd EDL protest. The UK should be able to deal with them with reason and pity, rather than banning them. (though, their intimidation of certain immigrant communities is intolerable).

The EDL regularly hold protests, across most of the UK. Often, the proper violence occurs when they meet anti-fascist protesters, and it all kicks off.

Naturally, the EDL are an awful lot, but no-one's saying they can't protest.

They were arrested in this case since they were about to go beat up the people at St. Pauls.

notsoblue · November 2011

I'm not a huge supporter of the "Occupy" movement, primarily because I believe that their method for effecting the change they want to see doesn't convince the majority of people in this country who are apathetic or hostile (like W1) to the notion that the status quo is flawed for the reasons they state (reasons that I broadly agree with). Its a shame that nobody can think of a better way of trying to convince turkeys to stop voting for Christmas.

notsoblue · November 2011

Rick Chasey wrote:

They were arrested in this case since they were about to go beat up the people at St. Pauls.

I think their rationale for that behaviour is fascinating though. Hebdenbiker's post about this was interesting.

W1 · November 2011

Rick Chasey wrote:

They were arrested in this case since they were about to go beat up the people at St. Pauls.

You haven't really addressed what I said Rick - surely pre-emptive arrest should be making you froth at the mouth? I can only imagine what you would be saying if some of the students had been arrested "in case" they kicked off. In fact, the police undertook a restrictive (and expensive) operation which allowed the protest to go ahead (and yet many of the liberals on here still thought it was "intimidating").

The same process was not given to the EDL to allow them to utilise their freedom of speech, of which you (and others) are so vocal.

You seem far more concerned with the rights of people with whom you agree, as compared to the rights of people whom you consider to be unpleasant. But the basic principle is the same, surely?

Or have all the liberals imploded due to the internal conflict?

notsoblue · November 2011

W1 wrote:

You seem far more concerned with the rights of people with whom you agree, as compared to the rights of people whom you consider to be unpleasant. But the basic principle is the same, surely?

Or have all the liberals imploded due to the internal conflict?

If you're comparing the EDL to other organisations that protest like UK Uncut, the Occupy movement, UNISON, the Countryside Alliance etc... then you're either trolling or clueless.

rick_chasey · November 2011

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

They were arrested in this case since they were about to go beat up the people at St. Pauls.

You haven't really addressed what I said Rick - surely pre-emptive arrest should be making you froth at the mouth? I can only imagine what you would be saying if some of the students had been arrested "in case" they kicked off. In fact, the police undertook a restrictive (and expensive) operation which allowed the protest to go ahead (and yet many of the liberals on here still thought it was "intimidating").

The same process was not given to the EDL to allow them to utilise their freedom of speech, of which you (and others) are so vocal.

You seem far more concerned with the rights of people with whom you agree, as compared to the rights of people whom you consider to be unpleasant. But the basic principle is the same, surely?

Or have all the liberals imploded due to the internal conflict?

Although NSB is largely correct, I'll tackle this head on.

I think I said earlier something about police doing preventative work to allow peaceful, legal protesting to occur, right?

In this specific instance, from the article: (updated)

The English Defence League had issued statements and made threats on Facebook to burn down protesters tents if they were still outside St Paul's on Remembrance Sunday, according to Phillips.

Some members of the EDL had also attempted to enter the encampment, most recently on Thursday night.

A statement by the EDL on Thursday was read to the Occupy LSX general assembly on Friday morning to make people aware that there was a threat being made. "They called us all sorts of names in the statement and said we should leave "their" church and stop violating their religion," said Phillips.

Later the Met said three of those arrested had been released on police bail pending further inquiries, and the others released with no further action.

Now, I don't think anyone who is reasonable would say that the police did the wrong thing here.

EDL weren't going anywhere to protest in this instance, so the comparison between this and the cuts march can't be made.

I was more interested in the stat about the latest EDL protest that DID occur costing police around half a million pounds > and that students get an undeserved rep for 'being violent' compared to organisations like the EDL.

W1 · November 2011

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

You seem far more concerned with the rights of people with whom you agree, as compared to the rights of people whom you consider to be unpleasant. But the basic principle is the same, surely?

Or have all the liberals imploded due to the internal conflict?

If you're comparing the EDL to other organisations that protest like UK Uncut, the Occupy movement, UNISON, the Countryside Alliance etc... then you're either trolling or clueless.

Neither.

Either freedom of speech exists, or it doesn't. Should student protestors be arrested because at their last protest some of them were violent? Should there be pre-emptive arrests of Uncut protestors who intend to trespass?

In principle, I see little difference between one group of potentially violent protestors and another. Do you think that there weren't social media rumours of trouble planned for the student protest last week? Why were people wearing masks?

The only difference is that you don't like what they stand for or what they say - and therein lies the irony. "Freedom of speech for people I agree with - pre-emptive arrest for those I don't." Hardly very liberl, and highly hypocritical.

W1 · November 2011

Rick Chasey wrote:

Now, I don't think anyone who is reasonable would say that the police did the wrong thing here.

EDL weren't going anywhere to protest in this instance, so the comparison between this and the cuts march can't be made.

All I see there is "according to" and "said by" - any links to formal EDL statements? Because as far as I was aware, they were arrested on the basis of social networking rumours.

The only formal statement I saw from the EDL was that they were intending to attend a Cenotaph service, but were kettled and arrested instead.

rick_chasey · November 2011

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Now, I don't think anyone who is reasonable would say that the police did the wrong thing here.

EDL weren't going anywhere to protest in this instance, so the comparison between this and the cuts march can't be made.

All I see there is "according to" and "said by" - any links to formal EDL statements? Because as far as I was aware, they were arrested on the basis of social networking rumours.

The only formal statement I saw from the EDL was that they were intending to attend a Cenotaph service, but were kettled and arrested instead.

Well yeah, you're unlikely to see the EDL issuing formal statements having been arrested, saying they were going to kick the sh!t out of some people in front of St.Pauls.

rjsterry · November 2011

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Now, I don't think anyone who is reasonable would say that the police did the wrong thing here.

EDL weren't going anywhere to protest in this instance, so the comparison between this and the cuts march can't be made.

All I see there is "according to" and "said by" - any links to formal EDL statements? Because as far as I was aware, they were arrested on the basis of social networking rumours.

The only formal statement I saw from the EDL was that they were intending to attend a Cenotaph service, but were kettled and arrested instead.

Of *course* they were. I'm sure nothing could have been further from their minds than a punch up.

notsoblue · November 2011

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

You seem far more concerned with the rights of people with whom you agree, as compared to the rights of people whom you consider to be unpleasant. But the basic principle is the same, surely?

Or have all the liberals imploded due to the internal conflict?

If you're comparing the EDL to other organisations that protest like UK Uncut, the Occupy movement, UNISON, the Countryside Alliance etc... then you're either trolling or clueless.

Neither.

Either freedom of speech exists, or it doesn't. Should student protestors be arrested because at their last protest some of them were violent? Should there be pre-emptive arrests of Uncut protestors who intend to trespass?

In principle, I see little difference between one group of potentially violent protestors and another. Do you think that there weren't social media rumours of trouble planned for the student protest last week? Why were people wearing masks?

The only difference is that you don't like what they stand for or what they say - and therein lies the irony. "Freedom of speech for people I agree with - pre-emptive arrest for those I don't." Hardly very liberl, and highly hypocritical.

Again, this is only hypocritical if you think that the EDL, their message and their attitude are comparable to that of the occupy movement. You see no difference. Your point seems to be that *all* protesters are potential thugs just waiting to unleash an orgy of violence and destruction of public property. If thats really what you think, and you're not just trolling for a cheap argument on a forum, then there isn't really much anyone can say or do to make you see the other side. Its a bit of a bromide for the discussion...

AntiCuts Demo - 9 Nov

Comments

Categories