AntiCuts Demo - 9 Nov

HebdenBiker

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....

I agree with you on this, W1. Not the liberal hypocrites thing but the idea that the right to protest should belong to everyone. This includes the EDL and, indeed, Muslim nutters.

HebdenBiker

W1 wrote:

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

Yes, we probably would get on. We should go for a pint. You should come too. We could have a good debate, agree to differ, and have a little solidarity rather than bickering. Working people (I assume you are one) should stick together more.

seataltea

HebdenBiker wrote:

W1 wrote:

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

Yes, we probably would get on. We should go for a pint. You should come too. We could have a good debate, agree to differ, and have a little solidarity rather than bickering. Working people (I assume you are one) should stick together more.

Going out on a limb here but would that pint be at http://thetradesclub.com/ or The Hole In The Wall ?

By my reckoning it starts in getting a bit weird in Mytholmroyd, you can sense it just before at Luddenden but by the time you hit Hebden it's full on. The wizards, druids, lentils, dungarees and weekend raves in the woods, lesbians galore, whole food shops, flax and crystals, campers knocked up from old Post Office vans and them that lives on barges.

The guy who sells SWP hates it everytime I tell him I subscribe by direct debit, I am The Man and he knows it.

By the time you hit Todmorden, the dark lord walks, strigoi, goats and human sacrifice are weekend entertainment, sects are commonplace and when witches and wizards fall out there's a murder on the moors.

Good place to ride though, just carry a silver cross and some garlic.

Did someone say cuts, to drain a virgins blood maybe............

W1

notsoblue wrote:

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...

Wrong. It is hypocritical to bleat about "freedom of speech" for those whose protest you support, yet fall silent when much tougher action is taken against those who you don't agree with. In my view, if you're going to arrest EDL members who have (at that stage) done nothing wrong, and prevent their protest due to a rumour of violence, then exactly the same treatment could be justified against Occupy/Cuts/Student protestors. Or, on the flip side, if the EDL want their protest to go ahead, the police should have a strictly controlled event, like the student protest last week.

Of course they are comparable - they are both protest groups. They both have a "right" to freedom of expression, which according to some on here, should never be curtailed. Clearly that is bull, and that's been my point all along.

Your point seems to be that *none* of the student/Cuts/Occupy protetors are potential thugs, and that *all* of the EDL ones are.

W1

HebdenBiker wrote:

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....

I agree with you on this, W1. Not the liberal hypocrites thing but the idea that the right to protest should belong to everyone. This includes the EDL and, indeed, Muslim nutters.

I don't think that - I think there are and need to be some restrictions on the right to protest when there is a conflict with other people's rights.

However I don't think anyone can bleat about the students being "intimidated" without also being completely against the police action against the EDL, based on nothing more than rumour.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

So if rumours of civil unrest on social networking sites are now to be used to pre-emptively arrest people I presume there will be no more anti-capitalism protests.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

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.

Ditto the masked thugs at the student protest - would you support the same treatment of all of them based on rumour?

sketchley

I agree with W1s point that it is hypocritical to complain about suppression of freedom of speech or right to protest of a group you agree, while not complaining or even agreeing with the suppression of a group you disagree with. Equally you cannot have one rule of law or means of enforcement for one group but not the another. The police and judiciary must treat the group equally.

In relation to the EDL arrest, the police may have real intelligence and evidence of their intentions, enough maybe to charge them with conspiracy to violent disorder which several EDL member have been charged with over the last few years. It strikes me that a group such as the EDL would be very easy to infiltrate and monitor, and if they were planning violent disorder I would expect the police / security services to know about it, collect evidence and take action; which I suspect they have done here. I also doubt very much they would be able to arrest simply on speculation that they might commit a violent act, therefore you have to assume there was intelligence data. The only way to tell for sure is to wait to see if charges follow the arrests and what evidence is then presented in court.

Likewise I suspect there is intelligence data gathered on the St Paul's protesters but I doubt there is evidence of similar offences being planned which is why similar action has not been taken against them.

It perfectly plausible that both groups have been treated equally and fairly and within the law and that one wasy planning something and the other were not. Of course if the EDL's aim was only to protest or attend the memorial service then there is discrepancy in how they have been treated, but I doubt that was the case.

notsoblue

The EDL threatened the protesters outside St Pauls. Thats why they were arrested. If UKUncut was threatening to beat the sh1t out of people protesting against a 50p tax rate, then they would be arrested too. And rightfully so.

W1, you're trolling. You're creating a false equivalence between any protest group with liberal aims and the EDL (a racist hate group) to put forward your argument. Its boring watching you hump that chair leg...

MaxwellBygraves

HebdenBiker wrote:

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....

I agree with you on this, W1. Not the liberal hypocrites thing but the idea that the right to protest should belong to everyone. This includes the EDL and, indeed, Muslim nutters.

I also agree with you both.

It shows again how worrying police actions are becoming at protests. Concerning.

MaxwellBygraves

W1, I certainly don't have a problem with the EDL protesting and exercising their right to free speech. In fact I would encourage them to do so, then everyone can really get an idea of just how hateful, disgusting and misguided their group is.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

The EDL threatened the protesters outside St Pauls. Thats why they were arrested. If UKUncut was threatening to beat the sh1t out of people protesting against a 50p tax rate, then they would be arrested too. And rightfully so.

W1, you're trolling. You're creating a false equivalence between any protest group with liberal aims and the EDL (a racist hate group) to put forward your argument. Its boring watching you hump that chair leg...

What don't you understand?

Both groups include violent thugs. Both include rumours of violence on social media. One group was allowed to protest (albeit under howls of protest of "intimidation", one group was wholly pre-emptively arrested, to complete silence from the "freedom of speech" liberals and advocates. Reverse those positions and I can only imagine the foaming at the mouth on here.

If you want freedom of speech, you can't cherry pick the causes you like whilst ignoring clear restrictions being placed by the state on the ones that you don't. Other people on this thread who support the students/cuts protestors appear to be able to grasp this. I'm sorry that you don't appear to be willing to accept your hypocricy.

sketchley

As I said above and NSB pointed too as well, the EDL were not arrested for protesting or exercising their right to free speech. They were arrested because there was evidence to suggest they intended to commit a violent act or had made threats of the same. Had the protesters at St Paul done they same thing they would have been arrested too.

W1

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

W1, I certainly don't have a problem with the EDL protesting and exercising their right to free speech. In fact I would encourage them to do so, then everyone can really get an idea of just how hateful, disgusting and misguided their group is.

At least you understand the point I'm making.

I am an, in general, an advocate for protest, free speech etc. I just think that there are balances and limitations to those "rights". I apply the same principles to all groups.

It is notable that on here I would expect the advocates of free speech without restriction to be complaining of the EDL treatment, yet the silence was deafening. One cannot advocate freedom of speech yet seek to silence those who you (plural) don't agree with. The irony and hypocricy of doing so is without argument.

W1

Sketchley wrote:

As I said above and NSB pointed too as well, the EDL were not arrested for protesting or exercising their right to free speech. They were arrested because there was evidence to suggest they intended to commit a violent act or had made threats of the same. Had the protesters at St Paul done they same thing they would have been arrested too.

What about the student protests though? Do you think there were 4,000 police officers there because they fancied a day out? What about the ones wearing masks? It is absurd to think that there was no evidence of possible violence at last weeks student protest, but were they all rounded up and pre-emptively arrested? No.

notsoblue

UKUncut Protest:


EDL Protest:

sketchley

W1 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

As I said above and NSB pointed too as well, the EDL were not arrested for protesting or exercising their right to free speech. They were arrested because there was evidence to suggest they intended to commit a violent act or had made threats of the same. Had the protesters at St Paul done they same thing they would have been arrested too.

What about the student protests though? Do you think there were 4,000 police officers there because they fancied a day out? What about the ones wearing masks? It is absurd to think that there was no evidence of possible violence at last weeks student protest, but were they all rounded up and pre-emptively arrested? No.

Of course there was evidence as 24 people arrested on Nov 9 for offences including wearing masks. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/09/world ... hpt=wo_bn9. What there was not was evidence of the protesters at St Pauls being intent on violent disorder against another group; however there does appear to be evidence of the group EDL supporters that were arrested being intent on violent disorder to the St Paul protesters.

I agree with your point but not your EDL example as they were not as far as I know arrested for "Protesting" or "Exercising their freedom of speech". I also happen to agree that it is better that groups and individuals express their opinions so they can be challenged rather than to have them suppress by law, no matter how much you disagree with them. Although as always there is a balance, for example an individuals right to free speech should not supersede the right of other individuals to go about there business without suffering abuse, which is why have discrimination laws.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

It is notable that on here I would expect the advocates of free speech without restriction to be complaining of the EDL treatment, yet the silence was deafening. One cannot advocate freedom of speech yet seek to silence those who you (plural) don't agree with. The irony and hypocricy of doing so is without argument.

Thats a load of tosh. They were arrested because they made threats, not because they wanted to protest. I have no problem with the EDL protesting, I don't think *anyone* here has expressed the opinion that the EDL shouldn't be allowed to protest.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

As I said above and NSB pointed too as well, the EDL were not arrested for protesting or exercising their right to free speech. They were arrested because there was evidence to suggest they intended to commit a violent act or had made threats of the same. Had the protesters at St Paul done they same thing they would have been arrested too.

What about the student protests though? Do you think there were 4,000 police officers there because they fancied a day out? What about the ones wearing masks? It is absurd to think that there was no evidence of possible violence at last weeks student protest, but were they all rounded up and pre-emptively arrested? No.

That would be down to logistics maybe - difficult to arrest several thousand people simultaneously. Less than a hundred is more manageable.

Clever Pun

notsoblue wrote:

UKUncut Protest:


EDL Protest:

She's obstructing a doorway and the edl are waving at their friends out of shot

sketchley

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

As I said above and NSB pointed too as well, the EDL were not arrested for protesting or exercising their right to free speech. They were arrested because there was evidence to suggest they intended to commit a violent act or had made threats of the same. Had the protesters at St Paul done they same thing they would have been arrested too.

What about the student protests though? Do you think there were 4,000 police officers there because they fancied a day out? What about the ones wearing masks? It is absurd to think that there was no evidence of possible violence at last weeks student protest, but were they all rounded up and pre-emptively arrested? No.

That would be down to logistics maybe - difficult to arrest several thousand people simultaneously. Less than a hundred is more manageable.

Also no evidence that all 4,000 were intent on violence. May well be the case that there was evidence that all the 100 or so EDL supporters were.

Clever Pun

looking at notsoblues pic, not all those people were going to cause trouble now were they?



not a racist, just an apologist

W1

Sketchley wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

As I said above and NSB pointed too as well, the EDL were not arrested for protesting or exercising their right to free speech. They were arrested because there was evidence to suggest they intended to commit a violent act or had made threats of the same. Had the protesters at St Paul done they same thing they would have been arrested too.

What about the student protests though? Do you think there were 4,000 police officers there because they fancied a day out? What about the ones wearing masks? It is absurd to think that there was no evidence of possible violence at last weeks student protest, but were they all rounded up and pre-emptively arrested? No.

That would be down to logistics maybe - difficult to arrest several thousand people simultaneously. Less than a hundred is more manageable.

Also no evidence that all 4,000 were intent on violence. May well be the case that there was evidence that all the 100 or so EDL supporters were.

Come on Chris, that's grasping at straws....

How many have been charged then?

W1

notsoblue wrote:

UKUncut Protest:


EDL Protest:

Very good - do you think it would be hard to google some pictures of violent anti-cuts/fees protestors? Or non-violent EDL marches?

I think you've just undermined your credibility.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

It is notable that on here I would expect the advocates of free speech without restriction to be complaining of the EDL treatment, yet the silence was deafening. One cannot advocate freedom of speech yet seek to silence those who you (plural) don't agree with. The irony and hypocricy of doing so is without argument.

Thats a load of tosh. They were arrested because they made threats, not because they wanted to protest. I have no problem with the EDL protesting, I don't think *anyone* here has expressed the opinion that the EDL shouldn't be allowed to protest.

"They" is an interesting word. All of those arrested made threats did they? Or were they all pre-emptively rounded up and arrested on the basis of a rumour.

I can see the exact same justification for arresting all anti-cuts and anti-capitalism protestors.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

Very good - do you think it would be hard to google some pictures of violent anti-cuts/fees protestors? Or non-violent EDL marches?

Go for it, knock yourself out.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

"They" is an interesting word. All of those arrested made threats did they? Or were they all pre-emptively rounded up and arrested on the basis of a rumour.

Do the same type of rumours circulate about UKUncut? Do you think the EDL has an unfair reputation?

HebdenBiker

W1 wrote:

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.

You are easily offended.

Both the Suffragettes and the Civil Rights movement were challenging deep-seated dominant ideologies. At the time, the majority could not see why women needed the vote, or black people equal rights. Both groups were considered dangerous extremists initially, until peaceful civil disobedience gained them publicity and the support of a tipping-point of those with strong and influential voices (in both cases, white men). They were prepared to be arrested, spied-upon, ridiculed and assaulted, but their persistence and courage (and outside events) eventually brought about welcome and beneficial change. There are clear parallels with the modern protest movement.

In the case of the modern protesters, they too are challenging an extremely deep-seated ideology; that the rich deserve their wealth and the poor deserve their poverty. They too risk arrest (under misused anti-terrorism laws). They too are harrassed, surveilled and labelled extremists, layabouts and all the rest of it.

Nowadays, it is self-evident to most that the descendents of African slaves deserve equal rights, and that women deserve the vote. One day, it will be self-evident that everybody deserves a living and that it is immoral for one sector of the economy, propped up by privilege and friends in high places, to steal the product of the labour of everyone else.

HebdenBiker

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

"They" is an interesting word. All of those arrested made threats did they? Or were they all pre-emptively rounded up and arrested on the basis of a rumour.

Do the same type of rumours circulate about UKUncut? Do you think the EDL has an unfair reputation?

I'm reserving judgement on the EDL. In interviews, their leader says they are not racist; they only oppose Islamic extremists who (they say) threaten traditional liberal English values (for example, equal rights and respect for women, Jews and homosexuals).

HOWEVER... I don't know how many of their supporters actually agree with this fairly reasonable-sounding cause. I think many of them, too, don't have much time for women, gays or Jews, and that the movement is, actually, a mouthpiece and focus for prejudice against Asians. When you hear them uses phrases like "we want to take our country back", it doesn't sound promising.

My sister runs a chain of pubs. She was working in one of the pubs in Birmingham when the EDL marched a few months back. Apparently (according to her) they took over the pub and were rowdy. A few glasses got smashed. I can see why this would be intimidating (especially to the bar staff, or anyone out for a quiet pint) but she says they were courteous enough, even to the black barman, and there was no actual violence.

I do not agree with the EDL. But I do not agree that their marches should be banned "in case there's violence". It is very easy for a TV news editor to make them look like complete thugs, and there are probably a hard fringe among them of utter lunatics (just like any other protest group you care to mention), but from the evidence of my sister and my copper mate, most of them see the marches as a chance to get p!ssed, chant a load of nonsense then get back on the coach and go home. A bit like going to a football match, then.

notsoblue

HebdenBiker wrote:

I do not agree with the EDL. But I do not agree that their marches should be banned "in case there's violence". It is very easy for a TV news editor to make them look like complete thugs, and there are probably a hard fringe among them of utter lunatics (just like any other protest group you care to mention), but from the evidence of my sister and my copper mate, most of them see the marches as a chance to get p!ssed, chant a load of nonsense then get back on the coach and go home. A bit like going to a football match, then.

I totally agree with you. But weren't EDL members arrested because there were allegations of threats being made by them to the protesters outside St Pauls? The other point was that their free speech was being repressed because they weren't allowed to be an obvious presence at the Cenotaph during remembrance... Is there any other political group that *would* be allowed to do this? Are the EDL being singled out here? My point is that they aren't being held to a higher standard or discriminated against, and that when they are curtailed in some way its because they fall foul of the law and are treated the same as any other group. Trying to show an equivalence between the EDL and anti-capitalist, anti-cuts protesters and suggesting that it is hypocrisy to see a difference is ludicrous.