G20 Summit Riots in London

Macha

astrofool wrote: »

The protestors themselves are making the mistake of allowing these fringe groups protest alongside them, and as long as the peaceful protestors allow this to happen, they will get tarred with the same brush, and their message will never get through.

And how to you propose that the genuine protestors "disallow" the lunatic fringe from protesting? They can condemn them but that's about it. It isn't their job to control them.

They will only all get tarred with the same brush as long as people are intellectually lazy and see them as the same group. It requires a bit more effort to realise they're not all one and the same.

astrofool wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't respect an organisation or company who had a few rogue agents who constantly showed them in a bad light, without them getting excluded/fired. I don't see why anyone should respect the group of protestors until they can organise themselves to get rid of the bad elements (I hazard a guess that it's due to a misled belief of strength in numbers and timidness to stand up to these people).

Again, how do you suggest that they remove the rogue elements that very often are anarchists and do not belong to any organisation, let alone many of the legitimate organisations?

You're still making the mistake of assuming they belong to the same organisation.

astrofool wrote: »

And I wouldn't go as far to call it a media obsession when these riots are as predictable as the seasons, images of people fighting and rioting gets ratings, simple as that.

Well, yes I would call it an obsession. It's an obsession in certain media outlets to paint certain elements of society (teenagers, travellers, unemployed, protestors) in as negative a light as possible and to hell with balanced reporting of the facts. The Daily Mail has refined it down to a fine art.

astrofool wrote: »

Anyway, your comment was why don't they show images of the 99% peaceful protestors and the answer is that nobody cares or wants to watch and listen to the peaceful protestors when they know the good stuff (riots) is just around the corner.

I'm aware of that but I still think things like this should be questioned instead of silently expected and accepted.

astrofool

If other protestors are causing their message to be turned into an outbreak of violence, then it is their job to ensure that these people are not allowed to protest with them, whether that be by helping the police, or by completely removing support from these groups, by protesting in different areas where they can't cause trouble (away from banks and mcdonalds for example).

Again, as I said earlier, these people have to first stand up against themselves, against that person standing right beside them who throws a brick, or makes a run in a black mask against the police, singles them out, and turns them over to the authorities, until these elements are removed, and until they can get their own house in order, how can they be taken seriously when protesting against the massed governments of the world.

I know they belong to many different organisations, but you can't expect the populace to get more "intellectually active" while these riots keep on occurring. People, generally, abhor violence.

Macha

Last post on this because I feel like I'm just repeating myself.

astrofool wrote: »

If other protestors are causing their message to be turned into an outbreak of violence, then it is their job to ensure that these people are not allowed to protest with them, whether that be by helping the police, or by completely removing support from these groups, by protesting in different areas where they can't cause trouble (away from banks and mcdonalds for example).

So you put the responsibility with other protestors? That's just crazy.

There are G20 protests. I as an individual decide to go and protest. Others decide to go and throw things. Suddenly I am not just responsible for my own right to peaceful protest but according to you I now have to:

a) help police to get rid of the violent elements (even though I probably know very little about these people)
b) remove support for them (uh, how?)
c) protest in a different area to them (again, even though I probably know very little about them)

That's just silly, unworkable and putting the responsibility on entirely the wrong people. What you're talking about is police work. Individuals have the right to peaceful protest and they should be able to do so withougt having to feel responsible for other individuals acting unlawfully. Is it now the responsibility of every person out drinking on a Saturday night to get rid of the nasty element of people who get drunk and make a nuisance out of themselves? Of course not.

astrofool wrote: »

Again, as I said earlier, these people have to first stand up against themselves, against that person standing right beside them who throws a brick, or makes a run in a black mask against the police, singles them out, and turns them over to the authorities, until these elements are removed, and until they can get their own house in order, how can they be taken seriously when protesting against the massed governments of the world.

*sigh* you're just making so many assumptions here. How do you know that they know the person beside them? Why do you think it's their responsibility to start making citizens arrests? Would you really try to apprehend a masked individual throwing bricks? Come on.

They are taken seriously by people who are able to distinguish between a cause and it's supporters, between legitimate protestors and an unrelated violent individuals.

astrofool wrote: »

I know they belong to many different organisations, but you can't expect the populace to get more "intellectually active" while these riots keep on occurring. People, generally, abhor violence.

I know people abhor violence. It still isn't an excuse to remain ignorant.

It's funny because while you're so happy heaping responsibility on protestors to do things outside their jurisdiction, you're perfectly happy to absolve the general populace from responsibility for educating itself on the facts of what are largely peaceful protests.

Driseog

There has never been policy made at any G meeting. Apparently Gordon Brown was quoted as saying that all countries should be allowed to continue to achieve unbridled economic expansion so maybe its a good thing that no agreements come from these pointless summits.
I normally wouldn't be one for violence but I think that particular protest needed to be violent to reflect the anger that people are feeling at the moment. In fact I think the violent riot should be brought back because I think the problem is that those in charge aren't afraid of the people anymore and they should be.

Red Sleeping Beauty

taconnol wrote: »

I didn't think anyone was under the illusion that reading the Daily Mail would further their understanding of anything. Oh except that all of England's problems are caused by the wilfully unemployed, immigrants and paedophiles and that all members of these groups should be round up and shot.


Precisely. A few select images. Why not post some up of what was mostly a peaceful protest?


I think it's a sign of protest at the current political and economic system that is long overdue in many countries.

I'm more worried about the steady loss of civil rights in the UK and the increasingly unsettling police tactics including:
-forcing people to give their names and have their photo taken of anyone attending any sort of rally and keeping a database of these details.
-the disrespect and distrust shown to members of the public and members of the media when engaged in entirely lawful behaviour.
-new police techniques like "kettling" that hem people in to confined areas and don't let them out

I just hope this sort of police attitude doesn't make it's way over here, as it did briefly during the "Reclaim the Streets" demonstration about 5 years ago.

Unfortunately Ireland has a "riot squad" that aren't afraid to use heavy handed tactics. Even regular Guards down in Rossport used their batons on protestors . They also use video cameras to document everything.

The Garda have also "borrowed" some water cannons from Northern Ireland for a few marches/protests.

taconnol wrote: »

Correct.


You're making the mistake of viewing the protestors as one homogenous group. There were people from many different groups, complaining about a wide variety of issues. Why should one group have to take responsibility for the rest in order for their points to be taken seriously?

We should have the intelligence to be able to view the protestors as the separate groups and individuals they are, not simplifly the matter and lump them all in together - that's just being lazy.


This comment is just strange.


And this is just silly. The vast majority of protestors were peaceful. The obsession of a few media outlets with focusing in on the few violent protestors does nothing but pander to their audience and obscure the reality of the situation. And it detracts away from the core message of the protests. How convenient.

Indeed. It's disgraceful that a "normal" couple with kids or an oap seen protesting passionately wouldn't make it to the headlines.

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Is this a sign of civil unrest yet to come in the United States? Is anyone concerned with the medias portrayal off the protestors or do you feel its justified?

Yes, very much so.
It's absurd, anyone who protests at a protest where there may be violence is tared with the same brush and that these new "anti-terror" laws could be used against you (although the UK's Public Order Act seems to provide them with enough legal ammo).
I've been to a few protests and the tactics used (by the Gardaí can be very intimidating and antagonistic. Sure heck, that "kettling" tactic they use(d) is extremely scary and worrying....

http://news.google.co.uk/news?um=1&ned=uk&cf=all&ncl=1323957701
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/the2009g20londonsummit/2009/04/200943142224511944.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7981932.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/03/g20-protests-police-kettling - look at the copper at 2min 43 - dried blood on his illuminous jacket -


Widespread reporting of violent protests will of course deter ("normal/law biding") people from leaving their homes to join a protest. It's more than just a matter of concern but who's going to to anything about it ? As long as it's just some "anarchist thugs" "hooligans" or "hippies" being beaten up then your 2point4 family probably won't press their TD/representative too much to do anything such as investigate these "tactics" used by police.

oscarBravo

Alan Rouge wrote: »

They also use video cameras to document everything.

Those vicious bastards.

Red Sleeping Beauty

There was a house/squat raided and dozens of people were arrested and detained using cable ties.

http://news.google.co.uk/news?um=1&ned=uk&cf=all&ncl=1325479748
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2009/04/03/g20-protests-police-arrest-dozens-in-raids-on-squats-86908-21249772/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7978105.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/03/g20-protests-police-tactics
http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/992

"cynical display of power" just about sums it up adequtely I think.



Also , a man died in suspicious circumstances -
walking home from work and then he drops to the ground and dies from a heart attack. Police say medics trying to treat him were pelted with bottles, or the police were pettled with bottles. Not like their cordon helped though

Macha

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Also , a man died in suspicious circumstances -
walking home from work and then he drops to the ground and dies from a heart attack. Police say medics trying to treat him were pelted with bottles, or the police were pettled with bottles. Not like their cordon helped though

Actually, the Independent Police Complaints Commission is now investigating if the man in question was assaulted by police.

nvestigators are examining a series of corroborative accounts that allege Ian Tomlinson, 47, was a victim of police violence in the moments before he collapsed near the Bank of England in the City of London last Wednesday evening. Three witnesses have told the Observer that Mr Tomlinson was attacked violently as he made his way home from work at a nearby newsagents. One claims he was struck on the head with a baton.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/05/g20-protest-ian-tomlinson