Tiresome Lefties/Anarchists riot In Edinburgh

mike65

Its only Monday and they're at it. Sure they'll be out of cash by Wednesday*!

from bbc

G8 unrest escalates in Edinburgh

There have been scuffles involving police and protesters
Police have sent in officers trained in public order to deal with several hundred anti-G8 protesters in the centre of Edinburgh.

Missiles were thrown and weapons recovered as the trouble escalated, Lothian and Borders Police said.



Lines of officers have forced back protesters at various locations. Roads are closed and businesses are being advised to consider shutting.

A senior officer accused protesters of pursuing their own "selfish agenda".

Tension began to rise during the "Carnival For Full Enjoyment", which was called by anti-capitalist groups.

The Wombles and Dissent are committed to fighting capitalism and the ideas of the G8.

Its proberly about time these tossers were turned by ordinary capitalists.

This from indymedia.ie

There wasnt much happening today in Edinburgh action-wise. I got up early and took a very leisurely cycle into the city centre from Muirhouse, trying to take in a bit of the city centre, but at the same time avoiding as many hills as possible. It was a bit depressing at times cycling around and seeing some of the businesses who had decided to put up boards on their windows - and then those that didnt. Loads of small newsagents, local businesses, and shops that you would never even think would be a target, such as a photocopy shop, a picture framers, and a greasy spoon café all had the boards up. Whereas places like The Gap, McDonalds, and Starbucks on Princes Street all operated as if nothing was different. I would have hoped that the media scare stories would have had some effect on the multinationals rather than small independent shops..

Methinks the corner shop has more to worry about as thier insurance hike will be harder to bear after The Wombles have visited.

Mike

*they can get by with the ATMs of course.

Cojofl

Rest assured these people represent all anarchists and the media gives the general public a clear understanding of what anarchy is about.

is_that_so

There is something very brave about people who believe so strongly in something that they have to hide their faces.

Sand

Rest assured these people represent all anarchists and the media gives the general public a clear understanding of what anarchy is about.

Well, thats the hard part about the "fellow travellers" attitude to violent groups within the anti-globalisation fraternity.

pete

riot?

shuushh

doesnt sound much like a riot to me

There is something very brave about people who believe so strongly in something that they have to hide their faces.

scarf around the face has become more symbolic than anything at this stage

Cojofl

shuushh wrote:

doesnt sound much like a riot to me

You mean to suggest anarchists can gather in public without rioting?

oscarBravo

shuushh wrote:

doesnt sound much like a riot to me

Depends on your definition of "riot", I suppose. Throwing missiles at police has to move it some way towards fitting the bill, no?

shuushh wrote:

scarf around the face has become more symbolic than anything at this stage

Symbolic of what, exactly?

is_that_so

scarf around the face has become more symbolic than anything at this stage

White hoods are also symbolic

Hydroquinone

Yup, the KKK wear hoods
Rioters wear hoods/scarves
Gunmen at IRA/UVF funerals, when there is a gun salute over the coffin
The hostage takers in the Middle East
Bank robbers
Muggers

All these people wear hoods because they are criminals who don't want to be identified or show enough of their face to cctv or any other sort of camera or to any potential witnesses who might identify them in the future.

Right enough, some people call it bravery, (though I do realise you weren't is_that_so). But let's be right, it is to elude whoever is after them, not for any other romantic or symbolic reason.

Ajnag

Yawn,
Here we go with the generalisations again.

Pah, Why I even comment?
Hows about one description that I think we can all agree on: Criminal.
Mind leaving out the political commentry now?
Or do we love taring all with one brush?

Andrew 83

Another symbol is the business suit of the white collar criminals taking millions away from the ordinary people in most western countries.

Hydroquinone

Ajnag wrote:

Yawn,
Here we go with the generalisations again.

Pah, Why I even comment?
Hows about one description that I think we can all agree on: Criminal.
Mind leaving out the political commentry now?
Or do we love taring all with one brush?

I dunno, the topic here is anarchists. I would have thought that all anarchists were political to some degree or other. I can leave out the muggers and the robbers, if you like - they don't tend to be enormously political, from what I've heard.

But really, go on; tell us - why do you comment?
I'm only dying to know. Oh, no, wait a minute. I'm not.

Sand

Ajnag has a sorta point. They are crinimals. And lets be honest, theyre probably little mummies boys at the end of the day whose anarchist politics could probably be written on the back of a postage stamp.

For one thing anarchists are philisophically law abiding - anarchism doesnt work without an absolute agreement to abide by the law. Anarchism isnt the absence of law, its merely the absence of a state. And secondly, most streams of anarchism are pacifist - the state rules and exists through violence and the control of violence so if people dont employ violence and disavow it, the state - theoretically - will collapse.

Hence these lads are basically twits with some political slogans, which as we all know is a dangerous combination. If theres something the "movement" should be condemned for its that they tolerate and lend credence to these guys by not disavowing them and telling them theyre not wanted or welcome. Instead the attitude has been decidely neutral bordering on supportive.

Ajnag

Sand wrote:

Ajnag has a sorta point. They are crinimals. And lets be honest, theyre probably little mummies boys at the end of the day whose anarchist politics could probably be written on the back of a postage stamp.

For one thing anarchists are philisophically law abiding - anarchism doesnt work without an absolute agreement to abide by the law. Anarchism isnt the absence of law, its merely the absence of a state. And secondly, most streams of anarchism are pacifist - the state rules and exists through violence and the control of violence so if people dont employ violence and disavow it, the state - theoretically - will collapse.

Hence these lads are basically twits with some political slogans, which as we all know is a dangerous combination. If theres something the "movement" should be condemned for its that they tolerate and lend credence to these guys by not disavowing them and telling them theyre not wanted or welcome. Instead the attitude has been decidely neutral bordering on supportive.

Pretty much agree with you there sand, It could also be noted that anarchism ,classical conservatism and libertarianism have a lot of common threads. The generalisation "lefties/anarchists" is somewhat disingenous and tiresome in its self.

Id like to point out how the whole "left/right" hemegony has degraded modern political thought in that it do's more to create a single divide of antagonism instead of allowing intelligent debate among people with differing philosiphys.

Id wonder about the movement comment tho, granted those who claim to be the "movement" are somewhat silent. However as their is no centralised form of organisation its hard to apply that term its tough to call. The generalisations used also ignore those who are pro-globalisation and trade, but who actually want it to be done under a just system of law. It's a pity that the criminal acts of a few and the media's unwillingness to discriminate between the different groups of protest led to uneducated views of generalisation.

But really, go on; tell us - why do you comment?
I'm only dying to know. Oh, no, wait a minute. I'm not.

Way'da'go prove my point,
Enjoy a nice cup of GFY.

frootfancy

Funny how its just to throw bottles, bricks, bins and benches at the police then its unjust for the police to use force back. BBC coverage was good as it showed just what the anarchists were doing to involke the force used.

In terms of definition if there are 12 or more people in the same place using/ threatening violence for a common purpose in a manner whereby reasonable people fear for their safety is technically classed as a riot. Reports say there were around 1000 people causing trouble so technically its a riot.

SkepticOne

So these anarchists, militants whatever you want to call them, does anyone think that they have some political aim that they see being achieved with their activities? Or is it just a bunch of kids having a bit of a laugh? They seem to be totally disconnected with genuine political activity and the concerns of ordinary people.

pickarooney

A lot of Muslims cover their faces.
Some football fans riot.
Many people make sweeping generalisations.

Hobbes

SkepticOne wrote:

So these anarchists, militants whatever you want to call them, does anyone think that they have some political aim that they see being achieved with their activities?

Bit of column A, bit of column B. I would say there are a core group of members that instigate a lot of the violence and mob mentality takes over.

Deadwing

F*cking tree huggers the lot of them. Theyre the same tossers that go to socialist worker protests and think that they actually do make a difference and really are changing the world by sitting around talking about how great things would be if only they were in power.
"save the trees! Stop bush!"
"eh ok how do you plan on stopping bush and getting the US out of shannon?"
"Uhmmm...well have a march!"
"Great..hope that works out for ya"
Then they go out with ski masks on and chuck rocks at cops once a year at G8 and think "Our work here is done, weve sent a message to those fat cats in washington!!" etc etc. Yeah, the only message youre sending is that:
1. The only thing you do well is riot.
2. If rioting is all youre good at its no wonder you dont have any say in world politics.
3. Youre a bunch of spoiled teenagers who listened to one too many generic angry teen records
4. Have a f*cking shower you f*cking tree hugging hippy TWATS

SkepticOne

Hobbes wrote:

Bit of column A, bit of column B. I would say there are a core group of members that instigate a lot of the violence and mob mentality takes over.

So these core members - the ones who deliberately instigate the violence - are they working towards some goal that they feel is advanced in some way by their activities?

The impression is given that at the core there is nothing there. It is simply a group of people that enjoy a bit of aggro and that the reason such activity takes place is not because of legitimate grievances but rather because the police are not doing their job with sufficient robustness.

The alternative view would be that these people might be misguided in their methods but have ligitimate concerns.

saibhne

Deadwing wrote:

F*cking tree huggers the lot of them. Theyre the same tossers that go to socialist worker protests and think that they actually do make a difference and really are changing the world by sitting around talking about how great things would be if only they were in power.
"save the trees! Stop bush!"
"eh ok how do you plan on stopping bush and getting the US out of shannon?"
"Uhmmm...well have a march!"
"Great..hope that works out for ya"
Then they go out with ski masks on and chuck rocks at cops once a year at G8 and think "Our work here is done, weve sent a message to those fat cats in washington!!" etc etc. Yeah, the only message youre sending is that:
1. The only thing you do well is riot.
2. If rioting is all youre good at its no wonder you dont have any say in world politics.
3. Youre a bunch of spoiled teenagers who listened to one too many generic angry teen records
4. Have a f*cking shower you f*cking tree hugging hippy TWATS

Deadwing,
Talk about sweeping generalisations! I'm not a huge fan of the SWP but I've been on many protests that they were involved in and have never seen even a hint of a riot starting from their members or those involved. In fact to the contrary, When Bush visisted Blair in the North a few years ago I witnessed a concerted attempt by some pre-bush supporters to incite some kind of riot (they ran into the crowd waving the stars and stripes and hurling abuse) the response from the many protesters including the SWP was to sit down on the road and ignore them - I was quite impressed, as I said I'm not a huge fan of the SWP. They may be loud and angry but that's their right.

Also, "having a march" as you say is a valid and historically effective way of making a point in a modern democracy. Without it we would have very small recourse against our political representatives outside of election time. Having said that, due mainly to the blunt instrument that our media is, I believe that the violence at the G8 meetings and any other protest is counter productive to the cause.

And most importantly, I would also say about those rioting that their politics are extreme and anti capitalist (socialist/communist/anarchist?) not environmentalist, tree hugging is probably very low on their agenda.

oscarBravo

saibhne wrote:

Also, "having a march" as you say is a valid and historically effective way of making a point in a modern democracy. Without it we would have very small recourse against our political representatives outside of election time.

No argument there. That said, there is a civic duty to conduct public protests in a peaceful and orderly manner.

saibhne wrote:

Having said that, due mainly to the blunt instrument that our media is, I believe that the violence at the G8 meetings and any other protest is counter productive to the cause.

Hang on - violence is counter-productive because of the way it's portrayed by the media??

Are you serious?

sovtek

frootfancy wrote:

Funny how its just to throw bottles, bricks, bins and benches at the police then its unjust for the police to use force back. BBC coverage was good as it showed just what the anarchists were doing to involke the force used.

Yes the BBC coverage was good...the commentary of the idiot BBC reporter was terrible though.
What we saw was groups of people being pushed and pushed and pushed and hit and beaten by cops....and then one or two people pushed back.
They talked about weapons....but not ONE clip on the BBC report I saw showed anyone using them. We also heard about people attacking shops....but we did not see ONE bit of that.
I saw ONE "missle"...a large rock that was probably picked off the ground and the cops easily deflected it with his shield...this was AFTER they were constantly beating at their legs and pushing the crowd.
What I saw was the police pushing people and getting some of it back...and then guys with black hoods who weren't doing anything but getting hit by police and pushed with shields...of course the moron talking the whole time they were showing these black faces was speaking of how bad they were.

jman0

I watched a few newscasts and i saw relatively small groups of people being pushed back by cops in riot gear who woud sometimes baton the lower extremities of the people they were pushing back. I saw one clip where one such protester seemed to retaliate by tossing a bin into the air in the general direction of some cops. The newscaster told us their was violence by protesters, that some protesters were just there to try and cause trouble but i didn't see this in the footage i got.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

The newscaster told us their was violence by protesters, that some protesters were just there to try and cause trouble but i didn't see this in the footage i got.

I think I can help you out there...

Pic curtesy of The independent

pete

CHIEF CONSTABLE PETER WILSON, HEAD OF G8 POLICE CO-ORDINATION CENTRE wrote:

It's local policing, front-line policing the way we do business round here.

That was achieved on Saturday at the very happy event because the organisers co-operated with us.

On Monday, the difference was that we had no-one who wanted to co-operate and we needed to make sure we made the city safe.

From my viewing of the pictures, Lothian and Borders Police seem to have co-ordinated an effort which kept most of the traffic out of the city, kept a safe environment.

Although I'm sure people may have been scared by the size of the operation, it was designed to ensure public safety and largely that's what we've achieved.

SCOTTISH GREEN MSP MARK BALLARD wrote:

Police officers were letting people, including innocent bystanders - but also groups of young people drinking alcohol - into the areas where there were disturbances, but they were not letting anyone out.

We thought that the safest route would be through Princes St Gardens but once in there we found ourselves trapped between two lines of police.

The police gave no clear instruction regarding what they wanted the protesters - and bystanders who had found themselves caught up in it - to do. We moved into Princes St where we were pushed up and down the street . The police seemed to lack a clear plan about how to defuse the situation and there was no clear communication, for example by an officer with a loud-hailer.

Police were rushing into the crowd and antagonising them. It was the most surreal and bizarre policing I have ever seen.

Police seemed to be inflaming the situation by letting innocent bystanders wander into the areas of trouble, then not let them exit.

Today has sadly marked a departure from the good-natured and calm atmosphere of Saturday's march and I urge police and protesters to work to restore that calm ahead of Wednesday's summit.

SCOTTISH SOCIALIST LEADER COLIN FOX wrote:

I have witnessed some of the most violent policing o my entire life. I witnessed squads of riot police clear Princess Street Gardens by charging and attacking anyone who got in their way, including innocent Edinburgh people sunbathing after work.

The day started with a carnival atmosphere which was completely destroyed by heavy-handed and violent policing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4651207.stm

Half-Bicycle

I've been on plenty of marches/demos and have had to endure unprovoked attacks by the so-called "authorities". I have seen officers of the ahem, "law" laugh as the put the boot in fellow protesters.

Now, I hate generalisations, so I won't say all coppers are filth.

But some are evil baskets all the same.

And naturally, some protestors are idiots too.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

I think I can help you out there...

hmm, makes me wonder what the cop did to illicit such a response from a member of the general public.

SkepticOne

It is a sad day when a man can't walk down the Queens Highway masked and carrying a stick.

saibhne

oscarBravo wrote:

No argument there. That said, there is a civic duty to conduct public protests in a peaceful and orderly manner. Hang on - violence is counter-productive because of the way it's portrayed by the media??

Are you serious?

Oscar
Can see how that might be construed other than how I intended. In this context of a protest being the public trying to make a point, I meant to infer that if there is any violence associated with that protest (even if it is confined to a minority) the media will lead with that story thus diluting and distorting the message that a peaceful protest can achieve.
The Irish times today is an example with a front page story about clashes with anti-capitalists and anarchists - not much mention of those who are there to request an abolition of third world debt or fairer world trade and who are protesting in a peaceful manner... Media coverage like that negates their efforts.