G20 Protests

[Kinvig]

Just seen on the BBC that protestors have smashed windows & stormed the RBS building. Don't that realise that RBS is now state owned? Mind you - I doubt that there are actually any tax payers there! ;o)

Tip of the day: Wearing a crucifix round your neck will ward off vampires. Soap on a rope will ward off G20 protesters.

[Warthog]

Hahaha, more public money now needed to replace the windows. Some protesters, depite generally having the right idea, are pitifully short-sighted in the way they go about things.

[keithd]

f*****g a******s !!

the whole world and his wife knew this would happen. morons.

[metalangel]

'Fred's not here, man!'

[Viney]

Its just down the road form where i work!

[wyrdness]

The BBC have reported that 23 people have been arrested so far.

Compare that with the 488 people arrested at last years Notting Hill Carnival.

[keithd]

The BBC have reported that 23 people have been arrested so far.

Compare that with the 488 people arrested at last years Notting Hill Carnival.

hardly comparable !!! how many attended the carnival? 1/4 million?

and for minor offences i expect.

[dirtsk8]

The British press are the worst offenders.

They're only showing the vandalism and scummy krusties. That footage of the folk smashing the windows of RBS - there were only a handful of protesters and ten times as many people taking pictures. It makes me sick. The huge majority of the people there are law-abiding citizens trying to make some very valid points. And they get no coverage whatsoever.

Sometimes I'm ashamed to be from the UK.

[keithd]

The British press are the worst offenders.

They're only showing the vandalism and scummy krusties. That footage of the folk smashing the windows of RBS - there were only a handful of protesters and ten times as many people taking pictures. It makes me sick. The huge majority of the people there are law-abiding citizens trying to make some very valid points. And they get no coverage whatsoever.

Sometimes I'm ashamed to be from the UK.

of course they get coverage, but also the trouble makers get more coverage. its how news works, go to any country in the world and it would be the same, being british has frick all to do with it...

[anna]

The press and everyone else knew certain places, if there were going to be vandalism, was going to happen there. Mainly focused on the banks. Hence why all the press have been loitering outside the offices all day, waiting for such a thing to happen. Many of them will have been instructed to find tomorrows headline photo.

[Spiderman]

So what they smashed a windows or 2? Some of these people have lost their homes thru the banks disgrafull behaviou. Are they not entitled to show their anger somehow?
Even more so if we own the feking bank then all these people did is destroy something that is partly theirs anyway so the police ne to fek off and let people protest.

Lat i heard they had gone into their typical passive agresive behaviour of penning some protestors in and not letting anyone leave even if they wanted to. is that not an antagonistic approach designed make people even more angry?

The pploice and the medai have a lot to answer for when ti comes to the way they deal with legitamate protests. They go out their way to criminalise everyone and anyone who is attending when the vats majority as far from trouble makers or criminals.

[dizzyblonde]

gah they're all playing up for the cameras and media:rolleyes:

If the media presence wasn't as noticeable, who's to bet there wouldn't be as much trouble.

However, people do need to voice their opinions about the unscrupulous behaviour of the banks and government

[alexs]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45623000/jpg/_45623824_rbs_window_pa_2.jpg

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/4/1/1238597221195/G20-Protests-G20-Protests-001.jpg

There are 10 photogs for every guy throwing a computer monitor through a window.

[dizzyblonde]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45623000/jpg/_45623824_rbs_window_pa_2.jpg

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/4/1/1238597221195/G20-Protests-G20-Protests-001.jpg

There are 10 photogs for every guy throwing a computer monitor through a window.


I rest my case:rolleyes:

[zsv650]

protesting is something that sometimes needs to be done imo to remind those up top that the people arnt happy though violence and vandalism won't help prove the point at all however i'll be showing my opinion next election so the current shower can sod off :smt021

[SoulKiss]

So what they smashed a windows or 2? Some of these people have lost their homes thru the banks disgrafull behaviou. Are they not entitled to show their anger somehow?
Even more so if we own the feking bank then all these people did is destroy something that is partly theirs anyway so the police ne to fek off and let people protest.

Lat i heard they had gone into their typical passive agresive behaviour of penning some protestors in and not letting anyone leave even if they wanted to. is that not an antagonistic approach designed make people even more angry?

The pploice and the medai have a lot to answer for when ti comes to the way they deal with legitamate protests. They go out their way to criminalise everyone and anyone who is attending when the vats majority as far from trouble makers or criminals.

They dont have the right to cause damage Spidey, and that stuff that is partly theirs is also partly mine.

As for the cordoning in, I agree with the need for the police to manage the dispersal of the crowd bit by bit, so no dice with that one either.

Look at last night in Westminster - over 4000 people, most on motorbikes, turned up to protest, guided in by the police, parking was to some extent marshalled by the police and not a single arrest.

[alexs]

They dont have the right to cause damage Spidey, and that stuff that is partly theirs is also partly mine.

As for the cordoning in, I agree with the need for the police to manage the dispersal of the crowd bit by bit, so no dice with that one either.

Look at last night in Westminster - over 4000 people, most on motorbikes, turned up to protest, guided in by the police, parking was to some extent marshalled by the police and not a single arrest.

I don't think anyone is saying the guys smashing windows and vandalising the bank and so forth shouldn't have been nicked. Personally though perhaps some of us just sympathise with the symbolism of someone trashing an RBS branch after everything that has happened.

It's a bit like speeding or any of the other dodgy stuff people here have never ever done outside of their own private runway ;) If you get caught, it's your fault and you have to live with the consequences.

Talking about who owns the property that got damaged misses the point a bit really I think. What's a stake here is more important than 0.0001p per person to replace some glazing. It's the tens of thousands of pounds per person that we are pouring into these defunct companies with no way to immediately pay for it. The effects of injecting that much *cash* (not just mark to market value that was lost of off balance sheets) into the economy is going to be interesting.

You are totally right that it was dumb of them to do that though. It does rather alienate a lot of people from the overall message of the protests when the media outlets start spinning them as a bunch of crazy anarchists out to "abolish money."

/soapbox

[carnivore]

How about having the balls to say this.

All those who are protesting at the G20 today, what are they protesting about? The brainless to$$ers are attacking banks at the same time as saying they want climate change. Those banks, though, are the ones who have apparently messed up economies around the world, those banks have caused a recession which has seen car sales drop by a third, caused production numbers to shrink and caused global consumption to drop, caused, essentially, the very thing that the protestors say they want to happen.

Should the protestors not be thanking them?

[SoulKiss]

How about having the balls to say this.

All those who are protesting at the G20 today, what are they protesting about? The brainless to$$ers are attacking banks at the same time as saying they want climate change. Those banks, though, are the ones who have apparently messed up economies around the world, those banks have caused a recession which has seen car sales drop by a third, caused production numbers to shrink and caused global consumption to drop, caused, essentially, the very thing that the protestors say they want to happen.

Should the protestors not be thanking them?

Or is it they are protesting against the War in Iraq???

Obviously haven't seen...


Forces start to withdraw from Iraq
17 hours ago
British forces' withdrawal from Iraq began when the UK's top commander and his headquarters staff flew out of the country.
Major General Andy Salmon earlier handed military command of the southern province of Basra to the US Army in a ceremony that marked the beginning of the end of Britain's controversial involvement in the Middle Eastern state.
Senior British, American and Iraqi generals attended the event, which celebrated UK troops' "enormous success" but reflected with sadness on the loss of life involved.
Since the 2003 US-led invasion, 179 British personnel have died in Iraq and many more have been injured.
An RAF Hercules carrying Maj Gen Salmon and his small command team took off from Basra International Airport at about 4.30pm UK time.
There are still 4,100 British troops in Iraq but they will stop combat operations on May 31 and all but about 400 of them will gradually be withdrawn by July 31.
Speaking before he waved goodbye to Basra, Maj Gen Salmon acknowledged there had been "ups and downs" for UK forces in Iraq but insisted it was "a successful conclusion to a long campaign".
"I can put my hand on my heart and say we've finished this right," he said.
The handover ceremony was a grand display of martial pomp, opening with a piper leading the dignitaries to their seats and followed by a rousing performance from the Royal Marines Band. After prayers and speeches, the pennant of Maj Gen Salmon's Combined Amphibious Forces was lowered and the pennant of the US Army's 10th Mountain Division was raised.
Among the guests was the head of Britain's Armed Forces, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup.
Copyright © 2009 The Press Association. All rights reserved.


or these




UK forces hand over base in Basra (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d78429d4-1e52-11de-830b-00144feabdc0.html)
Financial Times - 14 hours ago
British forces hand over control of Basra airport to Americans (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/01/uk-military-withdrawl-iraq)
guardian.co.uk - 18 hours ago
Beginning of end for 'great endeavour' of Iraq invasion (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/world/Beginning-of-end--for.5127655.jp)
Scotsman - 18 hours ago
British troops say goodbye to Basra as US takes over (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/british-troops-say-goodbye-to-basra-as-us-takes-over-1658978.html)
Independent - 18 hours ago

[Warthog]

Hang on, are you saying the mindless anarchists are stupid?!

Man, the photo with all the camera men photographing the one guy smashing a window is pathetic. I'd rather not get started on this.

[Swin]

http://forums.sv650.org/picture.php?albumid=259&pictureid=2196

[stanie]

protesting is something that sometimes needs to be done imo to remind those up top that the people arnt happy though violence and vandalism won't help prove the point at all however i'll be showing my opinion next election so the current shower can sod off :smt021

i think the poll tax riots were a brilliant example of how protest (including damaging property) can work.

[stanie]

So what they smashed a windows or 2? Some of these people have lost their homes thru the banks disgrafull behaviou. Are they not entitled to show their anger somehow?
Even more so if we own the feking bank then all these people did is destroy something that is partly theirs anyway so the police ne to fek off and let people protest.

Lat i heard they had gone into their typical passive agresive behaviour of penning some protestors in and not letting anyone leave even if they wanted to. is that not an antagonistic approach designed make people even more angry?

The pploice and the medai have a lot to answer for when ti comes to the way they deal with legitamate protests. They go out their way to criminalise everyone and anyone who is attending when the vats majority as far from trouble makers or criminals.

good post, thanks.

[PAPPACLART]

I agree with allot of the issues being voiced in central London, tho excluding the normal people outhere protesting, there is a huge number of the militant types, many are sons and daughters of Bankers(funny enough) Lords, Aristocrats etc, living off of the Tit of there families. How about they give up the monthly allowance and go get a job like the rest of us.

Some of these people will protest at anything, and now amongst the mayhem I have seen a business opportunity. I am gonna setup shop, and find issues for these people to protest at for a small fee. We could do with some more numbers, especially yesterday at the parking charges protest! lol

[muffles]

I just wrote out a long post about the whole bank situation but decided against it.

The gist of it was that I think although there have been mistakes, the banks have been made into a scapegoat about a lot of things.

E.g. people losing their homes (not picking on you Spidey, you just mentioned it!) - if someone defaults on their mortgage I find it very hard to find any at fault but the person who defaulted - the banks may have made a bad decision to lend a large mortgage BUT at the end of the day it is the responsibility of the person taking the mortgage out, to make sure they could afford it?

I work for a bank, in IT so not in any way what people call a "banker", and we have been hit as hard as a lot of people by the economical problems - a large % of people have been cut, companies have gone bust (e.g. the one that started it all!). I do have annoyances at the people that took risks but I don't think I can blame them for everything they are being accused of.

[Milky Bar Kid]

Whats the point in protesting? They wont listen anyway......

[northwind]

As for the cordoning in, I agree with the need for the police to manage the dispersal of the crowd bit by bit, so no dice with that one either.

It's not that simply though Soulkiss, it's a tactic that the police do use to, basically, raise and control tension. Example, at the criminal justice act demos in hyde park they sealed all exits, closed off the entire demo inside the park with no food available, no water, no facilities. They then arrested people for trying to break out through the police lines (breach of the peace, assaulting police officers) after cleverly creating the situation where people had little choice but to try and break out. There were something like 200 arrests for public indecency- public urination- because the toilets in the park were sealed and nobody could get out. End result? On the news that night "Scuffles at demo in hyde park! 200 arrests!" Standard tactic really. If you bottle up a demo and restrict their right to march peacefully, they get annoyed and they're more likely to become aggressive or violent, then you get to treat them like an aggressive crowd.

[anna]

Whats the point in protesting? They wont listen anyway......

Wrong,

Protests in the past over various issues have had a direct result on decisions made by those in power. You only need to look at voting rights to see the merits in protesting.

[Kilted Ginger]

So what they smashed a windows or 2? Some of these people have lost their homes thru the banks disgrafull behaviour. Wrong, the only people at risk of losing their homes are because of the bank is bank workers being laid off. Also it wasn't the banks but a very small number of high ranking individuals who have been identified so why not protest outside their home? Are they not entitled to show their anger somehow? Yes by peacefull protest, not by vandalism
Even more so if we own the feking bank then all these people did is destroy something that is partly theirs anyway so the police ne to fek off and let people protest. OMG that is one of the most ridiculos statements I have ever read, the police are in place to enforce the laws of the land, defend people and their property, imho They should take a much tougher line with these people (who I would bet whatever you want have lost nothing but are just trouble makers) the first one who broke something should be arrested and everyone after that, I understand they dont to prevent escallation of the situation. Imagine it was your house that had chosen to attack

The pploice and the medai have a lot to answer for when ti comes to the way they deal with legitamate protests. They go out their way to criminalise everyone and anyone who is attending when the vats majority as far from trouble makers or criminals. Agreed, press inflame the situation exponentially, the police however are in a no win situation, if the stand back and contain they are wrong, if they wade in they are wrong.
Last point, how about the staff within the bank (who definately carry no blame)how would you feel if your wife or sister wascowering in a back office as thugs smashed windows and threw computers at her??

[Balky001]

I thought the police were very controlled today. Much provocation this morning/afternoon (wasn't about after 5pm) by the few morons in the crowd and no retaliation from the force. Watched the policeman get whacked with the metal pole on TV whilst the loony taking all the airtime ranted, no response.

Most police I saw were very approachable and was blending in with the atmosphere around Bishopsgate, even if half of the party goers were wrecked. Bank and Mansion House had the more militant 'know my rights' brigade without any cause in particular, but not to the extent I was expecting, most I saw were just average joes.

I bet a lot of the more active protestors do pay tax, lots of naughty middle class youths enjoying the clandestine lifestyle waiting for their inheritence to come.

[MiniMatt]

Yay! My home thread. Perhaps I should have just stayed here rather than get all het up and argumental in that other thread.

Interesting that the general tone on this thread is in favour of peaceful protest. I'm tempted to go trawling for previous threads about the yearly G20 protest - my hunch is that in previous years the tone might be more weighted toward the "soap dodging hippy scum" tone.

Democracy is not a feckin spectator sport people. I don't care if I agree with you or not, if you have the cahoonies to get of your **** and do something for your beliefs, whether that be through the ballot box, through lobbying your elected representatives, or through peaceful protest then I am behind you 100 percent.

And naturally I do rally against "it won't make a difference" sentiment, especially when that's coupled with "so I won't bother". Aside from the important bit being "I tried" (perhaps none of us are likely to change the world, but if none of us try...) - sometimes it does work, and if previous generations had not engaged in peaceful protest then.... India would still be a subjugated country, apartheid would still be active in South Africa, women would not have the vote in the UK, blacks would not have the vote across the whole of the USA, and the poll tax would be in place in the UK. It's scary how recent all this is too - of the five examples I've just given, two are in my lifetime (34), a further one is in my parents' lifetime, one is within my grandparents lifetime and the remainder is within my great grandparents lifetime.

Now each of these five I've listed had violent episodes, but they were principally rooted in peace. Whether you agree with these protests or not (and I hope to God that the only one people may or may not agree with is poll tax) no-one can deny that peaceful protest did make a difference and did change the world.

Oh and SK - I have to take exception on your interpretation of the Iraq protests, whilst I can't speak for anyone other than myself I see a difference between protesting going to war in Iraq and continuing to have forces in Iraq. Tens of thousands of men, women and children are now dead, men, women and children who had the same right to life as me, you, your family and my family, these people are now dead, they will never accomplish their potential, they will never see another sunset. They're dead and their blood is on the hands of those who took us to war. And my personal view is that if we did this for the longer term greater good, then we damn well have a moral responsibility to see that through and not just jump ship and leave a fecked country in our wake. Unfortunately, I'm fully aware that this responsibility will (or would) doubtless be paid for in more blood.

So many politicians with so much blood on their hands - damn right I'm going to protest that.

[SoulKiss]

Oh and SK - I have to take exception on your interpretation of the Iraq protests, whilst I can't speak for anyone other than myself I see a difference between protesting going to war in Iraq and continuing to have forces in Iraq. Tens of thousands of men, women and children are now dead, men, women and children who had the same right to life as me, you, your family and my family, these people are now dead, they will never accomplish their potential, they will never see another sunset. They're dead and their blood is on the hands of those who took us to war. And my personal view is that if we did this for the longer term greater good, then we damn well have a moral responsibility to see that through and not just jump ship and leave a fecked country in our wake. Unfortunately, I'm fully aware that this responsibility will (or would) doubtless be paid for in more blood.

So many politicians with so much blood on their hands - damn right I'm going to protest that.

I agree with you about all of the above, we should never have gone in there to begin with.

What I am saying is why protest over something that nothing can, or will ever be done about.

Other than not voting for this bunch at the next General Election that is.

They went in against the guidlines of the UN, which as I see it, is the only body that could possibly bring sanctions/consequences for the act to bear, and haven't so far.

[Alpinestarhero]

I agree with you about all of the above, we should never have gone in there to begin with.

What I am saying is why protest over something that nothing can, or will ever be done about.

Other than not voting for this bunch at the next General Election that is.

They went in against the guidlines of the UN, which as I see it, is the only body that could possibly bring sanctions/consequences for the act to bear, and haven't so far.

+1. If we hadn't gone piggy back with america, then at least our country wouldn't be tarnished with the same blood from the same brush painting america. But we cant leave now....if you start something, you have to finish it properly. Its like getting out all the lego, spending all day playing, then leaving it for someone else to clear up (well, sort of...its alot worse than that).

I hope the protests don't become violent (my dad has been having visions of it turning into something that the french would be proud of!), because that just makes a mess for everyone to deal with. But then, there are always hooligans who like to disrupte things

[simesb]

What I am saying is why protest over something that nothing can, or will ever be done about.

Other than not voting for this bunch at the next General Election that is.

The general public are notoriously fickle with short memories, and the media holds such sway over public opinion. Sometimes I don't think it hurts to remind people of the part I've quoted.

[Kinvig]

I don't think that these protests will make any difference to the opinions/stances of the world leaders in London.

The reason for this is that there it's not a single group of protesters with a message but many disparate voices with differing goals. The one thing that the protesters can get out of this is that their message *may* leak out into the media where it may get a bit more awareness. Of course the media seems more interested with the antics of the laptop hooligans rather than the messages from the protest groups.

[muffles]

I don't think that these protests will make any difference to the opinions/stances of the world leaders in London.

The reason for this is that there it's not a single group of protesters with a message but many disparate voices with differing goals.

+1 to this - there are all sorts of different protests mixed in, from what I read/saw - climate change, anti-war/occupation of Iraq, anti-bank, to name a few. I think some of the protests didn't make sense (climate change at RBS?) and were just used to jump on the G20 bandwagon so to speak.

[Ceri JC]

+1 to this - there are all sorts of different protests mixed in, from what I read/saw - climate change, anti-war/occupation of Iraq, anti-bank, to name a few. I think some of the protests didn't make sense (climate change at RBS?) and were just used to jump on the G20 bandwagon so to speak.

Speak to riot police and they'll all tell you the same thing; you see the same faces at all the protests (irrespective of the subject) where there is trouble and this is especially true of the troublemakers. This results in some hilarious alliances of diametrically opposed people, like a white middle class liberal campaigning for gay rights next to a lunatic who wants to be a Martyr for Islam. People involved with it recognise this and even refer to the collective movement (of all protests) as the 'protest scene' or 'protest circuit'. The protest's subject matter is a decidedly secondary consideration.

Having myself been invited to a protest to, "...mash up some police, I don't know what the protest is about", I don't agree that these are people who are driven to these violent actions as a last resort. That might wash if you're in some third world backwater when the you get fed up of the Junta kick down your door in the middle of the night and stealing your children and feel your only option to effect change is to storm the palace and kill the ruling class. In modern day Britain, however, it does not. The a lot of the troublemakers are childish malcontents who never grew out of teenage angst. Even if we lived in some sort of utopia they'd be getting their knickers in a twist about something. The violence of many of them is about as 'political' as two lads having a punch up outside a pub on a Friday night.

I wouldn't even class things like the recent Westminster motorcycle protest as remotely related to your typical protests. It's almost as if there should be a different word to distinguish the two.

[yorkie_chris]

I was listening about it on the radio, do they have any particular point? All the people who appeared on the radio seemed to be annoyed at ... er ...

[plowsie]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/4/1/1238597221195/G20-Protests-G20-Protests-001.jpg


Bloke looks like a disarranged rapper, "yeah...WHAT". Can never be as gangsta as Keithy D-to-the-Izzle, WERD.

Tag them on facebook :D :lol:

[Baph]

For those that think the police are wrong for their actions over protests, I will say this...

Russia has an economy crisis at the moment too.

[plowsie]

I was listening about it on the radio, do they have any particular point? All the people who appeared on the radio seemed to be annoyed at ... er ...
I heard one

"I've lost my job"

Excuse me, WTF are you protesting about it for, do something about getting another one, not protesting. Happy slap them round the chops, hand them a piece of paper with big writing "MUST TRY HARDER!"

No offence intended at people who have lost their jobs, but I am sure you are trying your best to get another one, not fecking causing problems...

I saw some hell of a chav, I mean, we are talking worse than Nicky S Chavvy (;)), with a can of Strongbow in his hand just taunting coppers. I can see it now...

'What are you protesting for Sir?'
"Price of fish az gone up innit"

[husky03]

Load of balls -people are allowed to protest quite rightly so -but the organised groups who always turn this into an excuse to smash up other peoples property then claim its for the sake of sending out a message to governments totally wrong-they should be dealt with accordingly.

[aermacchi]

I very much doubt that these protests will make any difference, politicians don't really know/care/listen. How many of them are going to be made redundant/lose their home/lose their pension? The people who are vandalising RBS and other buildings and property just use these protests as an excuse to cause trouble in the way that other "hooligans" ( for want of a better word) use football matches as an excuse for violence. If not they might think about the staff in the buildings they are attacking and the effect it has on them. I can't imagine that many lower level RBS staff support Fred Goodwin and his cronies, yet they've got to put up with these cretins "protesting"

[pookie]

Bloke looks like a disarranged rapper, "yeah...WHAT". Can never be as gangsta as Keithy D-to-the-Izzle, WERD.

Tag them on facebook :D :lol:

What a waste of a 30in monitor

[northwind]

Last point, how about the staff within the bank (who definately carry no blame)how would you feel if your wife or sister wascowering in a back office as thugs smashed windows and threw computers at her??

Nobody cares about us evil bankers :cool: But the branch was closed luckily (I don't know if the "rioters" would have attacked it otherwise- they were posturing for cameras knowing that the consequences would be smaller, but that'd have been different if there'd been people inside I think. When you see the run up to the "attack", the guys are standing around waiting for the photographers to get ready)

Has to be remembered here, there were tens of thousands of people in the main protests, very few arrests considering that scale, and the vast majority were completely peaceful (despite, in a lot of cases, being treated like they were about to turn mental) It's sort of like after music festivals, they always say "10 people were arrested for drugs"- put 80000 people together anywhere and 10 of them will be carrying...

[Leopard_lily]

So when do we reckon the recession will spark off world war 3 then?

[northwind]

I for one am looking forward to riding around in the desert whacking people with a chain.

[Ping]

I for one am looking forward to riding around in the desert whacking people with a chain.
Ooh! Can I be in your gang? :smt038

[Leopard_lily]

^^^^^^ tut tut tut - you couple of sado masochists

[northwind]

Ooh! Can I be in your gang? :smt038
Oh yeah! I'm the leader, I'm the leader...

[Leopard_lily]

Oh yeah! I'm the leader, I'm the leader...

Have you ever lived in Thailand????

[Bear]

Load of balls -people are allowed to protest quite rightly so -but the organised groups who always turn this into an excuse to smash up other peoples property then claim its for the sake of sending out a message to governments totally wrong-they should be dealt with accordingly.

As someone who believes passionately about the individuals right to protest and as someone who has friends who have been involved in the groups organising some of the protests in the past I can say that the idea that the troublemakers are organised is the only load of balls here. What generally happens is you get a load of people protesting peacefully and a couple of people who believe the only way to affect change is through violence. The idea that there's a shadowy group organising things is, in my experience pure media hype and police supposition. In fact, at many of the protests I've been to I've talked people out of violent protest. At others I've been baton charged by a line of police for seemingly no reason.

The containment of large groups of people without provision of food, water and toilet facilities is a favorite tactic of the police since the May Day protests of the late nineties, because then when people start to try to break the police lines or start going to the toilet in the street there's a reason to start arresting people. It also discourages those who protest from turning up again.

Also: this "fact" that keeps getting touted that most if not all of the protesters are middle class kids or the sons of lords and politicians-firstly where do these figures come from? Most of the protesters and organisers I know come from a massively diverse background, many of them are people who work damn hard for little pay in the health service, charities and volunteering in community projects, and feel that protesting is a natural continuation of the fact that they are trying to change the world for the better. (I am by no means saying that all protesters are like this, but theres a significant number who are) Secondly, why would it matter WHO their fathers are? We all have a right to protest and a right to our own opinions. Many of my family are racist, this doesn't mean that I have to be, or that I have any less right to protest against racism than anyone else.

Sorry for the rant.

[husky03]

got to disagree with you there bear-its not a load of balls -been to faslane many a time when SOME organised groups have turned up with equipment ready to cause as much mayhem as possible-not all but some-same when it was held up in Scotland-same faces causing the same disorder, organised down to the smallest detail-i've seen it with my own eyes.

[Spiderman]

It's not that simply though Soulkiss, it's a tactic that the police do use to, basically, raise and control tension. Example, at the criminal justice act demos in hyde park they sealed all exits, closed off the entire demo inside the park with no food available, no water, no facilities. They then arrested people for trying to break out through the police lines (breach of the peace, assaulting police officers) after cleverly creating the situation where people had little choice but to try and break out. There were something like 200 arrests for public indecency- public urination- because the toilets in the park were sealed and nobody could get out. End result? On the news that night "Scuffles at demo in hyde park! 200 arrests!" Standard tactic really. If you bottle up a demo and restrict their right to march peacefully, they get annoyed and they're more likely to become aggressive or violent, then you get to treat them like an aggressive crowd.


Without saying too much here...i was there and its exactly as Northy says it was.
It was a really fun crowd (bear in mind a lot o the law was aimed at "ravers" of every type) so there were people carrying speakers up into the trees and sound systems being set up.
Everyone was dancing and making the point that music and dance dont make us criminals, yet look how the police decided to act.

At one stage when we were all wondering how best to get out the park a random bloke screamed "LETS STORM OXFORD STREET!!" Alway one isnt there? thankfully the rest of us around him told him in no uncertain terms to STFU and get the hell away from the rest of us cos were not here for that nonsense.

Point is that all of you who've never been on a demo and witnessed these kind of antagonistic tactics from the police will never understand no matter what i say.

We must keep demonstarting over what we believe in and make our voices heard to the establishmnt that doesnt give a damn about us. Sure there be the odd idiot who wants to smash something for no good reason but they definately are the minority. Until of course the riot police charge the coralled crowd who have nowhere to go and what are people going to do in that situation but fight back?

The easiest way to invalidtae the point of a demo is to criminalise it and sadly its a card the establishment love to play.

[Spiderman]

Was gonna start a new thread but thought i'd put it in here again.

I'm shocked but not at all suprised by the recent footage that has come to light showing some a-hole of a cop attacking a man who had his hands in his pockets and his back to the cops.
This poor man went on to have a heart attack a few metres away.
And the police denied all knowledge of the incident or any involvment....until the video came out :roll:

They couldn't "manage" the flm of their bad behaviour here like they did with the film from the tube of them murdering an innocent man. I'm sure they wish they could have confiscated all the cameras at the protest and will probaly call for another law to ban cameras from all protests. They called for a law to make it illegal to film a police officer but why i wonder. After all they champoin the fascist attitude of "if you got nothing to hide you got nothing to fear"

Goes to show my point about how the police seem to needlessy behave in an agressive and provacative manner towards ANYONE they deem to be "one of them". Them being a person going about his lawful business wether walking home from work, filming as a journo or attending a lawful protest.

[yorkie_chris]

After all they champoin the fascist attitude of "if you got nothing to hide you got nothing to fear"

But of course those extremist terrorists are so much of a threat that people need protecting from themselves...

Great. A left wing government taking away personal freedoms. How ya doin comrades. Where did I put my fluffy hat...

[plowsie]

Is there any proof that the guy didn't say anything? Did they actually cause him to die? The only footage I have seen is the bloke been knocked to the deck and them walking off...

[northwind]

Is there any proof that the guy didn't say anything?

Should there be? What could he have said that would justify it?

I thought Soulkiss made a really good point, the copper wasn't at all interested in arresting him, he was interested only in whacking him. That's not policing- if he'd broken a law, arrest him, otherwise they've got no business with him.

[plowsie]

Yeah fair point, it was just a question though.

[shonadoll]

Is there any proof that the guy didn't say anything? Did they actually cause him to die? The only footage I have seen is the bloke been knocked to the deck and them walking off...

So if he said something, it was HIS fault? :confused: Jesus, can't believe you have seen the footage and think that.

[plowsie]

So if he said something, it was HIS fault? :confused: Jesus, can't believe you have seen the footage and think that.
Yes, that is exactly what I said isn't it.

Two seperate f*ckin questions. JESUS! Get a grip.

EDIT: and, just to clarify for you, in case you are struggling to understand, I asked the question purely out of interest, wondering whether it was provoked at all, at what point did I state the attack woulda been justified? Erm never.

[yorkie_chris]

Is there any proof that the guy didn't say anything?

Hehe, I'm not going to get my handbag out... seems you and shonadoll are already pointing them at each other.

However I find it interesting that you ask if there is proof that he DIDN'T say anything.

Reflects the state of the modern justice system that in many cases guilt is presumed and the onus is on the accused to prove their innocence rather than the prosecutor to prove guilt, as is right and proper, and our legal right!

[plowsie]

Did or didn't - meh.

Dunno why I picked didn't. Just did.

Edit: think I prob used it because he is deemed as totally innocent in all this, maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. I couldn't give, it was just a question. Some people like to jump on the bandwagon straight away though.

[Kalessin]

Should there be? What could he have said that would justify it?

Police: Sir, please move out of the way, we need to keep this area clear.

Man: F*** you pig, it's a f***ing free country, I can walk where I want.

Police: (Physically pushes the man out of the way)

Obviously I made it up, but all we've seen is the infamous clip taken out of context. None of us was there and can't judge the actions of any of the individuals involved.

But who cares about that? We live in a society where we have been conditioned to see brief clips of video or front-page photographs with a narrative in a high moral tone and accept what we see. All our thinking is being done for us by the media, who know that a tragedy can make the front page but whip up some public outrage and you can milk it over several issues.

[gettin2dizzy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7999277.stm

Ouch!

[Kalessin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7999277.stm

Ouch!

And that's what I'm talking about. The BBC reporter's voice-over says, "This is the moment when an unnamed sergeant from the Metropolitan Police Territorial Support Group confronts a woman demonstrator at the G20 protests.

First, he slaps her... then, as she continues remonstrating with him, he reaches for his baton, hitting her across the legs and knocking her to the ground."

"First, he slaps her". Not true. The BBC video clearly shows the woman coming up behind the sergeant while he's facing a mob of protesters, and he pushes her away. The reporter ignores this though, preferring to make it sound as though the sergeant just strikes her out of the blue.

So sick of being lied to.

[SoulKiss]

And that's what I'm talking about. The BBC reporter's voice-over says, "This is the moment when an unnamed sergeant from the Metropolitan Police Territorial Support Group confronts a woman demonstrator at the G20 protests.

First, he slaps her... then, as she continues remonstrating with him, he reaches for his baton, hitting her across the legs and knocking her to the ground."

"First, he slaps her". Not true. The BBC video clearly shows the woman coming up behind the sergeant while he's facing a mob of protesters, and he pushes her away. The reporter ignores this though, preferring to make it sound as though the sergeant just strikes her out of the blue.

So sick of being lied to.

So with the context of him having first pushed her away established, the bitch-slap and baton wielding are now acceptable?

Right..............

[Kalessin]

So with the context of him having first pushed her away established, the bitch-slap and baton wielding are now acceptable?

No, not at all. Who said that?

[plowsie]

So with the context of him having first pushed her away established, the bitch-slap and baton wielding are now acceptable?

Right..............
Why oh why use that word mate?

In Kalessin's post, where has he said it is?

[SoulKiss]

Why oh why use that word mate?

In Kalessin's post, where has he said it is?

I was pointing out that even with the push information omitted, the story is unchanged, so its largely irrelevant so leaving it out is fine.

I fail to see where its a lie was my point.

[plowsie]

I was pointing out that even with the push information omitted, the story is unchanged, so its largely irrelevant so leaving it out is fine.

I fail to see where its a lie was my point.
But it is f*cking typical of the press these days...

Blowing **** out of proportion, a slap is a strike, a push is a push...Right?

[SoulKiss]

But it is f*cking typical of the press these days...

Blowing **** out of proportion, a slap is a strike, a push is a push...Right?

Dont understand your last Plowsie me old mucker :)

The sequence was

Push

Bitch-Slap

Baton the legs out from under her.

Nothing out of proportion there from the press other than you could argue that with the push she had had her warning and the rest was justified - well you could if you were some kind of scum in a uniform, "only doing my job and acting in proportion to the threat to me and me mate, weren't I, I mean she had some nasty looking leaflets on her, so drawing a weapon was perfectly ok."

All I can say is that its a good thing we dont routinely issue guns to all officers........

[plowsie]

Dont understand your last Plowsie me old mucker :)

The sequence was

Push

Bitch-Slap

Baton the legs out from under her.

Nothing out of proportion there from the press other than you could argue that with the push she had had her warning and the rest was justified - well you could if you were some kind of scum in a uniform, "only doing my job and acting in proportion to the threat to me and me mate, weren't I, I mean she had some nasty looking leaflets on her, so drawing a weapon was perfectly ok."

All I can say is that its a good thing we dont routinely issue guns to all officers........
Right, just watched some more footage, the alleged slap, looks more like a "go away" gesture, as well as him shouting go away. I swallow my opinion and say hands down that it appears that he struck her...but, in a vicious meaningful manner, I don't thinks so, more of an accident, however, the batton, no excuse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7998976.stm

The Ian Tomlinson thing is in there too...I reserve my judgement for that one until I find something better (footage wise).

[SoulKiss]

Right, just watched some more footage, the alleged slap, looks more like a "go away" gesture, as well as him shouting go away. I swallow my opinion and say hands down that it appears that he struck her...but, in a vicious meaningful manner, I don't thinks so, more of an accident, however, the batton, no excuse.


Total locks of the Ball kind - see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj9TeRQsKr0

She appears to be giving it major league verbal abuse to the cop - at least I think its her you can hear calling him a pig and commenting on him pushing a woman, then a VERY casual backhander to her - he was far too close for any kind of gesture to not make contact.

Watch the rest of the clip I posted to see just how casually the cops struck out and knocked people to the ground.

Every time a cop hits someone there should be an arrest of the person struck as the only reason the Police, trained and armoured as they are, have to physically hit someone is if they have already broken a law.

[plowsie]

Total locks of the Ball kind - see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj9TeRQsKr0

She appears to be giving it major league verbal abuse to the cop - at least I think its her you can hear calling him a pig and commenting on him pushing a woman, then a VERY casual backhander to her - he was far too close for any kind of gesture to not make contact.

Watch the rest of the clip I posted to see just how casually the cops struck out and knocked people to the ground.

Every time a cop hits someone there should be an arrest of the person struck as the only reason the Police, trained and armoured as they are, have to physically hit someone is if they have already broken a law.
Fair enough

I tell you what I'd do, stage this whole thing again, see how much of a sh1thole the place quickly become if the Police we're not involved. I wouldn't expect to come to work and be called a c##t and a pig by a stockbroker...Okay so maybe as a copper it comes as part of the job, IMO it shouldn't.

Yes there were some hasty, stupid, aggressive maneuvers (sp) by the Police, but, who knows what may have happened, oh look, remember the RBS bank smash up, that's what. And, I think to be part of such a big force stopping so many people from causing general trouble, shouting abuse at you, I couldn't hold my tether either, I'd snap, some of the more experienced that did not rise to it, I take my hat off.

[Kalessin]

I was pointing out that even with the push information omitted, the story is unchanged, so its largely irrelevant so leaving it out is fine.

I fail to see where its a lie was my point.

But it's not their business to leave key bits out. We deserve a more accurate standard of reporting – especially from the BBC, who don't have to sell advertising space. If the sergeant pushed her first, I expect to be told that's what happened. If he had previously kicked her in the leg as he walked past, I expect to be told that, too. I don't want my news dumbed down, or a summary presented as an accurate retelling of events.

Compare the treatment above with the dispassionate account of events in this story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7994971.stm). What, no soundbites from MPs?

Why aren't the press devoting more time to condemning the actions of the violent mob in this YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cXqYN7IqQc)?

Well, the Police are expected to get hurt. It's what they're paid for, right? But when a woman repeatedly accosts a police officer during a riot, and he reacts -- or overreacts, depending on what the facts turn out to be -- there's an awful lot of spin, hype and sensationalising.

Every time a cop hits someone there should be an arrest of the person struck as the only reason the Police, trained and armoured as they are, have to physically hit someone is if they have already broken a law.

You think that's practical? Given the ratio of protesters to police officers, I wonder how long it would be before there was a big crowd of demonstrators and no police officers because they're all processing arrested suspects.

[SoulKiss]

Fair enough

I tell you what I'd do, stage this whole thing again, see how much of a sh1thole the place quickly become if the Police we're not involved. I wouldn't expect to come to work and be called a c##t and a pig by a stockbroker...Okay so maybe as a copper it comes as part of the job, IMO it shouldn't.

Yes there were some hasty, stupid, aggressive maneuvers (sp) by the Police, but, who knows what may have happened, oh look, remember the RBS bank smash up, that's what. And, I think to be part of such a big force stopping so many people from causing general trouble, shouting abuse at you, I couldn't hold my tether either, I'd snap, some of the more experienced that did not rise to it, I take my hat off.

You said it, part of the job, not a nice bit, but part and parcel of what they all signed up for.

The Police are there to deal with the Scum of the earth, but should be above acting like them.

In both of the high-profile cases, this and Ian Tomlinson, Officers who viewed the baton use should have arrested their colleague on the spot.

Maybe I have a different view on what the Police force should be and what they should do.

As for your last comment - thats why I am glad you are not a cop :)

[Kalessin]

Total locks of the Ball kind - see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj9TeRQsKr0

She appears to be giving it major league verbal abuse to the cop - at least I think its her you can hear calling him a pig and commenting on him pushing a woman, then a VERY casual backhander to her - he was far too close for any kind of gesture to not make contact.

So, it might have been an accident?

She had a point though. Only male offenders should be physically restrained. Women should just be asked nicely. Yeah, that'll work... I wonder if she appreciated the irony of her statement?

[plowsie]

As for your last comment - thats why I am glad you are not a cop :)
The way things are at the moment, so am I.

[Sosha]

Looked pretty much like it was started by the bloke who wanted to leave so he could find a toilet.

:rolleyes:

If he hadn't been going " but it's just me - I need to take a dump" repeatedly he wouldn't have got shoved. Then the harpie wouldn't have started up. Then she wouldn't have got decked. then the crowd wouldn't have got P*ssed.

Only way round this is court. Unlawful detention/ Human rights etc after the event.

Doesn't help those caught short though.

[Ping]

Looked pretty much like it was started by the bloke who wanted to leave so he could find a toilet.

:rolleyes:

If he hadn't been going " but it's just me - I need to take a dump" repeatedly he wouldn't have got shoved. Then the harpie wouldn't have started up. Then she wouldn't have got decked. then the crowd wouldn't have got P*ssed.

Only way round this is court. Unlawful detention/ Human rights etc after the event.

Doesn't help those caught short though.

S'pose he could've yanked his troos down and squatted right there, but then he'd have been arrested... at least the cells have bogs I guess. People's bowels don't work in conjunction with police rules, unfortunately.

[gettin2dizzy]

Makes....me.....sick.


But this works for the government nicely. People forget about police brutality, so this is a perfect whitewash to cover the fact that the British people demonstrated that their government were incompetent, and we have had enough. I just think I'm more terrified of DC.

[Lozzo]

So with the context of him having first pushed her away established, the bitch-slap and baton wielding are now acceptable?

Right..............

I actually do think they are acceptable. That woman refused to take a direct order from a member of the police. She was told to 'go away' in no uncertain terms and knew that she was antagonising the situation by repeating her attempts to approach the copper.

She should count herself lucky that she only got a slap and a baton to the legs. I thnk I might have punched her lights out.

[northwind]

S'pose he could've yanked his troos down and squatted right there, but then he'd have been arrested... at least the cells have bogs I guess. People's bowels don't work in conjunction with police rules, unfortunately.

Well, that's one of the central ideas of kettling isn't it, you drive protestors into doing something they wouldn't have done otherwise, then arrest them for it ;) Though funnily enough, in this case exactly the opposite happened- they tried to stir up the mob, then reacted themselves. Oops.

Oh, nobody's mentioned that the officer in question has hidden his numbers. I'll mention it then :smt025

[Sally]

Whos trying to say this protest was 'peaceful' obviously is watching this video without the sound.

Think how you would react in that situation, you can't pass judgement until you have actually been in that exact same situation.

[northwind]

But you have to remember, again, that it's a crowd that's been kettled- they're not just protesting, they're being kept there against their will and refused the right to leave (as demonstrated about 30 seconds before the attack, by the guy who wants to take a crap). What would you do? Everyone says "Oh, the police get so much provocation" and it's true, but the exact same goes for the protestors.

And yes, you absolutely CAN pass judgement, the man has a job to do and he's not doing it. The other cops around him manage to do it- they're in the exact same situation as him. In fact there's some really first class policing shown in that video, in the full version.

[yorkie_chris]

But you have to remember, again, that it's a crowd that's been kettled- they're not just protesting, they're being kept there against their will and refused the right to leave (as demonstrated about 30 seconds before the attack, by the guy who wants to take a crap). What would you do? Everyone says "Oh, the police get so much provocation" and it's true, but the exact same goes for the protestors.

Lozzo is obviously far too clever to ever be there, and presumably, far too intelligent to need to $hit.

[simesb]

And yes, you absolutely CAN pass judgement, the man has a job to do and he's not doing it. The other cops around him manage to do it- they're in the exact same situation as him. In fact there's some really first class policing shown in that video, in the full version.

Absolutely; some people seem to forget that the whole justice system is based upon people who weren't present passing judgement on somebody else, based on evidence presented.

[Dave20046]

Whos trying to say this protest was 'peaceful' obviously is watching this video without the sound.

Think how you would react in that situation, you can't pass judgement until you have actually been in that exact same situation.



I understood the police to be acting unlawfully which put the protesters in that position but I spoke to another forummer earlier who's fellas a cop and she said it is legal so not sure what I think of it.
It's worth putting the video of this ruckus in context of what's going on around them.

If you watch the video on YouTube from the start, you'll see that everyone is standing around peacefully exercising their right to protest. The police have been instructed to form a line and prevent anyone passing. They will keep this up from lunchtime to evening - "you can have your protest but you cannot have access to food, water or toilets; you cannot leave for any reason whatsoever; anyone arriving will be intimidated into leaving".

Later in the day they will start letting people leave one by one - each must provide their full address (the law only allows the police to ask for names, but they threaten to arrest anyone who does not provide their address and DOB) and be photographed.

They are then entered on a police database of protesters (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/06/police-surveillance-protesters-journalists-climate-kingsnorth) which, until recently, the police denied even existed (liars).

These tactics are the source of much controversy. Here Tom Brake MP describes his 5 hours being detained by the police (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6062541.ece) in this way:
It is not surprising that under such conditions an otherwise overwhelmingly relaxed and peaceful crowd can become agitated, then angry, and then violent. The tactic proved misguided and counter-productive. It served to alienate a whole mass of peaceful protesters.

My team and I escorted one protester with a broken arm to a police cordon. Not even his friend was allowed to accompany the injured man as he left the kettle. Journalistic freedom of speech was curtailed too — I filmed a journalist flanked by police, prevented from leaving despite legitimate credentials and contact information for the police to use.

Like the many wholly innocent prisoners around me, I resigned myself to being trapped for the long haul. I had five hours inside the kettle as pressure built to think about how things could have been handled; but also to question when our hard-fought liberties were lost, when containment became not about containing the mood of the crowd, but about physically penning them in. So in the video you can see the police starting this tactic - they prevent anyone passing them towards the camera, but allow people inwards. You see people patiently explaining why they want to pass. When they get frustrated they get shoved back.

The woman appears to be questioning this (I'm assuming from her pointing) - and rightly so!

After being slapped she says "You hit a woman!". She is mainly upset about being slapped and presents no danger to anyone. This is enough to get her assaulted with a baton.

She most certainly does not "deserve" such an assault.

I'm undecided about the baton thing but the slap seemed a bit sly and malicious so I'm guessing his actions with the baton were probably influenced by the earlier encounter.

She was being an árse and like daimo said earlier you do know the type but to see such a big bloke (in a position of 'trust'?) hit a woman so unnecessarily quite shocked me. it's argued that she could have been a threat to him and was acting aggressively but I think in reality everyone knows all she was going to do was moan at him about being kettle and then as she looked away to point (so seemingly not expecting any violent conduct) he smacked her with the baton. Granted the officer was in a horrible postion but I still think what he did was shameful.

[Lozzo]

Lozzo is obviously far too clever to ever be there, and presumably, far too intelligent to need to $hit.

Correct on the first, incorrect on the second.

I don't agree with mass protest, I think it's a waste of time and inevitably leads to violent situations. The government won't be swayed by it, so why bother, unless you're going looking for trouble.

[Dave20046]

I don't agree with mass protest, I think it's a waste of time and inevitably leads to violent situations. The government won't be swayed by it, so why bother
Agree

[Lozzo]

Agree

Nice to see you snipped the last part of my statement, the bit that defines why some people attend mass protests

[simesb]

I don't agree with mass protest, I think it's a waste of time and inevitably leads to violent situations. The government won't be swayed by it, so why bother, unless you're going looking for trouble.

Lucky we've still got the Corn Laws, Women's Suffrage, and the Poll Tax then. Mostly repealed after heavy-handed state tactics - Peterloo anybody?

[yorkie_chris]

Correct on the first, incorrect on the second.

I don't agree with mass protest, I think it's a waste of time and inevitably leads to violent situations. The government won't be swayed by it, so why bother, unless you're going looking for trouble.

I agree, the current incumbents would not listen to the general public if they were hit by one fired from a cannon at them.

I don't agree that violence is inevitable. There was a bikers protest recently that did not result in violence. There was another march the same day as the one in question which did not result in any incident.

But, it is surely the right of people to assemble in a public place without being hemmed in by police for hours and subjected to intimidation like we have evidence of here.

[Lozzo]

Lucky we've still got the Corn Laws, Women's Suffrage, and the Poll Tax then.

You're trying to tell me that the Poll Tax riots were peaceful protests... get real. The Govt should have set the army onto the scum that attended those

[Dave20046]

Nice to see you snipped the last part of my statement, the bit that defines why some people attend mass protests
I agreed with the rest, don't entirely agree with the last bit I bet a lot do though.

[Lozzo]

But, it is surely the right of people to assemble in a public place without being hemmed in by police for hours and subjected to intimidation like we have evidence of here.

There were probably quite valid reasons why the Police kettled the protesters, but those reasons will always be overlooked because one stupid woman got batoned for being a pain in the ar5e.

[MiniMatt]

You're trying to tell me that the Poll Tax riots were peaceful protests... get real. The Govt should have set the army onto the scum that attended those

That'd be me.

[davepreston]

he he he ive been on both sides of a riot and standoff
the scary thing is both sides are acting legally to start then both end up carrying out illegal actions (to the letter ov the law) why because our justice system is contradictory at best and someone always loses there rag :)

[simesb]

I don't agree with mass protest, I think it's a waste of time and inevitably leads to violent situations. The government won't be swayed by it, so why bother, unless you're going looking for trouble.

Lucky we've still got the Corn Laws, Women's Suffrage, and the Poll Tax then. Mostly repealed after heavy-handed state tactics - Peterloo anybody?

You're trying to tell me that the Poll Tax riots were peaceful protests... get real. The Govt should have set the army onto the scum that attended those

The point is the mass protest can work - but often only after the state overdoes it. Yes, protest should be peaceful but sometimes I am doubtful who starts the trouble - six of one most times I suspect.