G20 protests

[Gaz6002]

it is odd that people are so angry but don't have any unity of purpose or cause.

 

what are they actually protesting about? some for environment, some for jobs, some anti-bank, some anti-government.

 

recalling my old history classes - campaigns with broad agenda don't work - eg. see the chartist movement. there needs to be a focus otherwise there is no voice heard other than rambling posh kids (see brian ferry offspring) or old hippies that the media focus on.

 

in short there won't be a revolution as everyone is still relatively comfortable - compared to the real poor people of the world which we are not.

 

I want to pick up on this point. I don't think there is a lack of direction with the protests. I think the media is portraying it like that to make the protests seem trivial and provoke reactions such as in this thread. I call 'damage limitation' on the agenda.

[Paul]

They're the 'anarchists' Not all of the protesters were wearing balaclavas and holding weapons... but lets not bother about them, lets concentrate on the minority and tar the rest with the same brush eh? like the Muslims debates?

 

 

Here we go, the 'R' card gets played yet again You're priceless mate

[Mike]

Here we go, the 'R' card gets played yet again You're priceless mate

 

When did I play the 'race' card?

[supra_aero]

Just walked through Bank. Saddening. Bank of England tattooed with gravity'd as with many other heritage buildings. No respect for this country and it's heritage.

 

Mind you protesters seemed quite peaceful today - nothing like last night.

[Kranz]

So someone died...

 

Nice Police work.

 

And it was Police medics that fought through the crowd amongst a barrage of bottles and other missiles to reach him and begin recussitation while under the protection of shields! They risked their safety for him.

 

If they had managed to recuscitate him would you be posting 'Police saved a man's life'???

 

I think not.

 

I'll await the post mortem to find out why he died, read the IPCC report and find out some facts before jumping to conclusions.

[Mike]

I'll await the post mortem to find out why he died, read the IPCC report and find out some facts before jumping to conclusions.

 

Actually I said this;

 

I wouldn't necessarily say they directly caused the guy to keel over.

 

Do you think they handled the situation well? I know it's a tough job but is this not a day at the office for most coppers who work big football games and events? dealing with large groups of unruly people?

[marbleapple]

And it was Police medics that fought through the crowd amongst a barrage of bottles and other missiles to reach him and begin recussitation while under the protection of shields! They risked their safety for him.

 

If they had managed to recuscitate him would you be posting 'Police saved a man's life'???

 

I think not.

 

I'll await the post mortem to find out why he died, read the IPCC report and find out some facts before jumping to conclusions.

 

Well said.

 

The bloke didn't have to be there....the Police have to be but certainly don't want to be.

 

My dad was a Police inspector until he retired last year and did a stint training riot police and was involved in a number of riots over the years (miners strikes, Bradford race riots, etc).... He always told me stories of how the majority of protestors were peaceful and how certain minorities came to cause fights...

 

He also told me of how protestors tried to make the police look bad... the famous case of the policeman on a horse with a truncheon hitting a woman (which had been airbrushed and was actually a police horseman dragging an injured woman out of the fray - It was later found).... the protestors at the G20 tried similar tactics I believe with the police pulling over that armoured car full of protestors dressed as policemen.

 

Most of the police (correct me if I am wrong) are just standard bobbies... there isnt some super riot ninja force number ing 1000's which the Police wheel out for riots.

[Kranz]

Actually I said this;

 

Do you think they handled the situation well? I know it's a tough job but is this not a day at the office for most coppers who work big football games and events? dealing with large groups of unruly people?

 

Yes, they made a good job of a bad situation.

 

Its obvious that certain factions had pre-planned the violence and were attempting to hi-jack the peaceful protests by the majority.

 

In containing the trouble hot-spots the violence was restricted and dealt with much better than allowing large scale rampaging.

 

How would you have done it better with the same resources?

[supraspeed]

hopefully this maybe the turning point for the govenment to take note of peoples opinions. not the best way to do it but in this age of corruption and greed it may be the wake up call they need. it took me just over 3 hours to get from southwark to watford today!!! seems like a stupid idea to shut off loads of main roads for vip car escorts and bring london to a standstill. i agree protesters may have caused some closures but we kept getting stopped for vip escorts and it was such a piss take.

[Tannhauser]

I know where you're coming from, and agreed his tactics can be a little on the oppressive side but in the end he has made some of the most widely publicised features on the subject, so he's a good place to start. I would however encourage everyone to do their own research and make their own conclusions, rather than based on other people.

 

I took your advice and did my own research .

 

My alarm bells started ringing initially because he's anti-climate change. Not directly because of that, but because, in the USA, that belief often goes together with dyed-in-the-wool GOP supporters. They oppose climate change science because they - often - see it as a move to restrict American power or some sort of socialist plot etc, etc.

 

Anyway, I was wrong about that, because he seems kind of critical of many central planks of GOP policy. I can live with that.

 

Then I found out he was producer of 'Loose Change'. BONNNG. So he's a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and all that implies. He thinks flight 93 was shot down etc, etc. For me, that alone destroys any credibility he might have.

 

Also, he thinks that the goings on at the Bohemian Grove club, for the rich and famous, were some sort of satanic ritual. Now that's David Icke territory.

 

 

Those two facts assure me that he's going to have a somewhat scattergun approach to reporting - that is, he may hit a target occasionally, but there is going to be an awful lot of nonsense incorporated with it in a way that's hard to disentangle.

 

There are serious academics who study - and criticise - stuff like globalisation, 'new world orders' and so on, without the sprinkling of pixie dust on the top. They're not necessarily charismatic speakers like Jones, but I'd bet they are a million times more accurate.

 

My favourites would be:

 

Noam Chomsky (e.g. Hegemony or Survival, Deterring Democracy)

Eric Hobsbaum (sp?)

Chalmers Johnson

[DODGYDODDS]

I took your advice and did my own research .

 

My alarm bells started ringing initially because he's anti-climate change. Not directly because of that, but because, in the USA, that belief often goes together with dyed-in-the-wool GOP supporters. They oppose climate change science because they - often - see it as a move to restrict American power or some sort of socialist plot etc, etc.

 

Anyway, I was wrong about that, because he seems kind of critical of many central planks of GOP policy. I can live with that.

 

Then I found out he was producer of 'Loose Change'. BONNNG. So he's a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and all that implies. He thinks flight 93 was shot down etc, etc. For me, that alone destroys any credibility he might have.

 

Also, he thinks that the goings on at the Bohemian Grove club, for the rich and famous, were some sort of satanic ritual. Now that's David Icke territory.

 

 

Those two facts assure me that he's going to have a somewhat scattergun approach to reporting - that is, he may hit a target occasionally, but there is going to be an awful lot of nonsense incorporated with it in a way that's hard to disentangle.

 

There are serious academics who study - and criticise - stuff like globalisation, 'new world orders' and so on, without the sprinkling of pixie dust on the top. They're not necessarily charismatic speakers like Jones, but I'd bet they are a million times more accurate.

 

My favourites would be:

 

Noam Chomsky (e.g. Hegemony or Survival, Deterring Democracy)

Eric Hobsbaum (sp?)

Chalmers Johnson

 

 

Tan bud, are you a dis info agent

 

would you say mock human sacrifice's are normal things to be doing in this day? As videod in the bohemian club, surley it is a bit strange to worship a 40ft owl called mollech. All quite ritualistic.

 

Agree with you on flight 93, not to much to say wether it was or wasnt, but a building falling at free fall speed is not a structual collapse, as surley it would have pockets of resistance. and it happened in n and s towers. and also wtc 7. never before has a steel framed building fell, that day three did. at free fall speed so that does go against the nist report

 

surley you can side with an anomoly there

 

ps noam chomsky, great researcher

[Gaz6002]

I think there are some very interesting points about the 9/11 thing, but with me it's in the same bracket as the moon landing things. I'm determined to remain as objective as I can about all this, but feel the bigger picture is something people in general are not exposed to as much as is right.

[DODGYDODDS]

I think there are some very interesting points about the 9/11 thing, but with me it's in the same bracket as the moon landing things. I'm determined to remain as objective as I can about all this, but feel the bigger picture is something people in general are not exposed to as much as is right.

 

i gotta say, i dont beleive alot of the claims, like flight 93, the missile theory, as there is absence of evidence, but to be fair absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

there are alot of things that dont sit right with the official version of events, so there definately needs to be another investigation, to clarify all the many grey areas

[marbleapple]

I think there are some very interesting points about the 9/11 thing, but with me it's in the same bracket as the moon landing things. I'm determined to remain as objective as I can about all this, but feel the bigger picture is something people in general are not exposed to as much as is right.

 

If it was the UK all we would need to do is wait for 25 (or is it 50) years for the government to have to make the documents on the subject available to the press. I wonder if the US have a similar law.... if they do them we might know the truth in our life times (if we dont already know)

[Animal]

I took your advice and did my own research .

 

SNIP

 

Ah, it's THAT guy. I thought it was, but I've limited internet access at work, so couldn't check.

 

I tried to watch some of Alex Jones' 'documentaries' ages ago and found them to be badly produced, badly presented hysterical rantings. Very difficult to watch, let alone watch and take seriously. I think you are right in what you say - he may very well have some valid points, but for me, I couldn't be arsed wading through the hours of tripe akin to a visual representation of The Sun, so they got deleted.

 

I'll go and have a look for the guys you recommended this weekend.

[Tannhauser]

I tried to watch some of Alex Jones' 'documentaries' ages ago and found them to be badly produced, badly presented hysterical rantings.

 

I'm always harping on about the mainstream media and how crap they are. Then I look at the alternatives and some of them are a thousand times worse.

 

I guess I ought to brave his videos, because he's making such a big splash with 'The Obama Deception' amongst a disgruntled US public. But looking at some of his beliefs, I now think he's completely bonkers, so it doesn't seem worth it.

[Animal]

I haven't watched the Obama one, but like I said, the others I saw were just laughable.

[DODGYDODDS]

Ah, it's THAT guy. I thought it was, but I've limited internet access at work, so couldn't check.

 

I tried to watch some of Alex Jones' 'documentaries' ages ago and found them to be badly produced, badly presented hysterical rantings. Very difficult to watch, let alone watch and take seriously. I think you are right in what you say - he may very well have some valid points, but for me, I couldn't be arsed wading through the hours of tripe akin to a visual representation of The Sun, so they got deleted.

 

I'll go and have a look for the guys you recommended this weekend.

 

To be fair to him, he has hit the nail on the head so many times, with past predictions. He just goes about putting the info out there all wrong.

 

Alan watt knows his stuff, check it out a cuttingthroughthematrix.com

[Tannhauser]

 

I'll go and have a look for the guys you recommended this weekend.

 

Actually, I've just started The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein - about how major catastrophes and wars are seen as major profit opportunities for corporations and political opportunities for free-marketeers. It's really interesting thus far.

[Paul]

Anyone seen the latest footage on the G20 death?

 

Apparantly the guy was a newspaper seller on his way home, nothing to do with the demos. The footage shows him walking with hands in pockets and then a policeman hits him on the back of the legs and pushes him hard.

The guy has his hands in his pockets so can't break the fall that happens as a result of the push.

 

The footage of him with police surrounding and them trying to help him is minutes later around the corner.

 

Anyone else seen the latest clip? Comments?

[Pete]

Anyone seen the latest footage on the G20 death?

Saw it this AM. on the BBC, footage from guardian.co.uk so you may find the vid there. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/ian-tomlinson-g20-death-video)

Guy walking along hands in pocket, copper whacks him on the leg and then shoves him from behind. Guy just about gets hands out of pockets to break fall - you cannot tell if he hits his head. He gets up and walks off - no real abuse to the officer(!) then collapses up the road.

 

Perhaps no abuse to the officer because he had something on him, see how mad the dogs went?

The chap did nothing at all to warrant that shove though.

 

If word of this got out during the protest it could explain some of the anti police protesting behaviour.

 

It just goes to show some coppers are just tossers out on a power trip (as we know). I hope that guy gets his balls cut off and lose his job. The force really does not need people like him.

 

I suppose he *could* have been seen doing something like lobbing a missile earlier?

[Mike]

I'm sure they were doing a great job

[Paul]

I've seen the pictures since where he has his hands out of his pockets as he's falling but they don't look to be in a position to break the fall.

It's such a fine line with these coppers, they must be as worked up as the demonstrators but need to know the limits of where and when to use force, from that video I think plod crossed the line with that one.

 

Edit: No doubt we'll have yet another fair investigation and outcome by the IPCC

[imi]

I hope that guy gets his balls cut off and lose his job. The force really does not need people like him.

 

Assuming that the police officer is guilty, then I would expect a much serious sentence.

[penguin]

Assuming that the police officer is guilty, then I would expect a much serious sentence.

 

ABH/GBH at the least