The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I wrote this two years ago, but it seems to have some relevance today...
Well, soon the May Day Riots commence in Ye Olde Londone Towne, the dreadful scenes of last year (which included the stomach churning sight of a McDonalds window being broken, as well as the heart rending image of the statue of Winston Churchill with a lump of turf on it's head) will be repeated in earnest. This sort of trouble will undoubtedly reflect badly on the authorities and also on the Anti-Capitalist and Anti-Globalisation organisations who bear the brunt of the blame for these demonstrations.
This all begs the following four questions;
1. Yeah
2. And
3. So
4. What?
Thus far, despite the best efforts of the Daily Mail to whip us up into a frenzy of fear and hatred toward these "unwashed ruffians" the great British public seem utterly underwhelmed by all of this. I'm so very tempted to say that this is because nobody really cares if London gets trashed (most people that I know would probably guiltily admit to a warm glow of satisfaction at the prospect, but then again I do live in the North...), but I suspect it is more because no-one really takes the May Day protesters particularly seriously, nor the prospect of the damage that they will caused.
And does anybody really know what in Gods name they're getting themselves so worked up about? I know that May Day is viewed as a Socialist event showing the solidarity of workers, hence the anti-capitalism. I also know that certain elements of the anti-capitalists view modern capitalism as being no better than medieval feudalism (or at least that's what Jello Biafra said on one of his spoken word albums anyway. I never claimed to be brilliantly informed...).
If I am to believe what I have read in certain reactionary sections of the media then I also know (for a fact) that there are protesters training in right-wing paramilitary camps in America before they jet off back to London (first class mind you; it appears that money should be no object to the successful anarchist). Furthermore, there shall be bombs aplenty as the protesters do their best to spread chaos and destruction amongst the lackeys of the state and the citizens who allow it to happen. The sword-wielding anarchist who shall surely cut fearsome figures shall aid them in this as they advance upon Trafalgar Square to face baton-wielding fascists in the black police uniforms.
There appears to be only one problem with the description of events in the above paragraph; it's palpably a load of badgerbollocks. Why would socialist/anarchist group use the facilities of the Nazi influenced American right? (candour compels me to answer "Same thing that made Germany and USSR become allies in the 30's" but I'll conveniently ignore that if you don't mind) As to the bombs and swords...well, it's a bit of a step up from kicking the windows of a fast food chain in isn't it? And these people are not stupid; they are representing causes such as dropping third world debt (otherwise known as the crazy and radical idea that perhaps it might be nice to allow developing nations to spend some of their money on themselves as opposed to giving it all to Europe and America. How selfish of these countries to want to have a sense of pride and dignity and not feel beholden to the west in the "Yes massah, you jus' keep takin' dat dere money" sort of way that the Mail just wishes it could say outright) and they're not going to do anything so stupid as to detract from that message.
Well, I'm certainly hoping that they won't anyway. I don't necessarily agree with all the protesters causes (lowering traffic congestion in cities, protesting against the food system and supermarket monopolies, a pagan celebration of spring, and various demonstrations on behalf of everything from Asylum seekers to the right to feed the pigeons) but I do agree quite strongly with the principle of peaceful protest for a number of reasons. One is that we have a democratic right to register our dislike of something as long as it is done in a non-violent manner. Two is that it is good that people will actually take it upon themselves to sacrifice their time to make others aware of important issues. Three is that it always winds up the powers that be, and that is of course funny.
I think the third justification is the most important.
Hopefully, the organized demonstrations will pass by without incident (and this is another thing that has been occupying my thoughts; just how does an anarchist group plan a demonstration? Is it some sort of mass spontaneity or telepathy that gets them all to gather in the right place at the right time? Or is the government lying to us and there are no demonstrations planned? Maybe this is all a government sponsored plot to put us in fear of anarchy and riots so that we will accept whatever laws they try to rush through in order to curb our civil liberties further still!! Maybe everything that we saw of last years riot was put together in a TV studio! Maybe I should get a job with a conspiracy theory publication as they would probably lap this rubbish up!). But chances are, they won't.
I think the blame for this is shared equally between the protesters who actually get involved in the violence, and the authorities themselves. After the huge build up to May Day (which rivals any of the hype provided by a Mike Tyson fight) would anybody be surprised if a policeman overreacted to some slight sign of trouble, thus providing a flashpoint? Or if some little yob came to cause trouble because The Sun or The Star said that there would be fighting? I wouldn't, and as large groups of people are arguably the stupidest organism in the world, would anyone care to take up a bet that the trouble will spread? And what are the odds that many newspaper headlines will condemn the protesters and praise the efforts of the authorities to control the troublemakers? It's enough to half-convince someone that some of the slightly deranged sounding conspiracy theories may have more than a grain of truth in them.
Well, soon the May Day Riots commence in Ye Olde Londone Towne, the dreadful scenes of last year (which included the stomach churning sight of a McDonalds window being broken, as well as the heart rending image of the statue of Winston Churchill with a lump of turf on it's head) will be repeated in earnest. This sort of trouble will undoubtedly reflect badly on the authorities and also on the Anti-Capitalist and Anti-Globalisation organisations who bear the brunt of the blame for these demonstrations.
This all begs the following four questions;
1. Yeah
2. And
3. So
4. What?
Thus far, despite the best efforts of the Daily Mail to whip us up into a frenzy of fear and hatred toward these "unwashed ruffians" the great British public seem utterly underwhelmed by all of this. I'm so very tempted to say that this is because nobody really cares if London gets trashed (most people that I know would probably guiltily admit to a warm glow of satisfaction at the prospect, but then again I do live in the North...), but I suspect it is more because no-one really takes the May Day protesters particularly seriously, nor the prospect of the damage that they will caused.
And does anybody really know what in Gods name they're getting themselves so worked up about? I know that May Day is viewed as a Socialist event showing the solidarity of workers, hence the anti-capitalism. I also know that certain elements of the anti-capitalists view modern capitalism as being no better than medieval feudalism (or at least that's what Jello Biafra said on one of his spoken word albums anyway. I never claimed to be brilliantly informed...).
If I am to believe what I have read in certain reactionary sections of the media then I also know (for a fact) that there are protesters training in right-wing paramilitary camps in America before they jet off back to London (first class mind you; it appears that money should be no object to the successful anarchist). Furthermore, there shall be bombs aplenty as the protesters do their best to spread chaos and destruction amongst the lackeys of the state and the citizens who allow it to happen. The sword-wielding anarchist who shall surely cut fearsome figures shall aid them in this as they advance upon Trafalgar Square to face baton-wielding fascists in the black police uniforms.
There appears to be only one problem with the description of events in the above paragraph; it's palpably a load of badgerbollocks. Why would socialist/anarchist group use the facilities of the Nazi influenced American right? (candour compels me to answer "Same thing that made Germany and USSR become allies in the 30's" but I'll conveniently ignore that if you don't mind) As to the bombs and swords...well, it's a bit of a step up from kicking the windows of a fast food chain in isn't it? And these people are not stupid; they are representing causes such as dropping third world debt (otherwise known as the crazy and radical idea that perhaps it might be nice to allow developing nations to spend some of their money on themselves as opposed to giving it all to Europe and America. How selfish of these countries to want to have a sense of pride and dignity and not feel beholden to the west in the "Yes massah, you jus' keep takin' dat dere money" sort of way that the Mail just wishes it could say outright) and they're not going to do anything so stupid as to detract from that message.
Well, I'm certainly hoping that they won't anyway. I don't necessarily agree with all the protesters causes (lowering traffic congestion in cities, protesting against the food system and supermarket monopolies, a pagan celebration of spring, and various demonstrations on behalf of everything from Asylum seekers to the right to feed the pigeons) but I do agree quite strongly with the principle of peaceful protest for a number of reasons. One is that we have a democratic right to register our dislike of something as long as it is done in a non-violent manner. Two is that it is good that people will actually take it upon themselves to sacrifice their time to make others aware of important issues. Three is that it always winds up the powers that be, and that is of course funny.
I think the third justification is the most important.
Hopefully, the organized demonstrations will pass by without incident (and this is another thing that has been occupying my thoughts; just how does an anarchist group plan a demonstration? Is it some sort of mass spontaneity or telepathy that gets them all to gather in the right place at the right time? Or is the government lying to us and there are no demonstrations planned? Maybe this is all a government sponsored plot to put us in fear of anarchy and riots so that we will accept whatever laws they try to rush through in order to curb our civil liberties further still!! Maybe everything that we saw of last years riot was put together in a TV studio! Maybe I should get a job with a conspiracy theory publication as they would probably lap this rubbish up!). But chances are, they won't.
I think the blame for this is shared equally between the protesters who actually get involved in the violence, and the authorities themselves. After the huge build up to May Day (which rivals any of the hype provided by a Mike Tyson fight) would anybody be surprised if a policeman overreacted to some slight sign of trouble, thus providing a flashpoint? Or if some little yob came to cause trouble because The Sun or The Star said that there would be fighting? I wouldn't, and as large groups of people are arguably the stupidest organism in the world, would anyone care to take up a bet that the trouble will spread? And what are the odds that many newspaper headlines will condemn the protesters and praise the efforts of the authorities to control the troublemakers? It's enough to half-convince someone that some of the slightly deranged sounding conspiracy theories may have more than a grain of truth in them.
Page:
the_aoe_slaught wrote:
> Light wrote:
> 1. Yeah
> 2. And
> 3. So
> 4. What?
>
>
> I only see one question... All the others just seem like words that
> have numbers next to them.
---
Yeah, but each of them can be imposed as a one word question.
Yeah?
And?
So?
What?
> Light wrote:
> 1. Yeah
> 2. And
> 3. So
> 4. What?
>
>
> I only see one question... All the others just seem like words that
> have numbers next to them.
---
Yeah, but each of them can be imposed as a one word question.
Yeah?
And?
So?
What?
Star Fury wrote:
> As Goatboy points out, it's people like that that shift attention from
> the real problems that the majority on such marches at least care
> about in some way. Maybe it'd be harsh but I doubt they'd be a great
> loss to the protestors or the country
>
> Other than showing disrespect for a man who - despite his private
> failings - led the country through one of it's darkest times, in part
> to give idiots like those who did that freedom, what did it achieve ?
> Nothing, other than to further blacken the name of the majority of
> protestors.
----
Exactly.
The people that genuinely care about trying to affect change, honestly believe there is a better way and feel that by adding their
signature/vote/presence at an event it might, just might, make a difference - these are protestors.
Those white-dreadlocked, fashionably scruffy morons that just want to smash stuff up are neither wanted, appreciated or valued.
Because they negate any sincerity proposed by marching, we all just get lumped in with these vandals.
To deface Churchill's statue seemed, to me, offensive. Because whatever the state of the world, however effective he was as a man, he united this country during, as Bell says, one of the darkest periods in history.
And as Sheepy says, to destroy a McDonalds in "protest", and then to eat the food and loot the tills is pointless and ironic.
The May Day protests, we all ended up herded into Parliment Square by mounted police and kept there for hours. And we were furious with these pseudo-anarchists - by this time sitting around drinking and laughing into their mobile phones. Genuine protestors, there out of frustration and anger, would no more want these gorillas screwing it up than we would want to go to a football match and start lobbing bottles.
What these morons don't seem to get, if you are anti-something, you are taken a lot more seriously if you are polite (but passionate), have the intelligence to state your case and don't resort to chucking bottles.
Let these fools have their own days of destruction - Battle Royale style.
Before those monkeys turned up and ruined it, there were thousands of people marching, singing and handing out literature to passers-by.
That is what civil protest should be, reasonably demonstrating your opposition to a stance taken.
Not smashing windows and getting drunk.
> As Goatboy points out, it's people like that that shift attention from
> the real problems that the majority on such marches at least care
> about in some way. Maybe it'd be harsh but I doubt they'd be a great
> loss to the protestors or the country
>
> Other than showing disrespect for a man who - despite his private
> failings - led the country through one of it's darkest times, in part
> to give idiots like those who did that freedom, what did it achieve ?
> Nothing, other than to further blacken the name of the majority of
> protestors.
----
Exactly.
The people that genuinely care about trying to affect change, honestly believe there is a better way and feel that by adding their
signature/vote/presence at an event it might, just might, make a difference - these are protestors.
Those white-dreadlocked, fashionably scruffy morons that just want to smash stuff up are neither wanted, appreciated or valued.
Because they negate any sincerity proposed by marching, we all just get lumped in with these vandals.
To deface Churchill's statue seemed, to me, offensive. Because whatever the state of the world, however effective he was as a man, he united this country during, as Bell says, one of the darkest periods in history.
And as Sheepy says, to destroy a McDonalds in "protest", and then to eat the food and loot the tills is pointless and ironic.
The May Day protests, we all ended up herded into Parliment Square by mounted police and kept there for hours. And we were furious with these pseudo-anarchists - by this time sitting around drinking and laughing into their mobile phones. Genuine protestors, there out of frustration and anger, would no more want these gorillas screwing it up than we would want to go to a football match and start lobbing bottles.
What these morons don't seem to get, if you are anti-something, you are taken a lot more seriously if you are polite (but passionate), have the intelligence to state your case and don't resort to chucking bottles.
Let these fools have their own days of destruction - Battle Royale style.
Before those monkeys turned up and ruined it, there were thousands of people marching, singing and handing out literature to passers-by.
That is what civil protest should be, reasonably demonstrating your opposition to a stance taken.
Not smashing windows and getting drunk.
You must be stupid to realise the real May Day protestors are not the ones causing the riots when you get such exmaples of the people who smashed up McDonalds and then proceded to steal and eat all the food.
As Goatboy points out, it's people like that that shift attention from the real problems that the majority on such marches at least care about in some way. Maybe it'd be harsh but I doubt they'd be a great loss to the protestors or the country
Other than showing disrespect for a man who - despite his private failings - led the country through one of it's darkest times, in part to give idiots like those who did that freedom, what did it achieve ? Nothing, other than to further blacken the name of the majority of protestors.
Other than showing disrespect for a man who - despite his private failings - led the country through one of it's darkest times, in part to give idiots like those who did that freedom, what did it achieve ? Nothing, other than to further blacken the name of the majority of protestors.
Star Fury wrote:
> As intolerant as those who defaced the statue in the first place ? I
> oppose senseless vandalism, and in the case of the previous May Day
> violence I fail to see how people trashing/attempting to trash various
> places in London actually makes any difference.
Fair enough, but are you seriously suggesting that we should respond to minor vandalism with deportation?! Please tell me that you're joking.
> As intolerant as those who defaced the statue in the first place ? I
> oppose senseless vandalism, and in the case of the previous May Day
> violence I fail to see how people trashing/attempting to trash various
> places in London actually makes any difference.
Fair enough, but are you seriously suggesting that we should respond to minor vandalism with deportation?! Please tell me that you're joking.
Now I went to that demo - to protest the way in which multinational conglomerates abuse low-paid workforces, especially companies like Nike, Benneton etc that use child-labour sweatshops in Malaysia and China.
The difference is, I went to protest. To make my voice/presence known for a cause that I believe 100% in supporting. There were a lot of people there like myself.
But unfortunately, as always happens, idiots turned up intent on hijacking a peaceful demo and using it for their own aims.
They are pocket-anarchists - not interested in trying to create better conditions for 3rd world workers, but interested only in pointless destruction for the sake of it.
And the police reacted in kind. Now I can't say I blame them entirely. I was on the road from Parliment Square leading to Trafalgar, there was a police line of horses and men blocking the road. Several rows of protestors sitting down and blocking the thoroughfare. Fine, it's what we have the right to do in a demo.
But then these goons turn up, faces wrapped in scarves and started lobbing bottles at the police horses.
Everyone there was furious at these idiots for doing that, and what happened?
The police waded in and started attacking people willy-nilly. I got stomped to the ground and beaten by a couple of riot police, when I was simply standing to one side and trying to remain out of the way. It was bloody frightening, and anyone that says different either wasn't there or enjoys violence.
What angered me was that thanks to a handful of mindless cretins, the ones that defaced the statue etc, what should have been reported as an anti-globalisation demo ended up being reported as a riot. These clowns managed to negate the entire point of that day protesting and rob it of any legitimacy it may have possessed.
90% of the people at that demo were there simply to try and get their views heard, to let these companies know that they are not above the law.
Instead it turned into a police vs idiots punch-up and it lost the point.
Which is why I was so happy when the anti-war protest remained a peaceful one. No morons turning it into a free-for-all.
It was reported as what it was - a legitimate concern for hundreds of thousands of people's beliefs.
I fully support protestors, I believe if you do not agree with something then it is your obligation to do something to show your feelings.
What I do not support is mindless thuggery and wanton destruction. It invalidates the work of those that want serious debate raised from protests and simply serves to blanket all of us that dissent as "trouble makers".
I do not agree with Blair's Gulf War invasion. I do not agree with the way that corporations operate outside of the law at the expense of those too poor to disagree - those that have to survive and therefore work under slave conditions rather than die from starvation.
But I do not agree with smashing up store front, attacking the police and creating mayhem in central London.
It is no way to achieve idealogical goals and makes it all too easy to dismiss these concerns as actions of anarchist trouble makers.
Anyone that goes on a demo/protest has my support.
Anyone that goes to cause trouble and act stupidly has my contempt
The difference is, I went to protest. To make my voice/presence known for a cause that I believe 100% in supporting. There were a lot of people there like myself.
But unfortunately, as always happens, idiots turned up intent on hijacking a peaceful demo and using it for their own aims.
They are pocket-anarchists - not interested in trying to create better conditions for 3rd world workers, but interested only in pointless destruction for the sake of it.
And the police reacted in kind. Now I can't say I blame them entirely. I was on the road from Parliment Square leading to Trafalgar, there was a police line of horses and men blocking the road. Several rows of protestors sitting down and blocking the thoroughfare. Fine, it's what we have the right to do in a demo.
But then these goons turn up, faces wrapped in scarves and started lobbing bottles at the police horses.
Everyone there was furious at these idiots for doing that, and what happened?
The police waded in and started attacking people willy-nilly. I got stomped to the ground and beaten by a couple of riot police, when I was simply standing to one side and trying to remain out of the way. It was bloody frightening, and anyone that says different either wasn't there or enjoys violence.
What angered me was that thanks to a handful of mindless cretins, the ones that defaced the statue etc, what should have been reported as an anti-globalisation demo ended up being reported as a riot. These clowns managed to negate the entire point of that day protesting and rob it of any legitimacy it may have possessed.
90% of the people at that demo were there simply to try and get their views heard, to let these companies know that they are not above the law.
Instead it turned into a police vs idiots punch-up and it lost the point.
Which is why I was so happy when the anti-war protest remained a peaceful one. No morons turning it into a free-for-all.
It was reported as what it was - a legitimate concern for hundreds of thousands of people's beliefs.
I fully support protestors, I believe if you do not agree with something then it is your obligation to do something to show your feelings.
What I do not support is mindless thuggery and wanton destruction. It invalidates the work of those that want serious debate raised from protests and simply serves to blanket all of us that dissent as "trouble makers".
I do not agree with Blair's Gulf War invasion. I do not agree with the way that corporations operate outside of the law at the expense of those too poor to disagree - those that have to survive and therefore work under slave conditions rather than die from starvation.
But I do not agree with smashing up store front, attacking the police and creating mayhem in central London.
It is no way to achieve idealogical goals and makes it all too easy to dismiss these concerns as actions of anarchist trouble makers.
Anyone that goes on a demo/protest has my support.
Anyone that goes to cause trouble and act stupidly has my contempt
As intolerant as those who defaced the statue in the first place ? I oppose senseless vandalism, and in the case of the previous May Day violence I fail to see how people trashing/attempting to trash various places in London actually makes any difference.
Surely those affected just claim on insurance, which eventually passes on further costs to everyone who pays insurance.
On another note I'm not actually sure where we should ship them to, maybe somewhere like China ? Plenty of places for their "freedom of expression" to be practiced :) Not that I'm saying we'd want to live in a state like China, just that those who protest violently should be reminded of how tolerant we actually are of them.
Unless the territorial army starts rolling Abrahams Tanks down Oxford Street today, in which case I'm wrong.
Surely those affected just claim on insurance, which eventually passes on further costs to everyone who pays insurance.
On another note I'm not actually sure where we should ship them to, maybe somewhere like China ? Plenty of places for their "freedom of expression" to be practiced :) Not that I'm saying we'd want to live in a state like China, just that those who protest violently should be reminded of how tolerant we actually are of them.
Unless the territorial army starts rolling Abrahams Tanks down Oxford Street today, in which case I'm wrong.
Star Fury wrote:
>
> And as for those who defaced Winston Churchill's statue a few years
> back... they should have been shipped out of the country.
Yup, good old freedom of expression. Nice to see that you are as intolerant as ever.
>
> And as for those who defaced Winston Churchill's statue a few years
> back... they should have been shipped out of the country.
Yup, good old freedom of expression. Nice to see that you are as intolerant as ever.
Light wrote:
> 1. Yeah
> 2. And
> 3. So
> 4. What?
I only see one question... All the others just seem like words that have numbers next to them.
> 1. Yeah
> 2. And
> 3. So
> 4. What?
I only see one question... All the others just seem like words that have numbers next to them.
Star Fury wrote:
> And as for those who defaced Winston Churchill's statue a few years
> back... they should have been shipped out of the country.
That's what this country needs - prisons on old mid-atlantic oil rigs.
:^)
> And as for those who defaced Winston Churchill's statue a few years
> back... they should have been shipped out of the country.
That's what this country needs - prisons on old mid-atlantic oil rigs.
:^)
Page: