The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
We all knew it was coming, the protesters made sure that media coverage was on full alert for their actions during the G20 summit and the action started as promised.
While I have some sympathy for the ideas being raised by the protesters, that more needs to be done to help the planet and that there is a dangerous leaning towards feeding the unstable cash flow of the current economy, it does seem that these protests aren’t really about this at all.
What they now look like is an organised effort by a bunch of trouble makers to cause trouble just for the hell of it, which undermines the whole principle of the message that the original protesters were trying to make. Those ideas are borne partly out of the incident where the police had to try and take away a dying protester (not injured by them) and were forcibly hindered from doing so, and partly from the videos we see of how these protests are being handled and the soundbites coming from some of the more vocal members.
Ok, you could argue that the media loves to turn this into more than it really is, and some of these results will come from the media’s handling and choice cuts. But I think there are certainly far better ways of holding a protest and making a point than the current scenes are portraying. This is not going to make a jot of difference. And how many of the protestors, do you think, are just as guilty of not making an effort to be greener or less likely to feed the cash flow of the ‘corrupt’ society?
Your thoughts please?
While I have some sympathy for the ideas being raised by the protesters, that more needs to be done to help the planet and that there is a dangerous leaning towards feeding the unstable cash flow of the current economy, it does seem that these protests aren’t really about this at all.
What they now look like is an organised effort by a bunch of trouble makers to cause trouble just for the hell of it, which undermines the whole principle of the message that the original protesters were trying to make. Those ideas are borne partly out of the incident where the police had to try and take away a dying protester (not injured by them) and were forcibly hindered from doing so, and partly from the videos we see of how these protests are being handled and the soundbites coming from some of the more vocal members.
Ok, you could argue that the media loves to turn this into more than it really is, and some of these results will come from the media’s handling and choice cuts. But I think there are certainly far better ways of holding a protest and making a point than the current scenes are portraying. This is not going to make a jot of difference. And how many of the protestors, do you think, are just as guilty of not making an effort to be greener or less likely to feed the cash flow of the ‘corrupt’ society?
Your thoughts please?
Page:
Guardian.co.uk video of Ian Tomlinson being assaulted by a police officer
It's now clear Tomlinson was hit and shoved by police minutes before he died, yet the police still had the gall to point the finger of blame at the protesters by accusing them of preventing police medics from reaching the man - I realise this video doesn't show the police medics or the alleged bottling, but from the evidence here it seems the protesters were showing far more concern for Tomlinsons well-being than the police (certainly the protesters weren't the ones assaulting him...)
It's now clear Tomlinson was hit and shoved by police minutes before he died, yet the police still had the gall to point the finger of blame at the protesters by accusing them of preventing police medics from reaching the man - I realise this video doesn't show the police medics or the alleged bottling, but from the evidence here it seems the protesters were showing far more concern for Tomlinsons well-being than the police (certainly the protesters weren't the ones assaulting him...)
There are 2 sides to every story, I agree.
I don't agree with RBS being targetted by protestors in terms of causing criminal damage. Sure, express opinions, etc. But destruction of property, especially when it is publicly owned in the sense that 20% of your own wages may go towards repairing that building instead of funding the public services that are much needed*
However, you're right. False imprisonment is a breach of human rights. If I confined someone in a space for a period of time, I would be a criminal. And in the Thatcher years when the miner's strikes took place, there were many attrocities commited which are still denied by the police to this day.
Again, I support people's right to protest if its legal. I will also support the Police in taking protective action and arresting those who are committing criminal acts. Whether acts by either side can be justified or not is something I can't answer, because, thankfully, these protests aren't taking place anywhere near me, I'm not involved, and to be honest, I haven't got enough time to study the goings on. So my opinions are based on what little I do know.
I just hope the police understand that protestors aren't all criminals...and also that the police aren't above the law themselves.
*And how the money is actually spent is for another debateb
I don't agree with RBS being targetted by protestors in terms of causing criminal damage. Sure, express opinions, etc. But destruction of property, especially when it is publicly owned in the sense that 20% of your own wages may go towards repairing that building instead of funding the public services that are much needed*
However, you're right. False imprisonment is a breach of human rights. If I confined someone in a space for a period of time, I would be a criminal. And in the Thatcher years when the miner's strikes took place, there were many attrocities commited which are still denied by the police to this day.
Again, I support people's right to protest if its legal. I will also support the Police in taking protective action and arresting those who are committing criminal acts. Whether acts by either side can be justified or not is something I can't answer, because, thankfully, these protests aren't taking place anywhere near me, I'm not involved, and to be honest, I haven't got enough time to study the goings on. So my opinions are based on what little I do know.
I just hope the police understand that protestors aren't all criminals...and also that the police aren't above the law themselves.
*And how the money is actually spent is for another debateb
Edgy wrote:
> The term 'protester' is being used broadly...each one is an
> individual - certain ones have chosen violence, whilst others
> have turned up with genuine reasons to protest legally.
>
> I'll support the rights of anyone who wishes to protest legally
> - but we can't say that all the protesters there are protesting
> legally. Nor can we say that they're all pushing for an inquiry.
> Some wont want to get caught if they're involved...
I realise that some of the protesters were using violence but from what I've seen and heard the most violent group were the police. A small group of protesters were violent, but for the most part it was directed at a building (the RBS branch), which isn't such a big deal in my opinion (yes, it probably acheives nothing, yes the bank is part-taxpayer-owned so 'we' get to fund the repairs, but it's really a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the bonuses, £700,000 a year pensions, etc etc). An even smaller number of protesters actually directed some violence towards the police by throwing objects at them. The police on the other hand forcibly removed people from the peaceful climate camp and 'kettled' a large group of people in, not allowing them to leave (including people who were not even involved in the protests, such as the man who collapsed and died).
And yet the assumption is almost always that the police were right and the protesters wrong even when the protest is overwhelmingly peaceful and lawful. Since when is it okay for protesters who have done nothing wrong to be 'caught in the crossfire', baton charged by police and prevented from leaving an enclosed space for hours (as can be seen here,)? Since when is it okay for police Forward Intelligence Teams to photograph pretty much anyone who legally turns out to a legal protest? Since when is it okay for police to prevent protesters from leaving an area until they have been searched for no other reason than daring to protest? Since when is it okay for police to cordon off neighbourhoods and demand anyone entering show two forms of ID and proof of address to be allowed in, as they did for people living close to the ExCeL centre? (Incidentally, if I had lived in the area my girlfriend who lives with me wouldn't have been allowed back to our flat as none of the bills are addressed to her, so she would've had no 'proof of address' to show the police...)
Also, the right to protest has been on the wane in recent years. At what point should people ignore the law and just stand up for what should be a fundamental right...? Is everything that's illegal necessarily wrong?
Incidentally, this video shows some of the policing at the Climate Camp, which indicates that in this instance it was certainly the police instigating violence, not the other way around.
Apologies for the long, and at time rant-like post. But it riles me that the police should be under a lot of scrutiny since they have powers which ordinary citizens don't, yet most of the time people just assume whatever they did was justified and legal without even listening to the other side of the story.
> The term 'protester' is being used broadly...each one is an
> individual - certain ones have chosen violence, whilst others
> have turned up with genuine reasons to protest legally.
>
> I'll support the rights of anyone who wishes to protest legally
> - but we can't say that all the protesters there are protesting
> legally. Nor can we say that they're all pushing for an inquiry.
> Some wont want to get caught if they're involved...
I realise that some of the protesters were using violence but from what I've seen and heard the most violent group were the police. A small group of protesters were violent, but for the most part it was directed at a building (the RBS branch), which isn't such a big deal in my opinion (yes, it probably acheives nothing, yes the bank is part-taxpayer-owned so 'we' get to fund the repairs, but it's really a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the bonuses, £700,000 a year pensions, etc etc). An even smaller number of protesters actually directed some violence towards the police by throwing objects at them. The police on the other hand forcibly removed people from the peaceful climate camp and 'kettled' a large group of people in, not allowing them to leave (including people who were not even involved in the protests, such as the man who collapsed and died).
And yet the assumption is almost always that the police were right and the protesters wrong even when the protest is overwhelmingly peaceful and lawful. Since when is it okay for protesters who have done nothing wrong to be 'caught in the crossfire', baton charged by police and prevented from leaving an enclosed space for hours (as can be seen here,)? Since when is it okay for police Forward Intelligence Teams to photograph pretty much anyone who legally turns out to a legal protest? Since when is it okay for police to prevent protesters from leaving an area until they have been searched for no other reason than daring to protest? Since when is it okay for police to cordon off neighbourhoods and demand anyone entering show two forms of ID and proof of address to be allowed in, as they did for people living close to the ExCeL centre? (Incidentally, if I had lived in the area my girlfriend who lives with me wouldn't have been allowed back to our flat as none of the bills are addressed to her, so she would've had no 'proof of address' to show the police...)
Also, the right to protest has been on the wane in recent years. At what point should people ignore the law and just stand up for what should be a fundamental right...? Is everything that's illegal necessarily wrong?
Incidentally, this video shows some of the policing at the Climate Camp, which indicates that in this instance it was certainly the police instigating violence, not the other way around.
Apologies for the long, and at time rant-like post. But it riles me that the police should be under a lot of scrutiny since they have powers which ordinary citizens don't, yet most of the time people just assume whatever they did was justified and legal without even listening to the other side of the story.
Nin wrote:
> I find that highly unlikely, unless we're talking about different
> groups.
Erm... BBC News... It is people who were out protesting (the so-called 'troublemakers') who have been calling for a full inquiry. It has since emerged that the police would not let the man leave the area (I read in one of the free London papers today that the man had been 'pushed back' by police shortly before he collapsed).
> I find that highly unlikely, unless we're talking about different
> groups.
Erm... BBC News... It is people who were out protesting (the so-called 'troublemakers') who have been calling for a full inquiry. It has since emerged that the police would not let the man leave the area (I read in one of the free London papers today that the man had been 'pushed back' by police shortly before he collapsed).
The term 'protester' is being used broadly...each one is an individual - certain ones have chosen violence, whilst others have turned up with genuine reasons to protest legally.
I'll support the rights of anyone who wishes to protest legally - but we can't say that all the protesters there are protesting legally. Nor can we say that they're all pushing for an inquiry. Some wont want to get caught if they're involved...
I'll support the rights of anyone who wishes to protest legally - but we can't say that all the protesters there are protesting legally. Nor can we say that they're all pushing for an inquiry. Some wont want to get caught if they're involved...
I find that highly unlikely, unless we're talking about different groups.
Oddly enough it's these 'troublemakers' who are pushing for a full independent inquiry into the mans death...
I think the majority of people who write into those papers are business people on trains who are just p**sed about missing work.
As for who to believe on that incident, on one hand you have the police and on the other you have a load of troublemakers. I know which side I'm taking
As for who to believe on that incident, on one hand you have the police and on the other you have a load of troublemakers. I know which side I'm taking
I've been amazed at some of the comments sent in from readers to the London Papers (Metro, LondonPaper, LondonLite, etc) - Some people seem to assume that anyone who turns out to a protest is an unemployed bum looking to cause trouble who has no idea what they're protesting about... This is such a small-minded view and (I think) reeks of people justifying to themselves why their own political involvement amounts to scribbling on a bit of paper once every five years. Seriously, what do most people do to get their views across to the government other than occasionally voting?
It may be naive to think a protest will change the governments view, but at least people are out there making there voices heard, trying to increase awareness of the issues.
And, for those who are assuming all protesters are 'out to cause trouble', even the police admitted that most people were peaceful and 'good-humoured'. In particular the Climate Camp that was setup was very peaceful and was said to have a festival atmosphere until the police forcibly broke it up.
With regard to the man who died - the police give one account of being prevented from helping the dying man and being bottled by protesters. Several witnesses give a very different account: IndyMedia Witness Statement. Highlights include the statement that only one bottle was thrown which was not near the police (which indicates the police were at best exaggerating about being bottled and at worst completely fabricating), that the police charged the crowd while people were trying to give first aid to the collapsed man and that the police did not immediately help the man when they arrived, instead paying more attention to trying to get other protesters who were helping him to disperse. Now I'm not saying these accounts are 100% accurate, they could well be biased. But why is it we implicitly trust the information given by the police without question? Surely we should be listening to both sides of the story (we should at least be told of both sides by the media rather than just the polices version of events...)
A final note: Why is it that the leaders of the countries of the world are so intent on returning to 'business as usual'? We've seen the collapse of many of our financial institutions, yet there is absolutely no thinking 'outside the box' (much as that does sound like crap jargon). A return to 'economic growth' seems all our leaders are aiming for, there's not even the consideration of any alternative (I'm not even specifically talking about or advocating anarchy, socialism, communism or whatever... I'm just saying that the only option that seems to have been considered is going back to the way things were but with slightly tighter regulations around the vast amounts of money thrown at the 'top-performers' of the financial sector).
It may be naive to think a protest will change the governments view, but at least people are out there making there voices heard, trying to increase awareness of the issues.
And, for those who are assuming all protesters are 'out to cause trouble', even the police admitted that most people were peaceful and 'good-humoured'. In particular the Climate Camp that was setup was very peaceful and was said to have a festival atmosphere until the police forcibly broke it up.
With regard to the man who died - the police give one account of being prevented from helping the dying man and being bottled by protesters. Several witnesses give a very different account: IndyMedia Witness Statement. Highlights include the statement that only one bottle was thrown which was not near the police (which indicates the police were at best exaggerating about being bottled and at worst completely fabricating), that the police charged the crowd while people were trying to give first aid to the collapsed man and that the police did not immediately help the man when they arrived, instead paying more attention to trying to get other protesters who were helping him to disperse. Now I'm not saying these accounts are 100% accurate, they could well be biased. But why is it we implicitly trust the information given by the police without question? Surely we should be listening to both sides of the story (we should at least be told of both sides by the media rather than just the polices version of events...)
A final note: Why is it that the leaders of the countries of the world are so intent on returning to 'business as usual'? We've seen the collapse of many of our financial institutions, yet there is absolutely no thinking 'outside the box' (much as that does sound like crap jargon). A return to 'economic growth' seems all our leaders are aiming for, there's not even the consideration of any alternative (I'm not even specifically talking about or advocating anarchy, socialism, communism or whatever... I'm just saying that the only option that seems to have been considered is going back to the way things were but with slightly tighter regulations around the vast amounts of money thrown at the 'top-performers' of the financial sector).
"What they now look like is an organised effort by a bunch of trouble makers to cause trouble just for the hell of it"
Which is exactly what it is. The peaceful protestors were all elsewhere.
Get outta my citah you slahhggggggs!
Ahem
Which is exactly what it is. The peaceful protestors were all elsewhere.
Get outta my citah you slahhggggggs!
Ahem
Page: