Does anyone here disagree with the G20 riots

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Just looking at footage of the clashes at the G20 demonstrations in London, some of them look nasty enough. Apparently one poor fucker is dead already and the summit hasn't even started. It was also reported that when medical staff tried to attend to him they had to retreat because they were being pelted with bottles and the like.

Looking at the footage some of it looks very nasty. Burning effigies, Molotov cocktails, lots of projectiles being thrown, buildings broken into and so on. Some of the people on the news looked like they were just loving the violence and don't strike me as people I would like to run into on a night out.

I agree with much of what the protesters were saying; that it was the rich who caused this mess and that it is unjust and unconscionable that the workers should have to clean it up. But what I want to know is, is there anyone on this board outside the OI, be they socialist anarchist or whatever, who disagrees with or condemns the violence which took place today? Is there anyone who would not like to see the scenes from today repeated over the next week? Either on grounds of principle or of practicality (the violence will undoubtedly give many of the protesters, in particular the anarchists, a bad name)?

[Pogue]

Just looking at footage of the clashes at the G20 demonstrations in London, some of them look nasty enough. Apparently one poor fucker is dead already and the summit hasn't even started. It was also reported that when medical staff tried to attend to him they had to retreat because they were being pelted with bottles and the like.

Looking at the footage some of it looks very nasty. Burning effigies, Molotov cocktails, lots of projectiles being thrown, buildings broken into and so on. Some of the people on the news looked like they were just loving the violence and don't strike me as people I would like to run into on a night out.

I agree with much of what the protesters were saying; that it was the rich who caused this mess and that it is unjust and unconscionable that the workers should have to clean it up. But what I want to know is, is there anyone on this board outside the OI, be they socialist anarchist or whatever, who disagrees with or condemns the violence which took place today? Is there anyone who would not like to see the scenes from today repeated over the next week? Either on grounds of principle or of practicality (the violence will undoubtedly give many of the protesters, in particular the anarchists, a bad name)?

Here we go again.

Let me make this clear.

This protest was intended to be peaceful. The G20 meltdown protest was peaceful. A few people smashed the windows of one of the biggest fuck pu banks. Whether or not this is bad is not even clear and depends on ones perspective. However, no humans were hurt or injured by people doing this. Furthermore, these events were carried out by a few people! Hardly representative of the 3 thousand odd who went, one of whom was me, who saw it *all* first hand.

We were there for many hours. Throughout, the police segregated and divided us, and when we opposed this, they batoned and gassed us. I am a peaceful person, and did nothig illegal, and even I was nearly batoned, but comrades helped me and I managed to avoid this.

At about 4-5pm, we were all ready to go home. Everyone had drunk enough and had done enough dancing and socialising which there was alot of. It was a party atmosphere in the area of the streets we occupied. Unfortunately, the police didn't like this, and pushed us in pointlessly, until eventually we were all cramed into one third of the space we were in earlier. We all tried to leave. Alas! Depsite our events to avoid this, the sheer brutality and numbers of police had blocked off *every* exit from the area we were in. We had mothers who needed to go home for children, elderly people (70, 80 year olds) who were tired and wanted to go home. No one was let out. Even some medically unfit people were ignored by the police, and forced to remain.

So 3000 of us had witnessed comrades being woudned and killed and we were tired and angry. The police made no attempts to inform us about the situation or help us at all, instead they batoned us. So some people tried to get out themselves. These attempts to follow through ones basic right to movement were met with batons and fists and gas by the police. Constantly, from all sides. I know because I was part of the group trying to stop comrades getting clubbed and beaten by the police.

The 'violent clashes' were self defence and us frustratedly trying to escape what was fast becoming a small pen where the police were doing what they wanted. Yes, an effergie was burned. No, this did not harm anyone. Everyone was at a distance and the effigy was kept in one place. I don't know who burned it, but it was hardly an evil act and I would hardly put them down as evil people who did it, quite the opposite. This is what happens on protests. Radical but non violent stuff happens. Deal with it, because if no one is hurt by it, its ok.

What molotov cocktails were thrown? I or anyone else never saw or reported this. Any bottles which were thrown would have been at the police lines relentlessly charging at us with batons, who were also throwing CS gas at us. I guess. although I didn't see anyone throw them so couldn't say why, any things thrown were thrown in frustration at the brutality of the police. Angry people get angry with their oppresors. Reality hurts, but if the police didn't treat people like shit, abuse us and even kill one of our side, we don't get angry. Simple.

Would I like to see these scenes repeated? No. I don't want to see plice brutality again.

I don't want to see a light-hearted jovial peaceful protest brutalised by piss poor policing and police violence. I don't want to see our human rights infringed. I don't want to see the police hitting my comrades and murdering one of them. I basically don't want to see anymore police made problems, which all of the problems of today were. Police made problems. Obviously I don't want to see such things ever again. However, if they do happen again, which they will, because lets face facts, this is the British state and Met Police, I would expect the courage, self defence and solidarity shown by my comrades today to shine through oncemore.

[Bud Struggle]

If it bleeds it leads when it comes to news reporting--people rather watch a bunch of skin heads beating each other up or getting beat up by the police than hear about the dreary and boring economic discussions going on inside the meeting.

Here in the USA 99% of the people have NO IDEA what the protesters are going on about. (Having been around here on RevLeft--I have a good idea.) But here in America they just point their camera's at the fighting and the bleeding and the presenter just clucks abit about the police doing their best.

Maybe the news people present things better in Europe--but without having learned what an Anarchist actually is here on RevLeft it would look just like a drunken street fight to me.

Hopefully all this encourage people to do a little homework and find out what the Anarchists are actually protesting about.

[brigadista]

this always happens to discredit the protest and divert from the real issues

[GracchusBabeuf]

G20 What happend at the Bank Of England (http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_seyret&Itemid=91&task=videodirectlink&id=1044)

The police caused the riots.

[#FF0000]

G20 What happend at the Bank Of England (http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_seyret&Itemid=91&task=videodirectlink&id=1044)

The police caused the riots.

That is usually the case, isn't it?

[Trystan]

There were no riots. Seriously, you call that a riot? It was just a bit of window breaking and a few skirmishes.

[Matty_UK]

[edit] nvm

[MikeSC]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45623000/jpg/_45623824_rbs_window_pa_2.jpg
Twenty photographers for every violent protestor :blink:

EDIT: For the record, I personally couldn't care less about windows of banks. Pelting police trying to drag a guy to safety though- if true, is abominable.

[Dimentio]

It seems like it is media scare tactics to create sympathy for the state authorities. But I doubt that really will work under conditions like these today.

[brigadista]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45623000/jpg/_45623824_rbs_window_pa_2.jpg
Twenty photographers for every violent protestor :blink:

EDIT: For the record, I personally couldn't care less about windows of banks. Pelting police trying to drag a guy to safety though- if true, is abominable.


were they protesters???

[Killfacer]

some mug got his face all over national tv whilst smashing a window.

[Lynx]

The public has a right to protest. The public is not responsible for the actions of troublemakers and the incompetent / indiscriminate use of violence by riot police.

[brigadista]

ever heard of the expression - agent provocateur?

[MikeSC]

were they protesters???

The photographers? I dunno. Looks like media, the photo was taken for the BBC, it's from the BBC website.

The ones doing the pelting? I dunno, also :cool: Not even sure if it's true.

[danyboy27]

The public has a right to protest. The public is not responsible for the actions of troublemakers and the incompetent / indiscriminate use of violence by riot police.

yes, but at a certain point ultimatly the person who organize a protest should do their best to avoid such individual to stay in their groups.

of all the britton here, i dont see nobody trying to stop him smashing the windows.

by not doing anything they support the action, on the same manner someone who see someone being beaten in the street is supporting the violent act.

[Charles Xavier]

Agent provactuer. Some assholes make every protest into a reason to vandalize. The media loves this shit because they can make it into explosive head lines saying "G20 RIOTS OUT OF CONTROL!!!" These guys divert the reasons for the protest. The media will follow the violent protesters around because its more exciting.

People like this are counter-productive and counter-revolutionaries.

It reminds me of the scene in Grapes of Wrath movie, where the police hire a bunch of thugs to beat up people at the Government Camp and cause a brawl so they have an excuse to go in and close down the camp.

[Dimentio]

Agent provactuer. Some assholes make every protest into a reason to vandalize. The media loves this shit because they can make it into explosive head lines saying "G20 RIOTS OUT OF CONTROL!!!" These guys divert the reasons for the protest. The media will follow the violent protesters around because its more exciting.

People like this are counter-productive and counter-revolutionaries.

It reminds me of the scene in Grapes of Wrath movie, where the police hire a bunch of thugs to beat up people at the Government Camp and cause a brawl so they have an excuse to go in and close down the camp.

I've heard this guy's in London now.

http://empireiii.forumcircle.com/viewtopic.php?t=148

[Dóchas]

Just looking at footage of the clashes at the G20 demonstrations in London, some of them look nasty enough. Apparently one poor fucker is dead already and the summit hasn't even started. It was also reported that when medical staff tried to attend to him they had to retreat because they were being pelted with bottles and the like.

Looking at the footage some of it looks very nasty. Burning effigies, Molotov cocktails, lots of projectiles being thrown, buildings broken into and so on. Some of the people on the news looked like they were just loving the violence and don't strike me as people I would like to run into on a night out.

I agree with much of what the protesters were saying; that it was the rich who caused this mess and that it is unjust and unconscionable that the workers should have to clean it up. But what I want to know is, is there anyone on this board outside the OI, be they socialist anarchist or whatever, who disagrees with or condemns the violence which took place today? Is there anyone who would not like to see the scenes from today repeated over the next week? Either on grounds of principle or of practicality (the violence will undoubtedly give many of the protesters, in particular the anarchists, a bad name)?

its posts like this that blow things completely out of proportion. it wasnt a riot it was a protest that was disrupted by the police and the demonstartors reacted then went back to protesting. no molotovs were thrown just the odd smoke bomb and the projectiles you are talking about were plastic drinks bottles.

btw i do agree with some of the "violence"

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45623000/jpg/_45623824_rbs_window_pa_2.jpg
Twenty photographers for every violent protestor :blink:

I think this image sums up the sheer ridiculousness of accusations of violent thuggery by G20 protestors. Not only are the two (or is it just the one?) window-smashers surrounded by a veritable gaggle of photographers (which considering their expensive-looking equipment I believe to be members of the mainstream media), but they're smashing a window. They're not dragging other members of the public (or even the ones at fault, bankers/politicians) out into the streets to publicly flog and hang them, and even in their property destruction they're not causing an awful lot of damage - windows are cheap if you're a bank.

What it is though, is symbolic of the anger and frustration felt by many over the conduct of the leaders of our political and financial spheres, and ultimately of the emnity held towards the system of international capitalism itself, which serves to cultivate the lying nest of vipers and vampires we see today.


It seems like it is media scare tactics to create sympathy for the state authorities. But I doubt that really will work under conditions like these today.

I'm inclined to agree, especially with regards to those who frequently come under the attentions and tender mercies of the state authorities. It's hard to feel animosity towards protesters smashing windows when there are cops in one's local area breaking skulls on the flimsiest of pretences.

[commyrebel]

good i supported them all the way smash the corrupted capitalist windows. get the shit beat out of you by riot cops. I say the cops did over use there force and the media took it out of what it truly was and seriously i support them

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Agent provactuer. Some assholes make every protest into a reason to vandalize. The media loves this shit because they can make it into explosive head lines saying "G20 RIOTS OUT OF CONTROL!!!" These guys divert the reasons for the protest. The media will follow the violent protesters around because its more exciting.

People like this are counter-productive and counter-revolutionaries.

It reminds me of the scene in Grapes of Wrath movie, where the police hire a bunch of thugs to beat up people at the Government Camp and cause a brawl so they have an excuse to go in and close down the camp.
I don't agree with your claim that the media simply follow the riots at the expense of all other things. When thousands of people congregate and a minority (and obviously it was a minority) start assaulting police and smashing up buildings and someone dies in the violence, that is obviously more newsworthy than people sitting around and playing guitar outside a tent (as per the environmental protest a few blocks away, which was also covered by the media). imagine there were no protests, and someone was killed in the middle of London; the media would sooner lead with that story than "Joe and Sophie have quiet night in, watch Coronation Street". It's no great conspiracy that the media choose to cover violence over sitting around. No one denied that there were peaceful protests or that people are unhappy with the way the powers that be have acted. In any case it was mainly the trashy tabloids that actually led with the stories of the riots, most of the broadsheets focussed on more pressing political matters like the summit itself. I remember laughing when I saw that Times' headline "Brown's nuclear overture" contrasted with (I think) the Daily Mail's "BLOOD ON THE STREETS".

And besides, if the anarchists claim to be smart enough to know the capitalist media's game, one would think they would try to avoid giving the media the opportunity to smear them. It does no good to go out, smash shit up and then complain that the media accused you of smashing shit up.

Fair play to a lot of you though for condemning the violence.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I think this image sums up the sheer ridiculousness of accusations of violent thuggery by G20 protestors. Not only are the two (or is it just the one?) window-smashers surrounded by a veritable gaggle of photographers (which considering their expensive-looking equipment I believe to be members of the mainstream media), but they're smashing a window. They're not dragging other members of the public (or even the ones at fault, bankers/politicians) out into the streets to publicly flog and hang them, and even in their property destruction they're not causing an awful lot of damage - windows are cheap if you're a bank.

What it is though, is symbolic of the anger and frustration felt by many over the conduct of the leaders of our political and financial spheres, and ultimately of the emnity held towards the system of international capitalism itself, which serves to cultivate the lying nest of vipers and vampires we see today.


Are you seriously claiming that this was the only reported incident that took place on the day? A man died that day, and it probably wasn't of old age. Video reports clearly reveal people throwing projectiles, some of them flaming projectiles, at the police. This included protesters several rows away from the front line with the police; in fact some of them who were throwing projectiles hit the protesters at the front rather than the police themselves.

Anyone who watched the video footage of the protests (oh and who doesn't have a vested interest in denying that any violence took place) will see plainly that there was a lot of small-scale violence at the front lines; people swinging, kicking, throwing barricades around, people (protesters and police) with blood all over their faces and people (again, protestors and police) being attended to by medical crews. To say that none of that happened because someone took a picture of a guy smashing in a window is nonsensical and delusional. I have also heard reports of people going inside the building and chucking office equipment out the windows.

You can't have it both ways; you can't say the violence didn't happen and then say that the violence was symbolic of the people's anger.

[brigadista]

I don't agree with your claim that the media simply follow the riots at the expense of all other things. When thousands of people congregate and a minority (and obviously it was a minority) start assaulting police and smashing up buildings and someone dies in the violence, that is obviously more newsworthy than people sitting around and playing guitar outside a tent (as per the environmental protest a few blocks away, which was also covered by the media). imagine there were no protests, and someone was killed in the middle of London; the media would sooner lead with that story than "Joe and Sophie have quiet night in, watch Coronation Street". It's no great conspiracy that the media choose to cover violence over sitting around. No one denied that there were peaceful protests or that people are unhappy with the way the powers that be have acted. In any case it was mainly the trashy tabloids that actually led with the stories of the riots, most of the broadsheets focussed on more pressing political matters like the summit itself. I remember laughing when I saw that Times' headline "Brown's nuclear overture" contrasted with (I think) the Daily Mail's "BLOOD ON THE STREETS".

And besides, if the anarchists claim to be smart enough to know the capitalist media's game, one would think they would try to avoid giving the media the opportunity to smear them. It does no good to go out, smash shit up and then complain that the media accused you of smashing shit up.

Fair play to a lot of you though for condemning the violence.

i completely agree with Tupac Amaru II. please consider who owns the media and why it would be in their interests to seek out violence on protests.

watch the revolution will not be televised which shows how the private media in Venezuala tried to subvert events there- its a good film to show how powerful the media is these days in portraying events in a way that benefits capitalism

good synopsis and links here

http://www.revleft.com/vb/must-watch-films-t92894/index3.html

I know how difficult it is in a protest situation to not react but we should not react

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Are you seriously claiming that this was the only reported incident that took place on the day? A man died that day, and it probably wasn't of old age.

Killed by cops, if I remember correctly.


Video reports clearly reveal people throwing projectiles, some of them flaming projectiles, at the police.Oh noes! I feel sooooo sorry for the armed and armoured cops who have a sworn duty to protect the interests of the state!

Seriously, who's fucking side are you on?


This included protesters several rows away from the front line with the police; in fact some of them who were throwing projectiles hit the protesters at the front rather than the police themselves.You're criticising them for having bad aim? :rolleyes: Can you get any more pathetic?


Anyone who watched the video footage of the protests (oh and who doesn't have a vested interest in denying that any violence took place) will see plainly that there was a lot of small-scale violence at the front lines; people swinging, kicking, throwing barricades around, people (protesters and police) with blood all over their faces and people (again, protestors and police) being attended to by medical crews. To say that none of that happened because someone took a picture of a guy smashing in a window is nonsensical and delusional.Or how about simply mistaken? Your excessive use of hyperbole in the defence of those "poor, defenceless" cops seems to indicate that your arse was restricted for a good reason.

So the protestors and the police had a scrap. So what? It's not the end of the fucking world, and it was instigated by the mindlessly authoritarian actions of the police in the first place.


I have also heard reports of people going inside the building and chucking office equipment out the windows.Why the fuck would you give a damn about this?


You can't have it both ways; you can't say the violence didn't happen and then say that the violence was symbolic of the people's anger.I didn't say that violence didn't happen, I said that people weren't being dragged out and strung up, which was true, was it not? Dishonest dipshit.

[#FF0000]

Who said violence didn't happen? All we said is that it was instigated by police, like is usually (read: always) is. I mean, the police basically had people trapped on the street and wouldn't let them go, and then beganto close in on them with batons and shields. hurf durf y ppl throwin tings @ teh po-po :(

[Dust Bunnies]

Unfortunately the media shows the interests of the Capitalists by making the rioters out the wrong way. Seriously, does the police expect the protesters to just sit in a circle and sing while they trap them in? Maybe sniff the tear gas to try to get high? The police brought it upon themselves.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

i completely agree with Tupac Amaru II. please consider who owns the media and why it would be in their interests to seek out violence on protests.

watch the revolution will not be televised which shows how the private media in Venezuala tried to subvert events there- its a good film to show how powerful the media is these days in portraying events in a way that benefits capitalism

good synopsis and links here

http://www.revleft.com/vb/must-watch-films-t92894/index3.html

I know how difficult it is in a protest situation to not react but we should not react
I understand how, from a Marxist/anarchist POV, the mainstream media might have an interest in discrediting the protesters. But I don't think it necessarily follows that this is the overriding interest of the media or that this is why the media reported on what they did. It is still common sense and basic self-interest that the media will report on more interesting stories first. In this case, the choice was between violent congregation and non-violent congregation; guess which one makes for a better story? As TomK says, if it bleeds it leads. That might be repugnant to your view of journalistic ethics for a whole host of reasons and fair enough, but I don't think that this was a politically calculated move to the extent that you make it out to have been.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Unfortunately the media shows the interests of the Capitalists by making the rioters out the wrong way. Seriously, does the police expect the protesters to just sit in a circle and sing while they trap them in? Maybe sniff the tear gas to try to get high? The police brought it upon themselves.
It was extremely stupid and uncalled for for the police to pen the protesters in like that. To that extent they were asking for it because if you start stoking hostilities in a tense situation like that, well what else can you expect.

[FreeMan]

Yes, its all the police and capitlist fault for all the violence and chaos.

The mindless disorderly angry mob had nothing to do with it!

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Killed by cops, if I remember correctly.
I didn't get the full story, can you link me a credible source?


Oh noes! I feel sooooo sorry for the armed and armoured cops who have a sworn duty to protect the interests of the state!

So let me get this straight; the police were solely responsible for the violence because, even though many protesters were clearly and voluntarily partaking in the violence, they're police so fuck them.

That makes *no* sense.


Seriously, who's fucking side are you on?
I am on the side neither of the rioters nor the police. This sucks for me, because those two groups of people are the ones with the best idea of what actually happened during the protest as far as violence is concerned and both groups are simply and routinely going to lie to further their own interests.


You're criticising them for having bad aim? Can you get any more pathetic?
I'm not criticizing them for having bad aim; it wasn't so much a matter of aim but distance. My point was that if they are so far away from the police that they can't even hit them, it is highly unlikely that they are acting in self-defense against an attack from the police, or even that the police attacked them first.


Or how about simply mistaken? Your excessive use of hyperbole in the defence of those "poor, defenceless" cops seems to indicate that your arse was restricted for a good reason.
I never used the words "poor, defenceless cops" so I don't know why you'd attribute the words to me.

And I think you mistake me for one of those sycophants who wander the board spouting party line and begging for unrestriction. I asked to be restricted, and have never (seriously) asked to be unrestricted except in the hope of starting a discussion on why exactly social democrats are restricted. I don't particularly want to be unrestricted. So yes, I think I probably was restricted for a good reason, and so was my arse.


Why the fuck would you give a damn about this?
Because you seemed to be implying that the sum total of the destruction was some guy smashing at a window. This was evidently false.

[brigadista]

I understand how, from a Marxist/anarchist POV, the mainstream media might have an interest in discrediting the protesters. But I don't think it necessarily follows that this is the overriding interest of the media or that this is why the media reported on what they did. It is still common sense and basic self-interest that the media will report on more interesting stories first. In this case, the choice was between violent congregation and non-violent congregation; guess which one makes for a better story? As TomK says, if it bleeds it leads. That might be repugnant to your view of journalistic ethics for a whole host of reasons and fair enough, but I don't think that this was a politically calculated move to the extent that you make it out to have been.


with respect i think you are being naive here i am sure the rupert murdoch press and the likes of the daily mail[see their overt nazi sympathies and coverage of the Cable street debacle in the past showing their always right leanings ] have a very right wing agenda -

I must say what alarmed me was the technology of the police on display - i dont think we have seen those shiny black armoured vehicles on the streets before and of course they now have tazers- tear gas next ... in this respect they are starting to catch up with other police forces in Europe.

Policing has changed significantly since the murder of Jean Charles Menezes- which in itself has implications for the daily policing of working class communities -especially the youth - isnt SUS coming back???

[Pogue]

I didn't get the full story, can you link me a credible source?


So let me get this straight; the police were solely responsible for the violence because, even though many protesters were clearly and voluntarily partaking in the violence, they're police so fuck them.

That makes *no* sense.


I am on the side neither of the rioters nor the police. This sucks for me, because those two groups of people are the ones with the best idea of what actually happened during the protest as far as violence is concerned and both groups are simply and routinely going to lie to further their own interests.


I'm not criticizing them for having bad aim; it wasn't so much a matter of aim but distance. My point was that if they are so far away from the police that they can't even hit them, it is highly unlikely that they are acting in self-defense against an attack from the police, or even that the police attacked them first.


I never used the words "poor, defenceless cops" so I don't know why you'd attribute the words to me.

And I think you mistake me for one of those sycophants who wander the board spouting party line and begging for unrestriction. I asked to be restricted, and have never (seriously) asked to be unrestricted except in the hope of starting a discussion on why exactly social democrats are restricted. I don't particularly want to be unrestricted. So yes, I think I probably was restricted for a good reason, and so was my arse.


Because you seemed to be implying that the sum total of the destruction was some guy smashing at a window. This was evidently false.

What're you talking about? What else was destroyed except the window?

I'm getting fucking sick of people who weren't even there fucking telling me what was happening whilst I was there for 7 hours. Let me make this fucking clear. This guy died when there was a kettle manevour being employed by the police. They charged our crowds when we wanted to home. When they charged us, alot of people got scared. Alot of people got hit. We just wanted to go home, and they did this, batoned people, chased us. This is when the guy died. When he, like the rest of us, wanted to leave, go home, and they killed him. Thats the simple truth. You are being pro-police because your taking the pathetic line that 4 odd people damaging the property was what was responsible for violent scenes. 4 people is not representative of 3000 people. 4 people smashing a window is not on par with the police kiling someone and wounding many more.

If the police are batonning us, charging us, and people are wounded, and we want to go home, as we've wanted to do for 3 hours, and they wont let us, I can understand a few people getting pissed off enough to throw a few bottles.

On the question of bottles apparently preventing the police from 'helping' the guy they fucked over in the first place, this is bollocks. All accounts except the police's say the protestors gave space to the injured guy, the protestors calmed down for the injured guy, and the protestors called for the medics for the injured guy. A protestor with first aid training was the first one to help the injrued guy, it was protestors who called the ambulance to ask for advice for the injrued guy. The police refused the aid of the first aider. They pushed him aside. They refused the help of the ambulance crew over the phone. The police were not seen to give the guy CPR. They did fuck all for 8 minutes. This was the police's fault on all counts, and maybe you should stop buying into whatever the police and media say before you start acting as if you know what the fuck your on about. As I said after 2 days of dealing with it I'm getting fucking sick of jumped up police apologist right wing arseholes telling me what was going on in the protest I attended for 7 hours, when all they did was read a fucking biased article in their daily rag.

[MikeSC]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/02/g20-summit-protester-death

In case of tl;dr- "Missiles" = a couple of plastic bottles thrown by a couple of people at the police, who were stopped from doing so by the protesters. We don't know how he died yet, some say a blow to the head, some say heart attack. Lots in there that doesn't look good for the police, rather than the protesters.

EDIT: In fact, just read H-L-V-S's post. Ties in exactly with what the Guardian says, and what a protester who put the man in the recovery position before being forced away by police says. You can't really doubt H-L-V-S's account when the same account right down to the specifics is coming from all over the place, from bloggers and journos alike.

[revolution inaction]

EDIT: For the record, I personally couldn't care less about windows of banks. Pelting police trying to drag a guy to safety though- if true, is abominable.

It is a complete lie
Here is a accurate report

http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/1019


While the first aider was helping the man, another demonstrator with a megaphone was calling the police over so that they could help.

Natalie Langford, a student at Queen Mary, said "there was a police charge. A lot of people ran in our direction. The woman giving first aid stood in the path of the crowd." The running people, seeing a guy on the ground, went around them.

Another demonstrator had already called 999 and was getting medical advice from the ambulance dispatcher. "Four police with two police medics came. They told her [the first aider] to 'move along'.", said Peter Apps. "Then they pushed her forcibly away from him. They refused to listen to her [the first aider] when she tried to explain his condition."

The first aider, who did not wish to be named, said "The police surrounded the collapsed man. I was standing with the person who'd called 999. The ambulance dispatcher wanted to talk to the police, the phone was being held out to them, but the police refused."

Another witness, Elias Stoakes, added "we didn't see them [the police] perform CPR."

Other people who had tried to stay with the collapsed man were also pushed away.

All of the witnesses deny the allegation that many missiles were thrown.

According to Peter Apps, "one bottle was thrown, but it didn't come close to the police. Nothing was thrown afterwards as other demonstrators told the person to stop. The person who threw the bottle probably didn't realize that someone was behind the ring of police." All the witnesses said that the demonstrators were concerned for the well-being of the collapsed man once they realized that there was an injured person.

[revolution inaction]

I know how difficult it is in a protest situation to not react but we should not react

There were lots of people who thought like this at the climate camp and it did them no good whatsoever

[brigadista]

what did they expect? if they thought this would not happen they should rethink

[Pogue]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/02/g20-summit-protester-death

In case of tl;dr- "Missiles" = a couple of plastic bottles thrown by a couple of people at the police, who were stopped from doing so by the protesters. We don't know how he died yet, some say a blow to the head, some say heart attack. Lots in there that doesn't look good for the police, rather than the protesters.

First hand accounts say one bottle was thrown after the guy was on the floor following his collapse and it landed nowhere near the injured man or the police who were around him.

[Pogue]

I know how difficult it is in a protest situation to not react but we should not react


Do you know what you are talking about? Have you ever been on a protest? Not react? In what circumstances? Do you mean that when I tried to leave, and the police cracked my fellow demonstrators on the head and crushed us all together, I should have stood still doing fuck all, or should I have tried to help people up?

When the forces of the state infringe upon my human rights and stop me going home, should I just sit like an obdient dog and wait for the powers that be to tell me when I can't go? Or should I ask them why they're not letting me go, try to escape?

[brigadista]

Do you know what you are talking about? Have you ever been on a protest? Not react? In what circumstances? Do you mean that when I tried to leave, and the police cracked my fellow demonstrators on the head and crushed us all together, I should have stood still doing fuck all, or should I have tried to help people up?

When the forces of the state infringe upon my human rights and stop me going home, should I just sit like an obdient dog and wait for the powers that be to tell me when I can't go? Or should I ask them why they're not letting me go, try to escape?

quite a few

[#FF0000]

So let me get this straight; the police were solely responsible for the violence because, even though many protesters were clearly and voluntarily partaking in the violence, they're police so fuck them.

That makes *no* sense.

I don't understand how you can take this position. I really don't. Do you know what even happened? The police surrounded the protesters as the protest was ending, and basically had them trapped in front of the bank, and wouldn't let them leave. Any violence committed by the protesters (and property damage is not violence, boyo) is clearly in self-defense.

I should also point out that police have helmets, body armor, shields, weapons...etc. What did the protesters have?



I am on the side neither of the rioters nor the police. This sucks for me, because those two groups of people are the ones with the best idea of what actually happened during the protest as far as violence is concerned and both groups are simply and routinely going to lie to further their own interests.

That's a pretty cynical (and false) view of things.


I'm not criticizing them for having bad aim; it wasn't so much a matter of aim but distance. My point was that if they are so far away from the police that they can't even hit them, it is highly unlikely that they are acting in self-defense against an attack from the police, or even that the police attacked them first.

The police blocked them in for hours. Taking this into consideration, it's understandable that the protesters would begin to get violent and that some individuals would act irrationally like that.


And I think you mistake me for one of those sycophants who wander the board spouting party line and begging for unrestriction.

I think it'd be hard to mistake you for that. It's pretty clear to me that you're one of those sycophants who go around kissing badges and making excuses for cops when they brutalize civilians.


I asked to be restricted, and have never (seriously) asked to be unrestricted except in the hope of starting a discussion on why exactly social democrats are restricted.

Well, you know that "rev" bit is short for "Revolutionary", right?


Because you seemed to be implying that the sum total of the destruction was some guy smashing at a window. This was evidently false

That's about as much as the protesters were responsible for, though.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm getting fucking sick of people who weren't even there fucking telling me what was happening whilst I was there for 7 hours.

The media was there and they report thing how they want to see things. I must say that while I don't agree with you anarchist--you do deserve a listen to. All you seem to be getting is a bashing first from the police but secondly and more importantly from the news media.

[graffic]

Here we go again.

Let me make this clear.

This protest was intended to be peaceful. The G20 meltdown protest was peaceful. A few people smashed the windows of one of the biggest fuck pu banks. Whether or not this is bad is not even clear and depends on ones perspective. However, no humans were hurt or injured by people doing this. Furthermore, these events were carried out by a few people! Hardly representative of the 3 thousand odd who went, one of whom was me, who saw it *all* first hand.

We were there for many hours. Throughout, the police segregated and divided us, and when we opposed this, they batoned and gassed us.

This is true, the police acted ridiculously. And I agree 100% with the cause of the protestors.


So 3000 of us had witnessed comrades being woudned and killed and we were tired and angry

1 person was killed, and he had nothing to do with the protests. He was walking home from work and suffered a heart attack.



Reality hurts, but if the police didn't treat people like shit, abuse us and even kill one of our side, we don't get angry. Simple.

The police did not kill anyone. I agree with the cause and protest but there is no need to romanticize and exaggerate what was largely a peaceful protest.

There is no need to whine as if your being oppressed when your not. The UK is a democracy which upholds freedoms etc. You should look at the police brutality during the black civil rights campaign where children were gassed.

Unfortunately there are many people who clearly like anarchism for the wrong reasons. Anarchism will always be a sink for a wannabe rioter and people who like violence more than the ideology. There were a minority of these people at the protest. Grubby, unhappy young men vandalizing buildings and provoking police. They were a minority and their actions put a bad mark on the protest.

Peaceful protest is the only viable option. The best thing you can do is do something original that sparks interest like those people playing a large game of monopoly in trafalgar square.




I don't want to see our human rights infringed. I don't want to see the police hitting my comrades and murdering one of them. I basically don't want to see anymore police made problems, which all of the problems of today were.

Everybody saw the pictures in the papers of people shouting abuse at police and throwing bottles. One police man's face was covered in blood. Those police men are just the same as everyone else. They are trying to make a living so they can feed their family and children.

Like I said, I am no supporter of the police and I know they acted poorly yesterday, however whining about "human rights" being infringed and lying about people being "murdered" alienates the majority of the UK population who will hear this drivel and write "socialists" off as a bunch of pathetic whinos with no logical sense or grasp of reality.

Do you remember what John Lennon or Martin Luther King said about protesting?

If we want radical social change in this country we need to grow up and protest peacefully. Condemn those who violently attacked police and approach the issue in a more mature, effective way.

[Steve_j]

One police man's face was covered in blood. Those police men are just the same as everyone else.


Exactly.... One policeman (it was probably more), but how many protesters went home covered in blood? One side has immunity and the other gets punished with the full extent of the law.

A further difference is, the majority of the police chose (it may be their job but they are human and can make their own ethical choices) to strike non violent protesters. Very few protesters chose to strike the police and even fewer would have struck non violent police.


Unfortunately there are many people who clearly like anarchism for the wrong reasons. Anarchism will always be a sink for a wannabe rioter and people who like violence more than the ideology.

Whilst i would agree with that to a certin extent, to label those involved in the violence as Anarchists is being just as stupid as the media. Some were Anarchists, some were not, some were just ordinary protesters that simply dont like being pushed around for no reason or hit over the head with a big fucking stick!

Not to justify beating a police officer (or anyone for that matter) but i do understand how many people would react in such a way and retaliate. On top of that the evident bias of the media and the law surrounding this issue is fucking rubbish!

Solidarity with all those who are being prosecuted regardless of their crimes.

[#FF0000]

There is no need to whine as if your being oppressed when your not. The UK is a democracy which upholds freedoms etc. You should look at the police brutality during the black civil rights campaign where children were gassed.

Are you kidding? You have to be. How is forcing a bunch of people to sit in the street for three hours with no food, water, or bathrooms available to them, and then proceeding to move in on them, batons and shields a-swinging, anything but oppressive?


Unfortunately there are many people who clearly like anarchism for the wrong reasons. Anarchism will always be a sink for a wannabe rioter and people who like violence more than the ideology. There were a minority of these people at the protest. Grubby, unhappy young men vandalizing buildings and provoking police. They were a minority and their actions put a bad mark on the protest.

I know it's cool and hip to be all cynical and believe that people turn into these feral rampaging beasts when in a group (which is true, to some extent -- they are more likely to act out), but in my experience (which is admittedly limited), protesters tend to be pretty conscious of what they're doing at a protest, and not totally lost to reason.


Peaceful protest is the only viable option. The best thing you can do is do something original that sparks interest like those people playing a large game of monopoly in trafalgar square.

What do you mean the only viable option? To gain public sympathy? That's all I can imagine it working for...

And besides, the protest was peaceful. Are you suggesting that people don't fight back when people are doing violence against them? Ridiculous.


One police man's face was covered in blood. Those police men are just the same as everyone else.

Really? Huh. How about you and some of your friends go out and shoot up a van for no reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell) and see if you'll get acquitted like police officers do.

Cops are just like us. Bullshit.


They are trying to make a living so they can feed their family and children.

I'm sure the Gestapo had families to feed as well. I'm sure it also justifies their ridiculous amount of authority, too.


Like I said, I am no supporter of the police and I know they acted poorly yesterday, however whining about "human rights" being infringed and lying about people being "murdered" alienates the majority of the UK population who will hear this drivel and write "socialists" off as a bunch of pathetic whinos with no logical sense or grasp of reality.

They kept them in the street for three hours against their will, with no food, water, or anything else, and then began assaulting them.

What right do they have to do that? Any?


Do you remember what John Lennon or Martin Luther King said about protesting?

If we want radical social change in this country we need to grow up and protest peacefully. Condemn those who violently attacked police and approach the issue in a more mature, effective way.

Condemn them!? For what!? Defending themselves!?

The protest was peaceful, and, as I understand it, over, by the time the cops started surrounding them.

Christ. Condemn people for defending themselves from attackers?
Grow a fucking spine.

[Pogue]

Latest evidence sows that this is what happened:

Guy was caught trying to get home in the violent part of th epolice kettle acion at 11pm. The police assaulted him, and he dropped to the floor. Someone wiht a megaphone called for help. A 3rd year medical student tried to help him and phoned the ambulance crew who directed on how to help. The police refused to com help the guy despite the pleas of protestors.

When protestors mentioned they thought he might be dead, the police came. They basically told the medical student to fuck off, and didn't listen to the ambulance crew. They didn't even give CPR. Anarchists appealed for calm and demonstrators gave the guy space. 8 minutes later the police take the guy behind the kettle but he was already dead. One bottle was thrown thoughout which went nowhere near the police or the guy who they killed and protestors said 'Stop throwing bottles'. No more bottles were thrown.

Anyone who was there knows this was likely to happen at some point due to the police brutality at the protest. The Guardian is running a report which contradicts the accounts of the police and all othe rprotestors and a investigation form the IPCC is underway.

[Pogue]

This is true, the police acted ridiculously. And I agree 100% with the cause of the protestors.



1 person was killed, and he had nothing to do with the protests. He was walking home from work and suffered a heart attack.



The police did not kill anyone. I agree with the cause and protest but there is no need to romanticize and exaggerate what was largely a peaceful protest.

There is no need to whine as if your being oppressed when your not. The UK is a democracy which upholds freedoms etc. You should look at the police brutality during the black civil rights campaign where children were gassed.

Unfortunately there are many people who clearly like anarchism for the wrong reasons. Anarchism will always be a sink for a wannabe rioter and people who like violence more than the ideology. There were a minority of these people at the protest. Grubby, unhappy young men vandalizing buildings and provoking police. They were a minority and their actions put a bad mark on the protest.

Peaceful protest is the only viable option. The best thing you can do is do something original that sparks interest like those people playing a large game of monopoly in trafalgar square.





Everybody saw the pictures in the papers of people shouting abuse at police and throwing bottles. One police man's face was covered in blood. Those police men are just the same as everyone else. They are trying to make a living so they can feed their family and children.

Like I said, I am no supporter of the police and I know they acted poorly yesterday, however whining about "human rights" being infringed and lying about people being "murdered" alienates the majority of the UK population who will hear this drivel and write "socialists" off as a bunch of pathetic whinos with no logical sense or grasp of reality.

Do you remember what John Lennon or Martin Luther King said about protesting?

If we want radical social change in this country we need to grow up and protest peacefully. Condemn those who violently attacked police and approach the issue in a more mature, effective way.

Its idiotic posts like these which make me wonder why we let restricted users post on here. How out of touch are you, seriously?

[brigadista]

Are you kidding? You have to be. How is forcing a bunch of people to sit in the street for three hours with no food, water, or bathrooms available to them, and then proceeding to move in on them, batons and shields a-swinging, anything but oppressive

Its also illegal..

[an apple]

If you want a non biased view on the riots, then I think a far left forum is not the place to go.

[#FF0000]

If you want a non biased view on the riots, then I think a far left forum is not the place to go.

What, and the media is?

[graffic]

I agree, fuck the police.

My point was that one poster seemed to be exaggerating what happened at the protest saying half-truths such as "police were killing comrades".

And Rorshach, you seem to think there is a media conspiracy against the radical left. Thats similar to what neo-nazis think about the far-right.

There is a lot of media which supports the establishment and there is a lot of newspapers and television which are by no means biased. If you mean news channels then yes, they will be slightly biased.