Where Is TUFC's No 1 Fan?

On reflection, merse, your point is valid.

I'm all for the protesters beating the crap out of the police with batons should an identical situation to the one in the YouTube clip arise.

If thats the case merse Londoners should get the program banned, I was shocked by how it made the people of the Eastend look, it even had a warning up at the end in case any of the events in the program disturbed you.

I do think that the police seemed heavy handed, but then I'm sure there is footage that has not been shown that might show just what they may have had to deal with.

I will pass on the PM if I may. I thought this was a forum where people debated various subjects OPENLY. You have your opinion and I have mine it is very unlikely that either would change our opinion based on something sent to the other.

If people PM’d me everytime I disagreed with, or didn't share, their opinion then my inbox would be full. If you believe that you have something that may change other peoples mind then it would be better to put in on here, then people can decide whether to read it or pass it by. This is an interesting and emotive subject so I think people would be interested to hear both sides of the story, unfortunately mine is based on information provided by the ‘corrupted powers’ of the Media.

Many thanks for the links, which do show the ‘other’ side of the story, however BBC news 24 and Sky News and all of the newspapers also showed endless amounts of footage/photographs where the protesters were the aggressors.

Maybe you could enlighten me as to what those guys were doing breaking into buildings, smashing windows and worst of all burning effigies of a human being, because those are the images that tend to stick in my mind.

Those "protestors" in the film were causing an obstruction and were refusing to budge. The rozzers could either allow the road to remain blocked or take the action they did.

The unfortunate thing is that (as with football hooliganism in the 70's) all the protestors who were there to demonstrate peacefully have been labelled as thugs as aresult of the actions of a minority.

Ah, I can’t sleep without writing something, so here goes. This is INCOMPREHENSIBLY long, so I apologise right now.:

First of all perhaps I should outline where I stand on this front in terms that may well prove to be common ground, to a greater or lesser extent.

Firstly, I think that the way in which the world economy has been run in the last few years is fundamentally flawed. Ultimately your run-of-the-mill politician is utterly powerless, just as you and I are. Decisions in the twenty most powerful countries are made, by and large, under incomprehensible pressures from interests groups and the media, essentially. Among those groups the most powerful are the oil, automotive and arms industries. This is clearly reflected in world governmental policy.

The leaders of the ‘free’ world have known about the problems of famine and warfare since the end of the Great War and yet cannot do anything about it because to do so would be to lose the backing of the influences which propelled them into a position to do something about it in the first place. If that makes sense. This continues today.

Yet, in my opinion, a fair segment of the population is becoming increasingly well informed on these issues. At recent marches for Gaza, for example, it was made very public which companies and which countries were continuing to supply white phosphoresce shells to the Israeli army…this contradicts international laws and is forming the basis of war crimes charges against the Israeli leadership right now (it was mostly arms factories in Texas, if that astonishes anyone).

These things can occur because of the lack of morality (note I do not say immorality) of the international monetary system. Money is moved and used in ways we cannot imagine…and the quest for CAPITAL (not money) is extraordinarily ruthless. A crucial example: despite relying on government funds and insurance for survival, RBS has pumped millions into oil extraction in conflict zones. In March, RBS was part of a consortium of 14 banks that lent $1890 million to Irish company Tullow Oil - providing in the region of $100 million itself. The bank had already helped raise £402 million by placing shares for Tullow in January.

Tullow’s expansion plans are exacerbating conflict in Central Africa and South Asia. In early 2009, the company announced a major discovery of 400-1000 million barrels by Lake Albert in Uganda, just on the border with the Democratic Republic of Congo. Tullow also holds oil exploration rights across the border in North Kivu in the DRC, which continues to be torn by strife after over a decade of resource-driven civil war. The border area has seen some of the fiercest fighting take place place as rival armies and militias have fought for control. An additional 30,000 refugees were displaced in North Kivu during two weeks of fighting in March, adding to the existing 1.4 million internally displaced people in the region.

Recent militia attacks appear to be a response to joint operations between the Congolese and Ugandan armies within Congo. In early March Presidents Museveni and Kabila signed an agreement to continue military co-operation and to co-operate in exploiting oil discovered by Lake Albert. This marks a change from 2008, when Congo revoked Tullow’s exploration rights, accusing the company of enlisting the Ugandan army in violating its borders. Despite realigned alliances, attempts to control oil and natural resources continue to drive military conflict in Eastern Congo.

So as you can see, I (and many others) are not happy with the way in which RBS (and others) have gone about their business. I regard it as an obligation to oppose such action. I’m not positing myself and other protestors as some sort of moral shining light. We can’t fight every fight…but we could fight this one. In a peaceful way, too. So we decided to exercise OUR RIGHT to protest. Peacefully.

A bit more context…as I said, the MET (not the protestors) have built this up as a ‘Summer of Rage’ for some time. All the major newspapers (including the Guardian) carried BS reports about shady meetings between lefty group leaders in the ‘alternative’ venue the Foundry in Shoreditch. I’ve had the misfortune to go there once and its about as alternative as playing Tim Sills at centre forward…in fact, it’s full of bankers-in-denial snorting coke from toilet seats and bellowing “yah, isn’t it great that house prices are falling around Clapham, yah?”

All rubbish, I assure you. The protest organiser have spoken of little other than organisational details during the last few months. Emotive terms like rage are left to those who need them.

But yes, there was a movement of violent anarchism around the bank of England of Wednesday. I’ll come back to that.

First, the peaceful and lawful protest on Bishopsgate, and some points to respond to from everyone.

The tactic the police used on Bishopsgate (and elsewhere) is known as kettling. This involves segregating the masses into small groups and keeping them confined to prevent violent protest spreading and dissipating in running street battles. Many (including myself) would suggest that this is already erring towards an infringement on rights to protest and that it constitutes an incitement to violence. Others would suggest it’s entirely sensible. At this stage it doesn’t matter…let’s leave that behind…the Met decided to do this to CLIMATE CAMP. For the love of God. Honestly…was anyone else there? Women and children had been sharing homemade brownies and muffins with police. We danced. We shared a few beers. There were workshops. Call it liberal bollocks if you want, but dangerous it was not.

Now, the Met had spent the last month or so building this up to boiling point. Note there was almost nothing from any left or opposition groups directly quoted in the paper except from that lunatic Professor Chris Knight who had declared that “the world will abolish international borders and become a single country by June of this year” and who often went off on baffling tangents, at one point calling for the Bank of England to be converted into a state-run brothel. But the Met spoke endlessly about a “Summer of Rage” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/23/police-civil-unrest-recession), desperately hoping this would put people off attending while also jacking up their own budget. In the end there were 4,000 protestors at the Bank of England and 5,000 police, horses and vehicles…disproportionate? Do they really have quite enough ‘attitude’ to do the “ugly job” Merse describes? If so, why so many? Why feel the need to smash riot shields into people’s faces when their hands are raised and they’re saying ‘This is not a riot’. Really, I don’t understand…can you explain that to me? It’s ludicrous.

So, things get violent at the Bank of England. We all agree on that. Here is where I show my true colours, and say: GOOD. Reasons will become clear. The jump from agreeing with anti-capitalist opinions (which hardly anyone on this board does, it seems) to condoning such violence is enormous, but I’ll attempt an explanation.

As Merse himself says “Riot police are RIOT police, they're NOT community bobbies are they? They are deployed to prevent rioting and If Pete and his pals can't take a good confrontation they should stick to writing to the Guardian where they won't get hurt”…quite. Firstly…at Bishopsgate there was no riot. So no need for Riot police. The police instigated whatever (limited) clashes there were there because, as I’ve already said, it was patently clear they needed to justify that Summer of Rage BS, they needed to justify their ludicrously disproportionate presence, and they were itching for a fight. Later, as I say, they sent in DOGS AND BATONS on peaceful protestors…Martin Horwood, the Liberal Democrat MP for Cheltenham, said dogs were used on protesters near the camp. James Lloyd, a legal adviser in the camp, said riot police forcefully cleared the area using batons around midnight.

"There was no announcement, the riot police just started moving forward very quickly from the south," he said. "They were pushing everyone back, pushing forward quickly. They caused panic, people were screaming and shouting ... There was a person in a wheelchair struggling to move, being pushed forcibly by them. It was totally disproportionate."

And regarding the kettling: John O'Connor, a former Met officer, criticised the tactic. "They are using this more and more," he said. "Instead of sending snatch squads in to remove those in the crowd who are committing criminal offences, they contain everyone for hours. It is a retrograde step ... it is an infringement of civil liberties.”

Can you even get your head around it? Imagine your wife, or your kid, said they were off to join the climate protest. A peaceful protest, during the day. You exercise your right to voice your opinion (because it sure as hell doesn’t work through the ballot box). And suddenly riot police are inexplicably everywhere and you can’t leave FOR SEVEN HOURS. Women were in tears, begging to be let out. Children too. Why not? Because they were a danger? This is a fundamental right we’re talking about here. Balls to your ‘spilling into other streets’ argument. That’s relevant for extrmeist action and street fighting but this was unadulterated extremism on behalf of the Met. It’s illegal, utterly illegal…restriction of free movement with no good cause. People were offered the chance to leave if they gave their name and photo…which they’re not obliged to do under law. And if they refused? Back in the pen. What do you really think the motives are here? Honestly?

So, to Merse: “The ones who wanted to break out of the cordon were the usual suspects who ambush any and every protest they can get their grubby little feet into.” I’m sorry mate but you haven’t the slightest idea what on earth you’re talking about. If I don’t convince you I don’t care; that’s an utterly ludicrous thing to say without having been there. Utterly ludicrous. If anyone else thinks it’s deserving of real response (beyond what I’ve written above) then I’ll try but for me that’s BS that is best left untreated.

Back to the violence then, and TUFC01’s question…i would say that if we don’t know how to oppose this police brutality, then it will never stop. It’s for that that I support those who claimed (legitimately) that these nationalised banks are now public space, and who fought the police by the bank of England. Equally, we have moved past an era where effective direct action politics consists of marching from A to B, singing a few songs then going home and writing a letter to your MP. This provides a very interesting set of arguments on the issue in the context of the Gaza marches which have lessons for all forms of protest: thecommune.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/mobilisation-and-militancy-in-the-anti-war-movement-photos-and-report-of-10th-january-palestine-demo/.

If you disagree with that, fair enough. I think you need to see the things that go on during these moments to understand the potential level of police hooliganism. But it only goes to further support my case regarding the climate camp, and how utterly unnecessary the even more violent actions of the police were at that location. But now there are thousands of law-abiding folks who were on Bishopsgate that day who would tip their cap to a policeman before but now haven’t the least respect for them. And the more that happens, the more it helps our (okay, my) interests.

But to Merse’s other point: “I will tell you the Trotskyists, anarchists and general idiotic NON working fringe are the biggest enemy of the working class imaginable. Once you've ended your dispute as a worker they will turn on you and make you a target for their abuse and villification neither knowing nor caring how you are going to support yourself or family. You see them outside the health and educational establishments peddling their extreme periodicals without ever considering the efforts of the workers inside to contribute to an orderly society and and take responsibility for their own upkeep.” This has more than a little merit…the fragmentation of the left movement is a concern, a shameful one, that concerns us all (on the left). But I don’t believe it can be used as (another) stick to beat the protestors with on this issue. Having written so much I won’t go into it but we could discuss that…it really is very fascinating as it traces back to the Russian revolution, and beyond. Stupid old Trotsky, ho ho ho…

And London, finally. I hated London, but I’ll confess there’s a lot of personal life issues involved in that too. I find the heart of the city rotten, I’d say, although there are excellent satellites which orbit that sordid mess. I have a lot to say on London too but for now how about I stick to: I can’t stand the place. More to follow.

Apologies, and congrats to anyone who made it this far. I’m sure I’ve missed stuff out and I await the backlash, but I really have to sleep now. I hope I’ve been respectful towards others’ opinions in my arguments, and though I will no doubt be branded everything from lilly-livered liberal to computer-smashing anarchist, I still believe this is a debate worth propagating.

petejones I will just pick up a few points about the forum and then add my views on your post(I got to the end and enjoyed the whole read)In a perfect world a thread gets started and ends up on the same subject, but I have always taken the view that when you talk to anyone and for any reason, you never end up still talking about what the opening conversation was about.

The forum is as far as it can be all about free speech and would never want to start locking threads because they went of topic, it people are actively debating and sharing their views, then that is fine and what the forum is here for.

I'm sure I have talked with tufc01 about what has happened in the past to one ex member on the forum,he made his views known in a post for all to read and then another poster starting attacking him via the pm service. Now I know that is not what you intended to do, but I take the view that if any member makes a post on the forum, the only place to challenge his or her views are out in the open where the first post was made.

It became necessary to put in a code so that each and every member had the right to block any Pm's from another member who were abusing the PM service on the forum, if you are good enough to post you views for all to see that can only be the place where members should be arguing any points made.

I will confess that some of the information in your post went a bit over my head and I will need to read it again and look at some of the information in more detail to try and better understand what it really all means.

There are some points in your post that I do feel very strongly over and those are the ones I will reply too, but first its clear to see how merse wants to jump and defend London and the people who live there and so he should, I just hope he can try and understand that those who choose to live here, defend where we live and for many of the same reasons and pride being just one of them.

I'm a mostly happy and harmless man, who has never committed a crime and would not want too, I just want to live my life in a free country and just get on and try and help my fellow man if I can. That freedom seems to me to be being taken away bit by bit and that big brother and the nanny state is trying to get more control over everyone and something does need to be done about it.

It will soon be the case that we will have to have chips put inside us and lampposts will have devices built in them to monitor our every movement, we are already filmed 100's of times a day. I know some will say if you have nothing to hide then why should it matter, why would you be concerned, but for me its about being able to go about my life and not be spied on.

On the protest itself I would say that the way it was handled was completely wrong and caused some of the problems, yes there will always be a few who will want to take things to far, but I know if I was standing near the front and was having shield rammed in my face, I might just find it hard to stay in control of myself.

I had heard a claim that some of the trouble makers were paid and working for those in power, there aim to cause problems and discredit the whole protest, I do not know if there is any truth in that claim, but I would not want to say it was not true,or such things do not go on, I'm sure there is so much we do not know about how we are tracked and information stored on us all. I know it makes me feel just a bit uncomfortable and I fear that its going to get a whole lot worse.

Wow, that is the way to answer my post and open my eyes to how it was perceived from the other side.

Fantastic read, which does show that it was most certainly better to put it on here for everyone to read, rather than PM just me. As you can see from the votes (including 1 from me) that several people have appreciated your post.

Dave has explained the PM issue rather well, so no more to add to that.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the argument the protesters have/had, my issue was with the way some of them went about it. Although we have now seen that can be interpreted 2 ways, depending on whether you witness it or watch it via the media.

I do have to say though that i can't condone breaking into buildings, causing criminal damage or burning effigies (which in my eyes and from personal experience, is about the worst form of protest EVER), but at the same time I'm am also appalled that woman and children were treated like you say they were.

Whilst watching it on the news, because you were right i wasn't there, i was willing the police to send in snatch squads to take out the main protagonists. I still believe that this was/is an effective way to deal with the troublemakers.

I'm just about to leave for the Carvery and the game, so I apologise that i don't have the time, at the moment, to reply in the manner that your post deserves, however i am sure that there is still plenty to say on this subject.