You missed the point there. Or more likely chose to miss it.I‘m not convinced my ‘cover is blown’ if to blow that cover all you had to do is refer to my own bleeding post. What was I doing? Hiding in plain sight? Ooh, you got me.
Glorifying (police) violence? Where??? I must have missed that.The protest was peaceful until the police start demanding they disperse and when a minority don’t or are slow to do so, then comes the shoving, then the batons and the dogs and the horses and some people react and, well fuck me, it kicks off. Didn’t see that coming.
Glorifying police violence, excusing police violence will just lead to more police violence and that the perpetrator is wearing a uniform does not make it right. Pretending it didn’t happen, pretending the police were seriously injured last time around, refusing to accept footage of people being beaten by police is shutting your eyes and your mind.
When even the police dogs can spot a ‘wrong un’ :)
Keep your eye on the dog biting the officer and the protestor getting away.
The police are there to ensure that events stay within the law, not make decisions about how and when and at what time people can protest.Of course the police were going to be (rightly) concerned about how things might escalate and it was more than reasonable for - at 10pm - them to say "right, that's enough, move on now".
You're talking to an ex cop you dipstick, I think he knows the rules a bit betteranybodywho thinks that cop acted responsibly and in line with training should move to Myanmar - you'll love it there
Bristol - tory, Mcr - labour (mayor). My guess is its getting politicised and gmp had pretty specific direction from the mayor. That's not to say gmp didn't handle it better though.I am guessing that in the Bristol disturbances, a large element of the aggro came from the Bristol van dwelling Crusties and their supporters. I think the protests in Manchester may have had participants with a slightly different profile.
You are buying the rhetoric about all protestors being of a certain ilk.I am guessing that in the Bristol disturbances, a large element of the aggro came from the Bristol van dwelling Crusties and their supporters. I think the protests in Manchester may have had participants with a slightly different profile.
My comment was simply about the fact that, as you rightly point out, different protests will have different profiles. Those on the March you refer to in 2002 were probably (I am guessing here as I wasn't there) 'Rural / Countryside dwellers/workers' who were protesting about something that was going to affect their lifestyle. As I understand it, the demo was very largely peaceful, despite the huge numbers involved.You are buying the rhetoric about all protestors being of a certain ilk.
Were the protestors in the 400,000 strong Countryside Alliance march in 2002, all van dwelling crusties, all anarchists, all left wing agitators hell bent on destroying the country. No they weren't because the then leader of HM Opposition, a certain Ian Duncan Smith was one of the protestors on that march, as were such luminaries like Vinny Jones and Rory Bremner.
74% of the people thought at the time that Fox Hunting should be banned, but the protest went ahead and I supported there right to protest, because I am a democrat who believes in the right to protest as being a central tenet of democracy.
What we are seeing once again is the demonisation of the working class right to protest, the middle class protests are fine as I have shown, but working class protests are met with hostility and media denigration.
And that my friend was the crucial part of your eloquent and thoughtful reply.(I am guessing here as I wasn't there)
You're talking to an ex cop you dipstick, I think he knows the rules a bit better
than you.
The police are there to ensure that events stay within the law, not make decisions about how and when and at what time people can protest.
If women refuse to disperse, and advance to oncoming riot police tasked with dispersal, they will be dealt with. What you actually want is the freedom to do whatever you wish, where you like, and the authorities do nothing about it.well recent events prove that cops certainly know how to perpetrate violence against women - that one in Bristol did it in text book fashion
GMP at a protest in St Peter's Square, not in riot gear, cleared the streets when protesters moved to block trams and buses. 18 arrests (under existing legislation).
No "riot", no hitting people with batons and shields.
Circumstances might be different, there may be more people looking for trouble in Bristol, but I reckon once the police get tooled up for trouble, trouble is much more likely.
If women refuse to disperse, and advance to oncoming riot police tasked with dispersal, they will be dealt with. What you actually want is the freedom to do whatever you wish, where you like, and the authorities do nothing about it.
The thing you forgot Rascal is that the protest was illegal from the moment more than 6 people gathered. The police would have been acting lawfully in clearing the street hours sooner. They were reasonable, accommodating and understanding (wrongly in my opinion - they should have stamped it out sooner) in allowing it to go on for hours before finally saying enough is enough.
dispersal need not involve violence - the Police chose a violent approach