G20 protests likened to Glastonbury

[bombfrog]

the real shame is that the violence was portrayed in the media so much that popel acutally forgot about what the protest were for and whether it had worked.

[llcoolphil]

I'm sorry but I just don't buy all this "it's us against them" crap.

[bombfrog]

Its there whether you want to buy it or not

[llcoolphil]

The only people in that video getting hit are the ones on the front line who are trying to punch and kick the police.

[joshwarrr]

I think if you ask an average person on the street they would have no idea what the protests were about. There were so many different marches protesting about so many different things on the same day that there was no chance of a cohesive message getting across.

[bombfrog]

i'm not too sure. i think people knew what they were there for but some people weren't there for climate change, or to protest against the economic crisis or to try and stop war some people were there for violence.

i hope someone can prove me wrong, but i think every sinlge person knew why they were there but unfortunatley some people were there for the wrong reason.

[jameshunt]

What I meant is that if you ask an average member of the british public what the protests were about I think most of them would say the state of the economy, lack of jobs etc. I'm not too sure that the general public are too aware that there were seperate protests about climate change, nuclear disarmament, the war in iraq etc.

[bombfrog]

There's a reason that the general public are poorly informed about the protests. There's a reason that the police used their excessive powers to limit the demonstrations. There's a reason that the very few bad apples who were there for violence and vandalism get the lion's share of the publicity. It all suits the agenda of the government.

[jameshunt]

Do you really believe that's the reason, honestly?

[The Klumpster]

Just watched this clip. There were reports before the demonstrations (on the BBC no less, that bastion of honesty and fair play) that numerous police forums were talking about how 'up for it' they were. Jeez let's face it, the rhetoric of the police pre demo was just inflammatory, all across the main media. Then you see a clip like that and start to understand, in my opinion, what the mindset was. You do not jab people in the face with the side of your shield to try to force them back. You are either consciously trying to hurt them or trying to provoke a reaction. You only hold people for long periods in a small area in order to negate their right to protest or provoke a reaction. I take my hat off to the demonstrators in that crowd for not reacting and only wish I had been there myself

[bombfrog]

Yes.

What would be your explanation?

Edited April 3, 2009 by bombfrog

[jameshunt]

A ) Well, for a start, organising lots of disparate protest about different subjects on the same day was never going to help get a clear message across to the general public, most of which will only briefly hear about the protests and will not take the time to find out what they are all about. It's bad organisation and bad marketing.

B ) The media know what they're doing and they know that the public are more interested in reading about a big ruck than a few people camping on a pavement. Blame the media by all means but understand their motives.

C ) The worst elements of the protesters also know how the media works and know how to work the media. Unfortunately a lot of people involved in protest groups care more about self-publicity than they do about the good name of their (suppose) cause.

If you really believe that the government control all media and are using it to brainwash people against the protesters as part of some master plan to keep the little man down then you're just a little bit paranoid.

[bombfrog]

Blair was in bed with Murdoch. Blair controlled the BBC. I suggest you read some of Tony Benn's diaries 2001-2007 More Time For Politics.

He was on the TV as a member of a panel for Newsnight (if I remember correctly) when the bombing of Iraq started. One of the participants said something along the lines of "It's like the 4th of July!" and Tony retorted with "We are watching people die!". The camera went off him and the studio floor manager went up to him, thanked him for his contribution and asked him to leave there and then. So gleeful joy at the deaths of many innocent people was allowed, but rational indignation was not to be aired.

You really think that Britain has free and unbiased media? You are living in cloud cuckoo land.

[jameshunt]

Fist of all, I like Tony Benn, I met him in the house of commons once (no, I'm not a politician) and he's a lovely polite man. However, he has an agend and you can't believe everything a politician tells you.

As for a free and unbiased media; these things are relative, not absolute. I think most media sources have a bias, even the BBC but I think that bias comes from the owners and journalists. That's a world away from thinking that all media is controlled by the government.

[bombfrog]

Tony Benn lied in his diaries about that incident? I'd rather take his word for what happened to him than yours. Why did he lie? To what end?

[jameshunt]

I didn't say he lied, but there are two sides to every story and I'd ask you to consider Tony Benn's own politics and agenda when reading a story like that, that's all.

If it did happen exactly as he said it did then that's awful, but let's not extrapolate that and assume they're all out to get us.

[grandadcollective]

Welcome to the twin churches of finance and surveillance.

[bombfrog]

Keep your head in the sand, by all means. You don't think the establishment has an agenda - that's fine. I hope that you are in an increasingly small minority.

[jameshunt]

So what's the grand plan then?

Police state?

Single world currency?

Single world government?

Destruction of one/all major religions?

America taking over the world with robots?

What exactly are the sneaky bastards who control us up to?

[grandadcollective]

No High Horses round these parts. Only the Ponies on the Moor under constant 24 hour surveillance and the threat of arrest if they decide to congrgate for whatever reason.

And I remember when it was all just fields around here.

[joshwarrr]

In response to bombfrog. Your right about there being two sides to a story, there is always several different ways of looking at it, but there is only ever one truth. I agree that the government haven't got an agenda to keep the avergae joe miss informed and opressed, yes ther government have certain control over the media, not so much that its there own personal propaganda tool, but the obviously need to have control to be able to stop certain stories gonig to press that would reslut in mass panic, threaten national security, etc. They do keep the public in the dark sometimes, whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is your own opinon, personally i would like to know exactly what is going. I do not believe that we are delibritley misinformed. Some of this i based on what you said some is based on what others on here have said.

In response to james hunt. There is not a mass government consiparcy to keep the public ignorant and under their thumb. If you didn't mean there was a conspiarcy just that the government us certian tools (police,media,etc) to keep in check then i agree and apologise for misreading it. But you have to have more faith in our government. By saying that they have an agenda and your agianst them then your saying that change cannot happen, we have to want change, we have to show the government we want change and we have to have faith they will listen to us. Yes we are sometimes ignore and we don't get what we want and what we think is right does not always happen, but we have to keep believing. A day may come when the government fails us completely, but i hope it doesn't. Saying that Blair controlled the BBC is ridculous, yes he had influence but saying he had control is absurd, your making him seem like Stalin or Hitler. They had control, complete control, Blair certainley had influence but never control. And bombfrog isn't keeping his head the sand he believes something different.

neither of these are personal attacks, jsut my beliefs and responses to the comments you guys have made.

Edited April 3, 2009 by joshwarrr

[jameshunt]

...

In response to james hunt. There is not a mass government consiparcy to keep the public ignorant and under their thumb. If you didn't mean there was a conspiarcy just that the government us certian tools (police,media,etc) to keep in check then i agree and apologise for misreading it. But you have to have more faith in our government. By saying that they have an agenda and your agianst them then your saying that change cannot happen, we have to want change, we have to show the government we want change and we have to have faith they will listen to us. Yes we are sometimes ignore and we don't get what we want and what we think is right does not always happen, but we have to keep believing. A day may come when the government fails us completely, but i hope it doesn't. Saying that Blair controlled the BBC is ridculous, yes he had influence but saying he had control is absurd, your making him seem like Stalin or Hitler. They had control, complete control, Blair certainley had influence but never control. And bombfrog isn't keeping his head the sand he believes something different.

neither of these are personal attacks, jsut my beliefs and responses to the comments you guys have made.

Edited April 3, 2009 by jameshunt

[dorlomin]

I was personaly at Climate Camp. I popped along after work and intended to only stay an hour or so. But I got kettled in till 11:30pm. No access to food water or toilet facilities. I was effectively detained without reason. Several people who were also kettled had absolutely nothing to do with the demo and were using the street as it was inteneded, to get home from work. One woman was deeply distressed and clearly afraid. The atmosphere was very relaxed, friendly and jovial. The people were largely amoung the fluffiest I have seen on any demo ever. The police behaviour during the demo was an utter outrage. Utterly unexcusable. In a free society we have the right to express an opinion in a demonstration, police tactics have been designed to ensure that light hearted people are intimidated from attending future demonstrations.

I wandered in thinking that the camp climate was a bit of a fun from some slightly silly protesters. I walked out with a huge sense of pride and respect for the people attending the demo who went to great lengths to ensure that the it was as peacefull as possible. The police were the only ones intent on trouble and they were happy to smack 16 year old girls with their hands in the air calling "this is not a riot". The police should be utterly utterly ashamed of their actions.

I have made a donation to the group involved and have been inspired to book leave over the summer to join them in any further actions. They are a huge credit to themselves and their movement.

THIS IS NOT A RIOT

Who are the thugs in that video?

Why was that not on the TV news?

[joshwarrr]

Dude,

The word 'conspiracy' was introduced into this conversation by bombfrog I believe. If you think that there is no establishment agenda then you're fooling yourself.

Blair doesn't control the BBC? Not any more no, that would now be a Mr. G Brown. If you think the BBC can report openly on the government then see who got the chop for the David Kelly leaks. If you think that influencing the media is not a form of control then perhaps you are simply arguing semantics. The police always downplay the numbers of protestors and those low numbers are faithfully reported by the beeb. Propaganda has been refined to be a very subtle tool. A slight tweak here and there and the occasional use of the Official Secrets Act is all it takes.

The government doesn't fail us? Who do they represent? What was the will of the country over the Iraq invasion? Hint: At the start of the war 2/3rds of the country were against it. That number increased as time went on.

The funny thing is that Blair was more like Stalin than you'd care to realise. His cabinet meetings lasted 20 minutes on average - Ted Heath's (and most other PMs) lasted on average 2 hours. That was how long it took for him to tell the rest of the cabinet what was going to happen. He did not encourage debate and in fact moved anyone out who challenged him. Look at the loss of civil liberties in this country. Look at the ID card system and think about what that may bring. Look at the ejection from the labour party conference of an 80 year old man who had the temerity to shout one word "Nonsense".

p.s. Didn't take your post as a personal attack.

edit: at least one typo....

[grandadcollective]

The Blair Cabinet was made up of law professionals as it still is. They did and continue to exploit the UKs uncodified constitution to erode our traditional rights and liberties under the guise the prevention of terrorism. The Hutton report (Greg Dyke, David Kelly) allowed the Government leverage some control over the BBC.

NURSE. Can you fetch me a box please? I can't seem to climb on this horse. He's to high.