Westminster Politics

[Fingeredmouse]

Very stupid indeed and you are exactly right. The rest of the crowds would be better placed turning on these "activists" mind and totally disassociating themselves by handing them to the police.

That's never going to happen for a whole variety of reasons.

This sort of incident is going to become increasingly common: people are angry and disenfranchised and this Government will use your fellow officers to drive home their political sledgehammer. Incidents like this will give them the justification to do so and allow them to argue that the recently passed bill is proportionate and needed. We've seen this before. We know how it goes. They won't let movements like BLM take hold again.

 

[neverdie]

I'm against the bill but I'm more against the rioters. The worst of it is they're playing right into the Tories' hands. Boris will be counting the votes coming in by the bucketload.

You don't have to weigh one against the other. You can still say you're against the bill.

As for the supposed rioters, if you push people hard enough they'll push back.

Also bear in mind that rioting and looting is already illegal and always had been. The bill seeks to make peaceful protest punishable by up to ten years in prison. That's something else.

 

[711]

You don't have to weigh one against the other. You can still say you're against the bill.

Read it again please, I did say I'm against the bill.

 

[Snowjoe]

Can’t say I’m surprised it escalated there’s always been a crowd in Bristol that love any excuse to leave turbo island in their birkenstocks and fight the power, half of them probably didn’t even know what they were protesting and were up for a scrap

 

[sun_tzu]

Absolutely disgraceful scenes in Bristol.

regardless of what they were protesting about and how these protests ended up where they did ... there is a global pandemic FFS... people shouldn't be congregating in large groups risking the spread of a deadly disease ... ultimately any reasons behind the protests will get lost in that fact and they will have ultimately done a lot more harm to their cause from that than anything else I think

 

[Abizzz]

Do any Tories really care about these protests? Everyone here saying they didn't help the cause... Was there actually any way their cause could be helped? Wouldn't the tories just have gone along anyway? Even if they had sat there quiet and socially distanced...


Saying they haven't helped themselves is like telling the beaten wife that she isn't helping herself by putting up resistance.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

regardless of what they were protesting about and how these protests ended up where they did ... there is a global pandemic FFS... people shouldn't be congregating in large groups risking the spread of a deadly disease ... ultimately any reasons behind the protests will get lost in that fact and they will have ultimately done a lot more harm to their cause from that than anything else I think

The problem has arisen because the government have been trying to pass legislation to make all peaceful protest illegal if it causes an annoyance. Permanently. Even after the pandemic.

If you understand history, you can imagine the urgency.

 

[sun_tzu]

The problem has arisen because the government have been trying to pass legislation to make all peaceful protest illegal if it causes an annoyance. Permanently. Even after the pandemic.

If you understand history, you can imagine the urgency.

Yes... but perhaps smashing things up isn't the best way of preserving the rights of peaceful protests as they currently stand

Though it will be framed as something that in the midst of a global death lurgy was a bad idea ... that will overshadow even the irony of a violent protest about peaceful protests

 

[TheReligion]

20 officers injured last night, two quite seriously.

One with a broken arm and another with a collapsed lung from being stamped on.

Absolutely disgusting and anyone who condones that needs to have a long hard look at themselves.

 

[Hammerfell]

After all the shit the police get up to I’m finding it hard to care.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

They look like a bunch of young middle class wannabe anarchists with a number of older more hardcore anarchist types. Most of the younger ones will be teachers or work in insurance in 10 years time. The dedicated youngsters can look forward to a life of moving from squat to squat and excreting in buckets when times are good.

 

[Berbasbullet]

Was there a mix of these protests and anti lockdown protests too?

Ugly scenes, not what you want to see.

 

[villain]

I've long resigned to the idea that, generally, Britain and British people are destined to continue to suffer due to this continued preference of peace over progress, and the misconception that topics of discussion or changes to law can only be done as part of a 'civil' debate or actions that don't disrupt society, without realising that the idea of 'peace' is a key pillar in upholding inequality.

Violent and/or inconvenient political dissent will shock, upset and bother you only if you truly believe we live in a fair democracy, trimmings of meritocracy and non existence of miscarriages of justice included.

And if we're going to discuss violence, then let's discuss all the violence that the state gets up to.

 

[TheReligion]

After all the shit the police get up to I’m finding it hard to care.

Sadly that says alot about you.

 

[Smores]

I've long resigned to the idea that, generally, Britain and British people are destined to continue to suffer due to this continued preference of peace over progress, and the misconception that topics of discussion or changes to law can only be done as part of a 'civil' debate or actions that don't disrupt society, without realising that the idea of 'peace' is a key pillar in upholding inequality.

Violent and/or inconvenient political dissent will shock, upset and bother you only if you truly believe we live in a fair democracy, trimmings of meritocracy and non existence of miscarriages of justice included.

And if we're going to discuss violence, then let's discuss all the violence that the state gets up to.

I'm of this mind as well but at the same time you know who these folk are and they're not the politically motivated lot they're just wannabe anarchists.

I'd go further than your post though, any kind of disruption is too much for the British mindset as we've seen with climate protests. Keep Apathetic and Carry On is more appropriate.

 

[villain]

I'm of this mind as well but at the same time you know who these folk are and they're not the politically motivated lot they're just wannabe anarchists.

I'd go further than your post though, any kind of disruption is too much for the British mindset as we've seen with climate protests. Keep Apathetic and Carry On is more appropriate.

I don't really care if they're politically motivated or not, and it's not for me to judge - and honestly a protest needs a mix of people because the whole point is to educate and bring awareness.

I don't even think it's apathy - it's either ignorance or delusion at this point, and we're destined to continue on this cycle.

 

[NinjaFletch]

I don't really care if they're politically motivated or not, and it's not for me to judge - and honestly a protest needs a mix of people because the whole point is to educate and bring awareness.

I don't even think it's apathy - it's either ignorance or delusion at this point, and we're destined to continue on this cycle.

I think it's more decades of conditioning to believe that only protests that are massively ineffectual are morally defensible. The government know peaceful protest acts as a pressure valve, so (unless they're really thick like Patel) are largely happy to allow it out of fear that if they don't more effective methods might be adopted. I can name several large scale, peaceful demos which attracted upwards of a million people; I can't name you a single thing any of them achieved.

 

[TheReligion]

I think it's very narrow minded to suggest that that only way of achieving anything is to try and seriously injure/kill people.

For all the criticism of XR by the wider public by using tactics to cause maximum disruption they have had much more of an impact on climate change than anticipated. Both amongst the public and internationally.

 

[villain]

I think it's more decades of conditioning to believe that only protests that are massively ineffectual are morally defensible. The government know peaceful protest acts as a pressure valve, so (unless they're really thick like Patel) are largely happy to allow it out of fear that if they don't more effective methods might be adopted. I can name several large scale, peaceful demos which attracted upwards of a million people; I can't name you a single thing any of them achieved.

Exactly this, like I said earlier 'peace is a pillar in upholding inequality' - you are unlikely to achieve anything with a polite demonstration. But British people gasp at the sight of any type of violence they can see, but are so normalised to violence when it comes to economics, race, gender etc due to institutions like the media upholding the status quo (as well as their own delusions about everything being equal), that we are just going to continue in this cycle.

 

[NinjaFletch]

I think it's very narrow minded to suggest that that only way of achieving anything is to try and seriously injure/kill people.

For all the criticism of XR by the wider public by using tactics to cause maximum disruption they have had much more of an impact on climate change than anticipated. Both amongst the public and internationally.

Well, for a start, I'm not sure XR have achieved any tangible success. Secondly, what success XR have achieved has largely been a result of adopting much more disruptive methods than is normally considered defensible - in fact it's largely them that has caused this bill. They generated a plethora of headlines along the lines of 'XR are right, but how dare they sit on a bridge or stand on a train' and as a result achieved massively disproportionate coverage and attention than if they'd peacefully marched towards Westminster and shouted some witty slogans for a bit.

I'm also not making any moral judgement here or endorsing violent protest; I just think it's an indisputable fact when you look at the history of protest that violent movements are significantly more likely to achieve their aims.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

I think it's very narrow minded to suggest that that only way of achieving anything is to try and seriously injure/kill people.

For all the criticism of XR by the wider public by using tactics to cause maximum disruption they have had much more of an impact on climate change than anticipated. Both amongst the public and internationally.

Whether XR have or haven't achieved a meaningful impact or not, it is precisely the sort of action taken by XR that the recent bill will target with significant punitive sentences. Violence is, I fully agree, never a good thing but if the right to legitimate protest is taken away then this will inevitably lead to violent confrontation between the people and the state. The coppers are, unfortunately, the state's frontline in this situation.
This bill must be reversed - but it won't be and the weekend's incidents will be used as collateral to justify the bill's existence.

 

[TheReligion]

Well, for a start, I'm not sure XR have achieved any tangible success. Secondly, what success XR have achieved has largely been a result of adopting much more disruptive methods than is normally considered defensible - in fact it's largely them that has caused this bill. They generated a plethora of headlines along the lines of 'XR are right, but how dare they sit on a bridge or stand on a train' and as a result achieved massively disproportionate coverage and attention than if they'd peacefully marched towards Westminster and shouted some witty slogans for a bit.

I'm also not making any moral judgement here or endorsing violent protest; I just think it's an indisputable fact when you look at the history of protest that violent movements are significantly more likely to achieve their aims.

You're jumping from one extreme to the next with no in-between. What happened last night is totally different to the tactics used by XR. They aim to cause maximum disruption in many different ways but none of them result in violence and serious assault.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

I'm of this mind as well but at the same time you know who these folk are and they're not the politically motivated lot they're just wannabe anarchists.

I'd go further than your post though, any kind of disruption is too much for the British mindset as we've seen with climate protests. Keep Apathetic and Carry On is more appropriate.

Whilst I get your point, surely a wannabe anarchist is by definition politically motivated?

 

[TheReligion]

Whether XR have or haven't achieved a meaningful impact or not, it is precisely the sort of action taken by XR that the recent bill will target with significant punitive sentences. Violence is, I fully agree, never a good thing but if the right to legitimate protest is taken away then this will inevitably lead to violent confrontation between the people and the state. The coppers are, unfortunately, the state's frontline in this situation.
This bill must be reversed - but it won't be and the weekend's incidents will be used as collateral to justify the bill's existence.

I don't disagree but I think it's disingenuous to not recognise the distinction between violence such as last night and effective legitimate protest.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

I don't disagree but I think it's disingenuous to not recognise the distinction between violence such as last night and effective legitimate protest.

Nor do I disagree with your position.
I wasn't there and can't comment from an informed position but I have seen protests both descend into violence due to an element in the march or demo hellbent on having a fight and I've also seen peaceful matches turn into desperate fights for survival due to Police tactics (the, I think '91, Isle of Dogs anti BNP one was fecking horrendous and entirely Police initiated - I feared for my and other's lives).
It seems that last night was the former based on the reporting but, having seen how this type of thing can be spun I honestly don't have good enough sources to verify.
In saying that, I want to clearly state that the outcome of seriously injured cops (and I imagine protestors too?) is clearly not a good thing. The point I am making is that this is an inevitable end result of the policy and culture of this Government and UK politics in general. It's going to get worse.

 

[NinjaFletch]

You're jumping from one extreme to the next with no in-between. What happened last night is totally different to the tactics used by XR. They aim to cause maximum disruption in many different ways but none of them result in violence and serious assault.

Nah, I'm just not convinced by your point about XR and their tactics being significantly more likely to achieve anything than other forms of peaceful protest. I think they've largely attempted to adopt more militant tactics, but still largely found that peaceful protest (however disruptive) will ultimately be swept away unless the establishment decides to co-opt the cause.

But at its most basic level the point is obvious, whatever you think about the moral questions.

Imagine two groups. One asks politely, can we change this thing that we don't like?' and the other asks 'can we change this thing that we don't like, and if you don't agree then we might start smashing up some windows, setting fire to things and generally being cnuts'. Which of those two groups is more likely to get what they want?

It's not pleasant, it doesn't sit well with our belief in the power of an idea, nor with out innate sense of fairness that the nice guys should win, but it's unfortunately the reality of the world.

 

[TheReligion]

Nor do I disagree with your position.
I wasn't there and can't comment from an informed position but I have seen protests both descend into violence due to an element in the march or demo hellbent on having a fight and I've also seen peaceful matches turn into desperate fights for survival due to Police tactics (the, I think '91, Isle of Dogs anti BNP one was fecking horrendous and entirely Police initiated - I feared for my and other's lives).
It seems that last night was the former based on the reporting but, having seen how this type of thing can be spun I honestly don't have good enough sources to verify.
In saying that, I want to clearly state that the outcome of seriously injured cops (and I imagine protestors too?) is clearly not a good thing. The point I am making is that this is an inevitable end result of the policy and culture of this Government and UK politics in general. It's going to get worse.

Looking at what's been reported last night I really don't see any spin on it.

The point I am making is nothing is black or white. You don't have to have a peaceful protest that dissipates in to nothing nor do you have to have a riot that sees plenty of people injured. You can fall into that grey area and achieve something.

 

[TheReligion]

Nah, I'm just not convinced by your point about XR and their tactics being significantly more likely to achieve anything than other forms of peaceful protest.

But at its most basic level the point is obvious, whatever you think about the moral questions.

Imagine two groups. One asks politely, can we change this thing that we don't like?' and the other asks 'can we change this thing that we don't like, and if you don't agree then we might start smashing up some windows, setting fire to things and generally being cnuts'. Which of those two groups is more likely to get what they want?

It's not pleasant, it doesn't sit well with our belief in the power of an idea, nor with out innate sense of fairness that the nice guys should win, but it's unfortunately the reality of the world.

The closed down the whole of London for several days and out stretched the Met to the point of it being a critical resourcing issue. They didn't need to break arms and try and kill people either.

As I said the whole thing doesn't have to be one or the other. There's a middle ground.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Looking at what's been reported last night I really don't see any spin on it.

The point I am making is nothing is black or white. You don't have to have a peaceful protest that dissipates in to nothing nor do you have to have a riot that sees plenty of people injured. You can fall into that grey area and achieve something.

Sure, but if legislation means that any protesting at all, no matter how peaceful, can result in punitive sentencing (and the Police being instructed to be more hands on) then violence becomes increasingly likely. XR is an interesting one as the kids of Tory voters are doubtless out there and things could get ugly but BLM (or similar) and "Kill the Bill" type protests? They're fecked - especially now. That shifts the grey area you refer to.

As for the spin point, you may very well be right but having been in these situations I've learned to be mistrustful. All of your and my points still stand irrespective.

 

[NinjaFletch]

The closed down the whole of London for several days and out stretched the Met to the point of it being a critical resourcing issue. They didn't need to break arms and try and kill people either.

As I said the whole thing doesn't have to be one or the other. There's a middle ground.

But, again, XRs tactics were widely criticised by establishment politicians and have directly led to the introduction of this bill. They aren't welcomed as bastions of peaceful protest who should be embraced, but people who operate outside of the accepted norms of protest in this country and deserve condemnation for it. And that's not just Patel; the Labour leader condemned them too.

I question how ultimately effective the disruption they achieved was, but you can't hold them up as the acceptable face of succesful peaceful protest, because noone in the political establishment thinks their tactics are acceptable. They're still deliberately engaging in civil disobedience to achieve political aims; it might not be on the scale of smashing windows or killing people, but it's on that spectrum.

 

[TheReligion]

But, again, XRs tactics were widely criticised by establishment politicians and have directly led to the introduction of this bill. They aren't welcomed as bastions of peaceful protest who should be embraced, but people who operate outside of the accepted norms of protest in this country and deserve condemnation for it. And that's not just Patel; the Labour leader condemned them too.

I question how ultimately effective the disruption they achieved was, but you can't hold them up as the acceptable face of succesful peaceful protest, because noone in the political establishment thinks their tactics are acceptable. They're still deliberately engaging in civil disobedience to achieve political aims; it might not be on the scale of smashing windows or killing people, but it's on that spectrum.

I think you're skirting around the point I'm making.

There's not just ineffective peaceful protest v violence and disorderly ones. There's a middle ground which XR exploit and it's very effective.

 

[kidbob]

It reminds me of my countries history within colonialism. For quite a long time the concept of 'Home Rule' was dangled at them as a carrot to keep them more in check. This concept was then pushed further and further down the road each time. Finally it was used as an incentive for Irish people to go fight for Britain in World War 1, however simultaneously others had decided enough was enough and that only by force could they gain freedom. Hence the 1916 rising happened at the same time that many Irish people were fighting a war overseas. The rebels were absolutely correct in their mistrust of the carrot in my opinion.

Now that is obviously a massive simplification of complex proceedings but it highlights the point that only for so long can false promises of change be made before people are forced into more aggressive action. The British people who died in 1916 Rising died because of the actions of the British government first and foremost. They were victims of years of lies and deceiving.

The big problem for the British public, in my eyes, is that for some strange reason the Tory party continue to get voted in because they are excellent at blaming their faults or mistakes on others, be it the British public, the EU or opposition parties. The thing is though, that regardless of Democracy, if enough of a population are pissed off and it seems that they can make no change peacefully then its inevitable that people will lash out. The injuries to those police officers may have been at the hands of protesters but the blame lies almost squarely at the feet of the government. If you don't sit up and listen to peaceful protests then you risk the chances of violence.

If the Tory party have enough of the public hoodwinked to keep them in power then it is not reasonable to expect the rest of the population to accept that in silence.

 

[NinjaFletch]

I think you're skirting around the point I'm making.

There's not just ineffective peaceful protest v violence and disorderly ones. There's a middle ground which XR exploit and it's very effective.

But that's not the point that either Villain or I made. We were directly contrasting ineffective peaceful protest which worked within the confines of the law to effective protest (including civil disobedience and, ultimately, violence) which worked outside it.

The 'middle ground' that you're advocating isn't a middle ground at all. Its deliberately and self consciously working outside of the legal norms of protest, knowing that it could lead to arrest and prosecution, in order to achieve widespread disruption and inconvenience. It's the cuddly face of window smashing, and it's why MPs are voting in a bill to give the police stronger powers to tackle these tactics. Ultimately, the tactics work for the same reason that violence works; you make enough of a nuisance of yourself that it is easier for the government to give you what you want than to continue opposing you.

 

[TheReligion]

But that's not the point that either Villain or I made. We were directly contrasting ineffective peaceful protest which worked within the confines of the law to effective protest (including civil disobedience and, ultimately, violence) which worked outside it.

The 'middle ground' that you're advocating isn't a middle ground at all. Its deliberately and self consciously working outside of the legal norms of protest, knowing that it could lead to arrest and prosecution, in order to achieve widespread disruption and inconvenience. It's the cuddly face of window smashing, and it's why MPs are voting in a bill to give the police stronger powers to tackle these tactics. Ultimately, the tactics work for the same reason that violence works; you make enough of a nuisance of yourself that it is easier for the government to give you what you want than to continue opposing you.

It is a middle ground. We'll have to agree to disagree if you don't see the difference between the extremes that I do.

Ultimately there's no excuse for the level of violence towards other human beings that we saw last night. I can't agree with anyone that suggests that is okay. (I'm not saying you do but that's my stance on it)

 

[neverdie]

It is a middle ground. We'll have to agree to disagree if you don't see the difference between the extremes that I do.

Ultimately there's no excuse for the level of violence towards other human beings that we saw last night. I can't agree with anyone that suggests that is okay. (I'm not saying you do but that's my stance on it)

How are XR's tactics a middle ground when those are the exact kinds of protest that will be subject to potential custodial sentences and criminalisation under the auspices of creating a nuisance? You're wrong on this issue.

 

[NinjaFletch]

It is a middle ground. We'll have to agree to disagree if you don't see the difference between the extremes that I do.

Ultimately there's no excuse for the level of violence towards other human beings that we saw last night. I can't agree with anyone that suggests that is okay. (I'm not saying you do but that's my stance on it)

But is that because you don't see much sense in the violence on a cause like that (which we both agree on), or because you think that violence is always indefensible?

Would you make the same point, say, to criticise Mandela and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa or would you recognise the legitimacy of violence as a form of opposition to a clearly abhorrent and disgusting regime like apartheid era South Africa?

Once you accept the legitimacy of violence in the pursuit or certain political goals, it really becomes a debate not of whether violence can be morally defensible but whether a particular cause is important enough for violence to legitimately be deployed in pursuit of it.

 

[sun_tzu]

Once you accept the legitimacy of violence in the pursuit or certain political goals, it really becomes a debate not of whether violence can be morally defensible but whether a particular cause is important enough for violence to legitimately be deployed in pursuit of it.

At that point do you also accept the legitimacy of people of the opposite view (eg Government including police and army) using violence to protect their political goals? (who is the arbiter of which certain goals are valid?)

 

[NinjaFletch]

At that point do you also accept the legitimacy of people of the opposite view (eg Government including police and army) using violence to protect their political goals? (who is the arbiter of which certain goals are valid?)

God that's an incredibly anarchical question of you. Of all the posters to question the legitimacy of a state monopoly on violence I'm not sure I'd have had you pegged for it!

 

[Sweet Square]

 

[TheReligion]

But is that because you don't see much sense in the violence on a cause like that (which we both agree on), or because you think that violence is always indefensible?

Would you make the same point, say, to criticise Mandela and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa or would you recognise the legitimacy of violence as a form of opposition to a clearly abhorrent and disgusting regime like apartheid era South Africa?

Once you accept the legitimacy of violence in the pursuit or certain political goals, it really becomes a debate not of whether violence can be morally defensible but whether a particular cause is important enough for violence to legitimately be deployed in pursuit of it.

Again we aren't talking about that are we? We are talking about what happened last night in Bristol. It's not really a question as to my personal thoughts on protests it's a question as to if you believe last nights level of violence and the injuries caused to the officers was acceptable. I don't and I don't think you do but rather than just say that we keep going around in circles.