If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
There is a question of context; they are committing acts of passive, civil disorder.
In what way is it "trouble"?
http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/showpost.php?p=2036433&postcount=84
I call it dragging and throwing
Even if the runway is built, as it will most probably will, and even if the protests fail to make most people think twice about superfluous air travel, it is still better than not raising the issue at all.
Without wishing to debate whether it was right or wrong, while all those big protests 10 years ago about bypasses failed to stop the roads from being built the policing and political cost was considerable and I am sure one or two tentative projects to do bypasses elsewhere were shelved in view of what might be in store. Even if the battle at Heathrow is lost, if a big enough political storm and public awareness is created by the protests then some future corporote bullying and lies might be prevented.
Because let's keep reminding ourselves BAA lied through their filthy teeth when they assured anyone a third runway would never be needed when they were pledging to be allowed to build T5. As the letter Martin Bashir posted earlier shows. Somebody has to stand up to such nauseating lies, since our government won't. The only way to prevent at least some other corporations from doing that in the future is to shame this act as much and as loudly as possible.
I'm sure people are talking about it. But frankly the talk is all about the risk to their summer hols, by a bunch of 'hippy protesters'. It reminds me of a marketing man I once had to deal with who couldn't quite grasp the fact that we didn't actually just want the policy mentioned in the news - we wanted people to do something. Mentioning and talking aren't enough...
But even if there is an initial backlash the underlying message might well stay in the collective mind for far longer. I realise this is the 'reasoning' terrorist organisations use to justify their actions, though there is obviously a difference between disrupting people's holidays and blowing them to pieces.
Well yes, but terrorists haven't generally realised their goals very well, so it may not be exactly the tactics you want to pursue if your actually serious about getting your message across...
(though to be honest I think an analogy is more akin to Greenham Common where the protesters convinced those who supported them of the rightness of their cause. Of course convinced everyone else that they were stoodges of the Soviets and that any party which supported them should be kept out of Government as long as possible.
Yes, in what way is that "trouble"?
http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/showpost.php?p=2036433&postcount=84
The Soviet 'enemy within' was a triumph of propaganda over reasoned discussion, and that needed to be resisted; I don't think that you can reasonably blame those who resisted or protested at Greenham for keeping Labour out of power.
We also know from internal records that, at the time, The CIA and MI5 had themselves been circulating black propaganda all over Europe, attempting to smear all manner of groups as Soviet stooges. One of the most striking examples can be found in the publication of Claire Sterling's "The Terror Network"; where she argued that all terrorist groups, from the IRA to the Quebec liberation movement, were part of a Soviet plan for world domination.
The work of Adam Curtis (2004) in "The Power of Nightmares", as well as that of Jason Burke (2002) in "Al Quaeda" has demonstrated that the fundamental bases for these arguements were themselves derrived from things the CIA admitted to planting in European popular news outlets to undermine Soviet interests.
I'd never thought I see the day where anti-riot police is used in anger to shield corporations from nothing more than protests and embarrassing photo oportunities.
Oh well. A job well done for London's finest. I'm sure brown envelopes to those in charge will be forthcoming from BAA.
I wish the protesters would naff off back to their forest and let BAA, Heathrow and all their other targets get on with things. Personally I want to see Heathrow expanded, so they aint acting on my behalf.
:thumb:
In a fascist country it might. In Britain...
beating shit out of who? Do you have a link because the only thing I could find was this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6953518.stm
Some selcted highlights
Its hardly Sharpeville Mk II, in fact its hardly even Great Yarmouth Mk II...
But some things do filter through. On BBC TV news last night there were interviewing at least two men who had been respectively hit around the head with a truncheon and kicked in the leg. Both had bleeding wounds as a result.
And if you ever frequent U75 there are several first hand reports of protesters being truncheoned or seeing their friends being truncheoned. In one case it was a woolly jumper-type completely paeceful woman who was hit on the head quite simply for being within reach of the nearest copper. She needed her head bandaged.
I didnt see any of that in the papers. I think it might have been exagerated.
Are you suggesting the BBC is organising a cover up? That's almost as funny as Kermit's diatribes against them.
That said once the decision has been taken to arrest people who are part of a mob you need to go in and get a grip. That does mean moving in with riot gear - and it does mean that those who resist are going to be tackled.
If you don't get a grip you have the Broadwater Farm situation, where as Bernie Grant said 'The police got a bloody good hiding' or to put it another way a PC was decapitated by a mob.
It also has to be said I'm slightly cynical about the fact that whenever there's a riot, everyone injured was an innocent bystander. i'm sure a few were, I'm also sure more than a few were trying to karate kick the officer next to them.
While the issue of Police covering their numbers has been raised in another thread, the Beeb is reporting;
The fact is that there have been injuries sustained by protestors who have been observed all week to be using non-violent methods, as is has been their modus operandi for quite some time now. These injuries are consistent with assaults.
What concerns me here is firstly the imminent threat of police violence, but also the way coppers who go a step too far can undo in seconds, the work of other Officers. The stuff we don't see, that doesn't make the headlines such as community liason work, is so vital but not romantic enough to make the news. Faith in the police is so hard to build, but can be so easily erased. This is the risk when the police are perceived to act unjustly.
even if 99% of the protesters are peaceful it only needs 1% and its not like political demos don't have a history of attracting those who are more interested in having a fight than have a day filled with love and happiness...
Use an example - I'm afraid that sometimes I'll challenge
there are illegal wars going on in our name ...a million marched against it and then went home to air their veiws ont net ...end of.
governments and big biz can do what the hell they like cos the spirit of protest has been replaced with apathy playstations and drink.
The anti-war march in the eve of the Iraq invasion was completely paeceful. Had we decided to turn Central London into a war zone instead, I suspect the government might have thought twice about going to war with Bush.
The French certainly know how to demonstrate.
unreletaed but welcome back
unless protest is illegal in itself, which it is in westminster........