Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Occupy London protest.

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

monstersnowman
26 Oct 2011 - 3:36 PM


Quote: peaceful demonstrations

They always are ... and the police always (insert 'over' or 'under') react ... :o)

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
26 Oct 2011 - 3:36 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

brian1208
brian1208 e2 Member 1110369 forum postsbrian1208 vcard United Kingdom12 Constructive Critique Points
26 Oct 2011 - 3:47 PM


Quote: Because the attitude that you seem to take drives people to violence.


Can't let that go unchallenged, its those who carry out violence that decide to do it, the "They made me do it" apology is, in my humble view -crap!

We each of should be responsible for our own behaviour (and like you, I keep on saying that - but few seem to understand this point of view)

Violence only gives power to those who thrive on discord, whether they be the Capitalist Pigs, Nihilistic agitators or what ever label you wish to apply

(and before anyone starts down the Arab Spring / Libya argument, the UK is a democracy, however poorly implemented - not an oppressive dictatorship and no matter how hard you may argue, there is no real absolute poverty in this country - but there will always be "relative poverty" because of the way it is defined)

mikehit
mikehit  56692 forum posts United Kingdom11 Constructive Critique Points
26 Oct 2011 - 4:15 PM


Quote: Tear gas and watery eyes versus a shoot to kill policy.

Hmm.....so they should be grateful not to get shot? I was under the impression that democracies encouraged and supported the right to peaceful protest, not bludgeon people for doing so. Would the same stance be taken if people were protesting to bomb Iran? Doubt it somehow.

I was wondering if you would come back with th at (il)logic.

Peaceful protest is certainly legal. Are you suggesting that every riot that has broken out is due solely to the reaction of the police?
If I remember rightly the 2008 (?) anticapitalist marches were signficant becasue of the lack of police action. They moved in (in many people's view) too late after the vandalism against property had started.

I am not saying the police are blameless but not all marches are carried out by peaceful citizens with no intention of breaking the law.

Zatoichi
Zatoichi  5707 forum posts United Kingdom
26 Oct 2011 - 4:47 PM


Quote: I was wondering if you would come back with th at (il)logic.

Where is the lack of logic?


Quote: Peaceful protest is certainly legal. Are you suggesting that every riot that has broken out is due solely to the reaction of the police?

I haven't suggested or implied that anywhere.


Quote: I am not saying the police are blameless but not all marches are carried out by peaceful citizens with no intention of breaking the law.

The protests I make reference to have all been peaceful, I cant find a single reference of trouble being caused by protesters which begs the question why have they been attacked by riot police? Where is the legality in attacking innocent and peaceful protesters?

collywobles
26 Oct 2011 - 4:53 PM

The Economic differentials in society are not new. There has been rich and poor since the stone age and it is a fact of life. As has been stated here - there are no poor in this country, no one has died of hunger or thirst for many of years. There is a health system free at the point of need, we provide education free and yet there are still some people who are dissatisfied and are envious of anyone who has more than the they have. I have no issue with paying taxes which is the right thing to do to maintain the needs (not wants) of this country and to contribute to helping those 'in need', but to tax people even more to 'just distribute wealth' is insane and unfair to people who work hard and have improved theirs and their familiies lifestyle , How much do you want to 'distribute' wealth by, where will it stop.

OK, lets say I agree with more distribution of wealth, I bet you then you would soon be moaning and groaning to distribute even more.

Stop bitching, get off your arse, and get real! The better off people in this country pay enough taxes as it is without having to sub even more.


Quote: I may have underlying issues but envy is not one of them. Personally, I feel sorry for people who live with only one aspiration: to acquire as much wealth and "social status" as possible

I think you are envious, the only reason I aquire money and status is to improve my quality of life for myself and my family, to ensure that my family live in an pleasant location and have a nice place to live, to see that my children have a good education and can bring their children up in much the same conditions. If this is greed or selfishness then I plead guilty. Throughout my life I have paid taxes probably more than some people earn and I do not begrudge that - but enough is enough, I have well paid my dues to society.

Last Modified By collywobles at 26 Oct 2011 - 4:56 PM
mikehit
mikehit  56692 forum posts United Kingdom11 Constructive Critique Points
26 Oct 2011 - 5:25 PM

Zatoichi, here is your (il)logic:

Me: Tear gas and watery eyes versus a shoot to kill policy.
You: Hmm.....so they should be grateful not to get shot?

That is not what I said and to suggest otherwise is sophistry. It was you in your preivous post who had likened the police action with tear gas to the use of bullets in Middle East and the reasons UN sanctions were put in place.
And did you miss the little winkie?



Quote: I haven't suggested or implied that anywhere.

Your constant defence of the rioters and description of police overreaction at each event does give me the impression you are blaming police for the outbreaks violence. If that is not what you meant then I have clearly drawn the wrong conclusion but (to me) not without reason.


Quote: The protests I make reference to have all been peaceful, I cant find a single reference of trouble being caused by protesters which begs the question why have they been attacked by riot police?

Well if you could clarify which protests you are talking about that would help because many have certainly involved mobs emerging from the march. Again your blanket reference to random police violence is difficult to sympathise with without context.

Zatoichi
Zatoichi  5707 forum posts United Kingdom
26 Oct 2011 - 5:29 PM


Quote: The Economic differentials in society are not new. There has been rich and poor since the stone age and it is a fact of life.

What evidence have you for that? In any case, the argument that 'its always been that way and so should continue' is ridiculous.


Quote: As has been stated here - there are no poor in this country, no one has died of hunger or thirst for many of years. There is a health system free at the point of need, we provide education free and yet there are still some people who are dissatisfied and are envious of anyone who has more than the they have.

Nonsense, look at the governments own figures. You might not be aware that there are public sector cut backs (and moves to privatise) which will lead to a decline in health and education standards, unless you can afford to pay for it of course.


Quote: Stop bitching, get off your arse, and get real! The better off people in this country pay enough taxes as it is without having to sub even more.

A popular mantra of yours which doesn't articulate anything. It is widely known that this country loses 25billion in tax avoidance and 70billion in tax evasion, every year. The government manifesto suggested moves to counteract this yet have done nothing. No surprises there.

Zatoichi
Zatoichi  5707 forum posts United Kingdom
26 Oct 2011 - 5:41 PM


Quote: Your constant defence of the rioters and description of police overreaction.

Where did you read that?


Quote: Well if you could clarify which protests you are talking about that would help because many have certainly involved mobs emerging from the march. Again your blanket reference to random police violence is difficult to sympathise with without context.

Oakland, California. Atlanta, Georgia. Orlando, Florida, and Cleveland, Ohio. Sydney and Melbourne, Australia.

mikehit
mikehit  56692 forum posts United Kingdom11 Constructive Critique Points
26 Oct 2011 - 5:51 PM


Quote: Where did you read that?


Quote: It appears authorities in the US and Australia don't like the protests with riot police attacking peaceful demonstrations with tear gas, flash grenades, bean bag guns, and sonic canon, making hundreds of arrests and laying waste to the camps.

I expect if the same took place in Iran or Syria the UN would be meeting to impose further sanctions and call for NATO bombing to save the people from such tyranny

and


Quote: You're probably right. Its not in the interest of the political and financial class to have people aware, best to keep them dumb. No doubt someone will throw a brick through a window and then there's the excuse to beat over the head with truncheons under the guise thats its about 'anarchy and violence and they're all just thugs'.

To quote two just on this thread. You seem very keen to condemn violence by police (irrespective of circumstance) using emotive metaphors; but either sidestep or justify by implication that the 'public' they are trying to control are the victims of circumstance.

I don't supposeyou would be able to offer the police any advice on crowd control? And help them get it right at marches ranging from anti-war to anti-cuts to anti-captialism? Oh, and while you are at it, advise the organisers of the marches to make sure that they are free of people who want to cause violence for their own political ends, so that at the peaceful marches you attend the police don't have to second guess and occasionally get it wrong.

Last Modified By mikehit at 26 Oct 2011 - 5:52 PM
Zatoichi
Zatoichi  5707 forum posts United Kingdom
26 Oct 2011 - 6:02 PM


Quote: To quote two just on this thread. You seem very keen to condemn violence by police (irrespective of circumstance) but either sidestep or justify by implication that the 'public' they are trying to control are the victims of circumstance.

Those are obviously condemnations of police violence against innocent people and the hypocrisy of western governments. The supported military junta in Egypt are still killing protesters. Why aren't our leaders condemning that? Please don't (deliberately?) misinterpret my comments.


Quote: I don't supposeyou would be able to offer the police any advice on crowd control? And help them get it right at marches ranging from anti-war to anti-cuts to anti-captialism? Oh, and while you are at it, advise the organisers of the marches to make sure that they are free of people who want to cause violence for their own political ends, so that at the peaceful marches you attend the police don't have to second guess and occasionally get it wrong.

Oh come on.

mikehit
mikehit  56692 forum posts United Kingdom11 Constructive Critique Points
26 Oct 2011 - 6:14 PM

I'm taking you at face value, Zatoichi which is all I can do on a computer screen. it is one thing to condemn violence of the police (as you see it) against people but quite another to equate the police actions in Autralia/USA (tear gas) with the actions in Egypt (killing).
But I don't recall you acknowledging or condemning with the same feelings the factions that are often there solely to cause trouble.

On a side note: when you have people at things like the anti-capitalism amrches causing trouble and the police try to control it then it is inevitable innocent people will be caught up in it. But to me that is not all the fault of the police.


I remember an interview with one of the organisers of the ant-cuts march a couple of months ago. She was quite happy to talk about police violence against protesters even though she had not seen it herself, but when the reporter asked her about actions of a (very small percentage) of people within the march causing criminal damage her response was 'I didn't see it so I can't confirm it'.
It is that one-eyed view that makes me suspicous when people talk about unprovoked police violence. It does happen but when it comes to specific instances I would like to understand a little more from the other POV.


And yes, the suggestion to advise the police was toungue in cheek.

Last Modified By mikehit at 26 Oct 2011 - 6:14 PM
gcarth
gcarth e2 Member 102293 forum postsgcarth vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
26 Oct 2011 - 6:38 PM


Quote: What evidence have you for that? In any case, the argument that 'its always been that way and so should continue' is ridiculous.


As are so many of Colin's fatuous statements. He would have us back in feudal times! WinkSad. For instance I have repeatedly explained to him that people like myself are not envious of the super-rich but he is so desperate to look for confrontation instead of seeking to understand that is actually possible not to be envious of people because they have a lot of money.
I think it tells us more about Colin than about me. I've already admitted that I envy people who contribute more to the community than perhaps than I do - or have great tolerance and love for the rest of mankind but I certainly don't envy rich people. I have enough! I'm content! I'm lucky! Not everyone is so fortunate.
That said, I do approve of Colin's apparent get-up-and-go attitude and emphasis on being responsible for one's own welfare; but of course he does not allow for the fact that many hard-working people on the poverty line try to get on in the world, but they have their crutches kicked from under them, as it were.

Zatoichi
Zatoichi  5707 forum posts United Kingdom
26 Oct 2011 - 7:45 PM


Quote: it is one thing to condemn violence of the police (as you see it) against people but quite another to equate the police actions in Autralia/USA (tear gas) with the actions in Egypt (killing).
But I don't recall you acknowledging or condemning with the same feelings the factions that are often there solely to cause trouble.

For the record, I have never condoned violence in any context or pretext. In the context of this thread I am referring to a peaceful demonstration being broken with 'state violence' because its an 'illegal assembly' - nothing else required, I envisage more and more protests becoming illegal (best to keep people dumb and controlled Wink). This particular protest was entirely peaceful but unfortunately is also a protest against government as they are inextricably linked with the financial class, granted to a more notable degree in the US.

Furthermore, how quick the 'powers that be' are to damn another country for its actions against people (especially, no, only) when they have something we want, which leads to death and destruction under the guise of 'democratising' - the most popular one, although in the case of Afghanistan its something different every week.

I find the hypocrisy sickening, almost as much as its mindless acceptance. Violence achieves nothing other than further enrichment and empowerment of those who already control both and throwing stones at them will achieve nothing. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a great man.

gcarth
gcarth e2 Member 102293 forum postsgcarth vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
26 Oct 2011 - 8:34 PM


Quote: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a great man.

Absolutely! And I thoroughly endorse the comments you made in your recent post.


Quote: Can't let that go unchallenged, its those who carry out violence that decide to do it, the "They made me do it" apology is, in my humble view -crap!


This is just another strawman argument. Though I agree with you to some extent, the fact remains that violence breeds violence and so both parties have to take some blame.
If you read what I said again, I didn't say I approved of the violence, so why challenge what I say? Surely it's a non-sequitur.

mikehit
mikehit  56692 forum posts United Kingdom11 Constructive Critique Points
26 Oct 2011 - 9:04 PM

I agree with a fair few of your sentiments there, Zatoichi.

Howeer (you knew there had to be one, right Wink) if it is a genuinely 'illegal assembly' then the police are in a bind: should they uphold the law? And if the people refuse to disperse how far should the police go in either dipersing the crowd or arresting people involved?
The legality of the protest is a different matter.


Your second paragraph is certainly an issue of hypocrisy by governments and one I deplore.
I was reminded of this towards the end of the the Libyan 'uprising'. Once the so-called 'rebels' were in the ascendancy and were invading the two remaining pro-Gaddafi towns, should Nato have 'swapped sides' to protect the minority people being persecuted for not agreeing with the new ruling party? Tongue

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.