Re: Manchester, and now London

Political Debate
User avatar
Alfonso Bedoya
Legend
Posts: 13448
Joined: 7 years ago

3 years ago

I can't believe, nearly a week on and the Tories and local council, STILL falling short helping these people... it's one thing to be a bit slow, first couple days... it's piss poor, but at least they could make up for it with a proper response when they do pull their finger out... but even now, even after all the criticism, and nearly a week to sort themselves out, and they STILL look totally uninterested...

Completely unacceptable... but what I don't get is how, even in theory, this is sound politically... fuck sake, the Tories are just making themselves look worse day by day... not that I care about that, but you would think May and her ilk would see this as an opportunity to improve their shitty image, and claw back some credibility...
"Badges, to god-damned hell with badges! We have no badges. In fact, we don't need badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges, you god-damned cabrón and ching' tu madre! Come out from that shit-hole of yours. I have to speak to you."
pint vulger
Legend
Posts: 2043
Joined: 4 years ago

3 years ago

They have a total different way of thinking ,they buying time in the hope and it will unfortunately blow over ,aka the medias ott reaction to the nutter who drove the van into the Mosque in Arsenal, that was manna from heaven press wise .
I AM NOT CONDONING THE ATTACK ,its not terrorism just a nutcase.
They are hoping this incident and the start of Brexit talks will take the limelight for the next few days ,and they will take it from there.They live to fight another day.
Huge demonstration is needed.
User avatar
Lazarus
Legend
Posts: 16182
Joined: 7 years ago

3 years ago

This is an interesting article on the subject of peaceful v's violent protest and battling Authoritarianism.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nce-defeat
"Respect! Respect! Respect Maan! Respect! Respect!........." [-X
User avatar
Lazarus
Legend
Posts: 16182
Joined: 7 years ago

3 years ago

Alfonso Bedoya wrote:I can't believe, nearly a week on and the Tories and local council, STILL falling short helping these people... it's one thing to be a bit slow, first couple days... it's piss poor, but at least they could make up for it with a proper response when they do pull their finger out... but even now, even after all the criticism, and nearly a week to sort themselves out, and they STILL look totally uninterested...

Completely unacceptable... but what I don't get is how, even in theory, this is sound politically... fuck sake, the Tories are just making themselves look worse day by day... not that I care about that, but you would think May and her ilk would see this as an opportunity to improve their shitty image, and claw back some credibility...
It's like they don't give a fuck... I agree it doesn't seem to make sense from any angle. Maybe it is just rampant uselessness mixed with arrogance.
"Respect! Respect! Respect Maan! Respect! Respect!........." [-X
User avatar
Sid
Legend
Posts: 24465
Joined: 7 years ago

3 years ago

Lazarus wrote:This is an interesting article on the subject of peaceful v's violent protest and battling Authoritarianism.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nce-defeat
Aye, interesting points, too many to go into. Some of it is a bit dead end for me though. Sit ins are alright but they can be easily swept away by police violence, like Occupy at St Paul's the other year. They let em stay for a couple of weeks while the right wing media demonised em enough to "justify" sending the police in who cleared them pretty quickly with force and violence.

To maintain the sit in would mean fighting back against police when they come in and beat you up, and that would take it from "civil action" to "violent action". You'd need sticks and crash helmets to make it a fair fight too otherwise you'd get minced. Then you'd be brandished "violent" by the state and media and you'd lose liberals.

The native americans did something similar in the Oka Crisis when they built that barricade to protect their land. The police turned up to clear em to allow big business to come in and desecrate their land, but in the US they have guns obviously, so the barricade was armed. Police thought they had more ammo then they did so they decided not to attack and the barricade remained. In that instance the state didn't have the monopoly on violence. State violence was matched. The threat to police who tbf are mostly just doing it for a wage and a pension was too great.
User avatar
Lazarus
Legend
Posts: 16182
Joined: 7 years ago

3 years ago

Sid wrote:
Lazarus wrote:This is an interesting article on the subject of peaceful v's violent protest and battling Authoritarianism.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nce-defeat
Aye, interesting points, too many to go into. Some of it is a bit dead end for me though. Sit ins are alright but they can be easily swept away by police violence, like Occupy at St Paul's the other year. They let em stay for a couple of weeks while the right wing media demonised em enough to "justify" sending the police in who cleared them pretty quickly with force and violence.

To maintain the sit in would mean fighting back against police when they come in and beat you up, and that would take it from "civil action" to "violent action". You'd need sticks and crash helmets to make it a fair fight too otherwise you'd get minced. Then you'd be brandished "violent" by the state and media and you'd lose liberals.

The native americans did something similar in the Oka Crisis when they built that barricade to protect their land. The police turned up to clear em to allow big business to come in and desecrate their land, but in the US they have guns obviously, so the barricade was armed. Police thought they had more ammo then they did so they decided not to attack and the barricade remained. In that instance the state didn't have the monopoly on violence. State violence was matched. The threat to police who tbf are mostly just doing it for a wage and a pension was too great.

I think it's gone past the point were violent protest is an option anymore. As an immediate reaction to any event it can raise it's head but sustaining it is a whole other can of worms which will be deemed Terrorism. The thing is, terrorism isn't, by design, a mass participation sport. Besides governments world wide now have a huge arsenal of weapons non-lethal/lethal, policies (curfew, internment, stop and search, cyber) and general hardware.

We're fucked...
"Respect! Respect! Respect Maan! Respect! Respect!........." [-X
User avatar
Lazarus
Legend
Posts: 16182
Joined: 7 years ago

3 years ago

"Respect! Respect! Respect Maan! Respect! Respect!........." [-X
User avatar
Snoopcousins
Legend
Posts: 4529
Joined: 6 years ago

3 years ago

Lazarus wrote:
Sid wrote:
Lazarus wrote:This is an interesting article on the subject of peaceful v's violent protest and battling Authoritarianism.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nce-defeat
Aye, interesting points, too many to go into. Some of it is a bit dead end for me though. Sit ins are alright but they can be easily swept away by police violence, like Occupy at St Paul's the other year. They let em stay for a couple of weeks while the right wing media demonised em enough to "justify" sending the police in who cleared them pretty quickly with force and violence.

To maintain the sit in would mean fighting back against police when they come in and beat you up, and that would take it from "civil action" to "violent action". You'd need sticks and crash helmets to make it a fair fight too otherwise you'd get minced. Then you'd be brandished "violent" by the state and media and you'd lose liberals.

The native americans did something similar in the Oka Crisis when they built that barricade to protect their land. The police turned up to clear em to allow big business to come in and desecrate their land, but in the US they have guns obviously, so the barricade was armed. Police thought they had more ammo then they did so they decided not to attack and the barricade remained. In that instance the state didn't have the monopoly on violence. State violence was matched. The threat to police who tbf are mostly just doing it for a wage and a pension was too great.

I think it's gone past the point were violent protest is an option anymore. As an immediate reaction to any event it can raise it's head but sustaining it is a whole other can of worms which will be deemed Terrorism. The thing is, terrorism isn't, by design, a mass participation sport. Besides governments world wide now have a huge arsenal of weapons non-lethal/lethal, policies (curfew, internment, stop and search, cyber) and general hardware.

We're fucked...
So...are you saying you're an advocate of "violent protest"?
Halfway between the gutter and the stars

“I don't have any real proof and I can't be arsed to find any. But I bet I’m right” - Sid, 6th March 2018
User avatar
Sid
Legend
Posts: 24465
Joined: 7 years ago

3 years ago

Lazarus wrote:
Sid wrote:
Lazarus wrote:This is an interesting article on the subject of peaceful v's violent protest and battling Authoritarianism.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nce-defeat
Aye, interesting points, too many to go into. Some of it is a bit dead end for me though. Sit ins are alright but they can be easily swept away by police violence, like Occupy at St Paul's the other year. They let em stay for a couple of weeks while the right wing media demonised em enough to "justify" sending the police in who cleared them pretty quickly with force and violence.

To maintain the sit in would mean fighting back against police when they come in and beat you up, and that would take it from "civil action" to "violent action". You'd need sticks and crash helmets to make it a fair fight too otherwise you'd get minced. Then you'd be brandished "violent" by the state and media and you'd lose liberals.

The native americans did something similar in the Oka Crisis when they built that barricade to protect their land. The police turned up to clear em to allow big business to come in and desecrate their land, but in the US they have guns obviously, so the barricade was armed. Police thought they had more ammo then they did so they decided not to attack and the barricade remained. In that instance the state didn't have the monopoly on violence. State violence was matched. The threat to police who tbf are mostly just doing it for a wage and a pension was too great.

I think it's gone past the point were violent protest is an option anymore. As an immediate reaction to any event it can raise it's head but sustaining it is a whole other can of worms which will be deemed Terrorism. The thing is, terrorism isn't, by design, a mass participation sport. Besides governments world wide now have a huge arsenal of weapons non-lethal/lethal, policies (curfew, internment, stop and search, cyber) and general hardware.

We're fucked...
Aye see at Oka the people managed to resist the police, so the state sent in the army instead

You'd need to change the national discourse and spread ideas of comradship, mutual aid, a better life for everybody - including soldiers who when they take the uniform off go back to their estates and are shit on like the rest of us. In Egypt the state sent the tanks in to Tahrir square to clear it but the soldiers refused to fire. They just parked up. Some got out and joined the protestors. They'd had enough of the dictatorship. In Britain in 1918/19 a similar thing happened when the working class buoyed by working class uprisings in europe were organising mass strikes, political action and became a real threat to the state. The government wanted to send the army in but for a time they couldn't because as the memos prove they couldn't rely on soldiers to protect them from a working class uprising because they too were fed up of fighting bullshit wars (like WW1) and so were organising and making their own demands (most of which they got as the government had no option). They sent 3 ships to fight the bolsheviks in russia but the lads refused to get on them, so they sailed with just the officers on board lol. That should have happened with the Iraq war.
User avatar
Lazarus
Legend
Posts: 16182
Joined: 7 years ago

3 years ago

Snoopcousins wrote:
Lazarus wrote:
Sid wrote:
Lazarus wrote:This is an interesting article on the subject of peaceful v's violent protest and battling Authoritarianism.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nce-defeat
Aye, interesting points, too many to go into. Some of it is a bit dead end for me though. Sit ins are alright but they can be easily swept away by police violence, like Occupy at St Paul's the other year. They let em stay for a couple of weeks while the right wing media demonised em enough to "justify" sending the police in who cleared them pretty quickly with force and violence.

To maintain the sit in would mean fighting back against police when they come in and beat you up, and that would take it from "civil action" to "violent action". You'd need sticks and crash helmets to make it a fair fight too otherwise you'd get minced. Then you'd be brandished "violent" by the state and media and you'd lose liberals.

The native americans did something similar in the Oka Crisis when they built that barricade to protect their land. The police turned up to clear em to allow big business to come in and desecrate their land, but in the US they have guns obviously, so the barricade was armed. Police thought they had more ammo then they did so they decided not to attack and the barricade remained. In that instance the state didn't have the monopoly on violence. State violence was matched. The threat to police who tbf are mostly just doing it for a wage and a pension was too great.

I think it's gone past the point were violent protest is an option anymore. As an immediate reaction to any event it can raise it's head but sustaining it is a whole other can of worms which will be deemed Terrorism. The thing is, terrorism isn't, by design, a mass participation sport. Besides governments world wide now have a huge arsenal of weapons non-lethal/lethal, policies (curfew, internment, stop and search, cyber) and general hardware.

We're fucked...
So...are you saying you're an advocate of "violent protest"?
No. But i can understand how people do resort to it irrespective of colour or creed or politics.
"Respect! Respect! Respect Maan! Respect! Respect!........." [-X
Post Reply