Page 34 of 38

Re: Re: Manchester, and now London

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:46 pm
by Sid
Lazarus wrote:
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.
We know the police are in favour of violence, that much is very fucking clear

Re: Re: Manchester, and now London

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:53 pm
by Lazarus
Sid 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...
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.
Your putting a lot of stock in soldiers and police not fighting the people, there will be plenty of blood shed between now and then.

Look at that shooting in the USA at the baseball park now politicians are calling for full protection duty, that's the increasing military complex. Voters don't get access to their politicians without scrutiny, every public event has a high security detail. More private security companies taking over some of these duties. You watch a couple of high profile houses in London get torched in a protest and the private security firms will the benefits.

Re: Re: Manchester, and now London

Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:14 pm
by Sid
Aye private security is on the rise. Rich twats and tories all have them during these historically unfair fucking rich and poor times. But the lads in private security firms are all earning fuck all as well. Protect some rich twat and maintain the status quo while earning 25 thou a year and face possible death or join us and make your life and everybody elses better.

Re: Re: Manchester, and now London

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:13 pm
by Sid
Over 170 years after Engels, Britain is still a country that murders its poor https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... fell-tower

Re: Re: Manchester, and now London

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:08 pm
by Sid
Have you seen this? Incredible if true...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/s ... 69876.html

Re: Re: Manchester, and now London

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:27 pm
by Lazarus
Sid wrote:Have you seen this? Incredible if true...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/s ... 69876.html

:-o SWEET!

Surprising...

Re: Re: Manchester, and now London

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:40 pm
by Snoopcousins
Sid wrote:Have you seen this? Incredible if true...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/s ... 69876.html
Who are selling the flats to the Government?
Are they empty privately owned apartments being sold at a massive markup?!

Re: Re: Manchester, and now London

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:51 pm
by Sid
I'm not sure tbh, not seen any details yet. All I know is the government have written down 10m to get them in there, and the homes are permanent.

It might be that there is social housing in the building and that they will occupy those. A lot of modern luxury high rises have to include so much social housing because the housing crisis in britain and especially london sees entire families sleeping in cars and that. So they have really basic facilities in comparison to their rich neighbours, they have a seperate 'poor door' to go through and they never meet inside the building, it's segregated living hence the phrase social apartheid aka seperated on class grounds.

But either way this is the result of the left/a left wing Labour government pushing for the homes of the rich to be opened up. If they hadn't have pushed that idea relentlessly and made it an issue the tories would have rehoused the survivors outside of london and washed their hands of them.

Re: Re: Manchester, and now London

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:58 pm
by Snoopcousins
Sid wrote:I'm not sure tbh, not seen any details yet. All I know is the government have written down 10m to get them in there, and the homes are permanent.

It might be that there is social housing in the building and that they will occupy those. A lot of modern luxury high rises have to include so much social housing because the housing crisis in britain and especially london sees entire families sleeping in cars and that. So they have really basic facilities in comparison to their rich neighbours, they have a seperate 'poor door' to go through and they never meet inside the building, it's segregated living hence the phrase social apartheid aka seperated on class grounds.

But either way this is the result of the left/a left wing Labour government pushing for the homes of the rich to be opened up. If they hadn't have pushed that idea relentlessly and made it an issue the tories would have rehoused the survivors outside of london and washed their hands of them.
There were luxury apartments built in Gt Victoria Street in Belfast not too long ago- penthouses, concierge, private underground car park etc etc, all around £300K min when opened - then Housing Executive bought about 60% of them for Sicial Housing ,they are now one of the worst flats in Belfast....massive drug problem- users lying around the foyer, needles etc, sudden deaths, domestics , police are never out of it.... tbh I feel sorry for the ones who have mortgages and living there prob with Negative equity unable to move away now the apartments are worth a lot less and no one would buy one privately.
IMO Social housing Belfast is better off in designated own flats /apartments

But...fair play they are getting re-homed quickly

Re: Re: Manchester, and now London

Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2017 5:27 pm
by Lazarus
No coverage of this on the news so far.....