Activism and Protesting in the U.K
SpookTheDevil | 12.09.2003 13:12 | Analysis | Indymedia | London | World
I try to keep this short, as I hate long articles. But I have things to say so it might be longer than I hope, I hope you can read through it.
Right,I lived in the U.K for eight years, being active in protesting/squatting in London and Scotland. Now I have moved out of the U.K...so I can look at things from the 'outside'.
During my time in England, everywhere where I went activists were talking about how brutal the Police are. And sure, sometimes they use force that can be seem to be too excessive. But that didn't happen over night, the reasons for the police behaviour have roots in the fact that the British Protesters are sometimes more interested in destroying things than in the actual protest. (and before you say it..I know it isn't everyone).
And in the end the police are there to do a job, their boss has told them what to do and where to keep the protesters. If you get out of that line...they do ALWAYS!!! ask you to move..only when you stay put, do they get physical.
I wish that the proteters would communicate with the polie more, a lot can be achieved with talking. You would be surprised how easily the police will give you rights to protest, as long as you inform them of when and where you are planning to protests.
In other countries, mainly in Scandinavia, I hae beeen involved in many protests and perhaps they are better organised as the police precence is usully minimal and proteters are free to move and make their point. No needless violence.
I think I leave my article here..it has gotten to some of the points I wanted to make and still stayed short enough for people to read.
Let me know what you think...and please...be kind, I rather you not swear at me..*winks*
X-it Spook
p.s Hello to all the Old Dental Factory Squatters from 2001....you know who you are.
Right,I lived in the U.K for eight years, being active in protesting/squatting in London and Scotland. Now I have moved out of the U.K...so I can look at things from the 'outside'.
During my time in England, everywhere where I went activists were talking about how brutal the Police are. And sure, sometimes they use force that can be seem to be too excessive. But that didn't happen over night, the reasons for the police behaviour have roots in the fact that the British Protesters are sometimes more interested in destroying things than in the actual protest. (and before you say it..I know it isn't everyone).
And in the end the police are there to do a job, their boss has told them what to do and where to keep the protesters. If you get out of that line...they do ALWAYS!!! ask you to move..only when you stay put, do they get physical.
I wish that the proteters would communicate with the polie more, a lot can be achieved with talking. You would be surprised how easily the police will give you rights to protest, as long as you inform them of when and where you are planning to protests.
In other countries, mainly in Scandinavia, I hae beeen involved in many protests and perhaps they are better organised as the police precence is usully minimal and proteters are free to move and make their point. No needless violence.
I think I leave my article here..it has gotten to some of the points I wanted to make and still stayed short enough for people to read.
Let me know what you think...and please...be kind, I rather you not swear at me..*winks*
X-it Spook
p.s Hello to all the Old Dental Factory Squatters from 2001....you know who you are.
SpookTheDevil
Comments
Hide the following 25 comments
I agree, but...
12.09.2003 13:37
One has to ask why some demos are diferent. My guess is that these are the demos where the police have recieved special orders from above. This means that those demos are considered by the powers that be to be significant and potentially powerful?
Tim
Negotiate with for short term tactical advantage, but abolish them long term.
12.09.2003 14:16
But the main point is missed: the states police force needs to be disolved, and policing needs to be handed over to the people, democratically where they see thee is a need. Simply it serves the interest of the people on not the state and the big capitalists.
Same to be said of the sate's army.
These two objectives reached will enable another world to be possible determined deomocratically, and locally, by ordinary people.
Hamlet
From the Author
12.09.2003 14:40
and in some of them the Police are almost part of the protest. I have many times, even in London, talked to the police in the Demos, and trust me they much rather not be there.
And with some dialogue between the Police and Organisers of the protests, there would not be the need for so many police.
Also, when other protesters see me talking to the police, I am accused of being a Police collabarator, and told not to speak to the 'pigs', (why the name calling...'pigs', Police doesn't call us names..do they??)
X-it Spook
Spook The Devil
not always
12.09.2003 14:55
Usually, but not always.
Also, please note that we don't just want to 'make our point'.
We want to make a *difference*. And it's when protests are really
effective in that respect that the police intervene heavily.
anon
British policing
12.09.2003 15:14
Taking Basra as an example. The americans in Bahgdad have heavily armed soldiers in fatigues. The British, in rolled up sleeves, in caps (not helmets) have more control. They do this by isolation techniques. If there is a sniper then they clear an area of 'innocent civilians', they then escalate the process step by step until the sniper has been identified. This technique is used for public order, isolate those who are causing trouble. This divides the community and stops people seeing their cause as the same.
Taking that example in Britain it was interesting that DSEi had a NVDA day and a 'no rules' day. non of the actions [by the protestors] on the 10th were more violent than those on the previous day. So why the split? The police force heavily police certain protests (Fairford, DSEi etc). This invasive policing means that more liberal people stay away, thereby the alienation continues.
On the continent the police do not follow indivduals around for 5 days (as happened this week), they do not have 24 hour surveilance and databases of all those attending gatherings (as at EF). Therefore people with differing views have a more comfortable and open environment in which to share experiences and build relationships. Then when tear gas and confrontation finally occurs sides are easier to take.
This is why when most people go on about brutal policing in Britain it is not necessarily because people are shot as in colombia, but because people without criminal records are locked up for hours on end and made to take weeks off work (and maybe lose their jobs) to go through the legal system defending themselves. Those who are not prepared to go to those lengths are alientated from those who are. So from the very inception of a protest there is a divide and rule. This is why those in britain who are at the 'front line' appear more militant, and appear to be 'out of touch' with those who aren't. It is a deliberate policy by the British Police.
The solutions though are very difficult, and I don't have them...but understanding these rules of engagement are important.
B
bozavine
e-mail:
bozavine@yahoo.co.uk
British policing...
12.09.2003 15:57
Even Black Bloc things here are more about people who are willing to break out of a cordon, be strategic etc. - rather than actual fighting.
4thwrite
You can negotiate if all you want to do is march...
12.09.2003 17:46
misty
ends?
12.09.2003 18:39
x
From the Author ..again
12.09.2003 19:27
On a note of Faslane, I have lived there for 8 months and my girlfriend
lived there for over two years.
Ihave had many discussions about direct action both in London and in
Faslane, and my ideas are not always welcome or understood.
Lets take DSEI for example, I agree that it is stupid to arrange an arms
fair in the first place, and that it needs to be protested against..but
by Direct Action?? It will not achieve your goals, my friends.
No one outside the Activist Community will hear about the individual arrests
that take place because of the direct actions, some of my friends from Faslane did actions two years ago at DSEI...and not a word went to the Media.
It is more likely that your action will be noticed if you have the numbers...not
if you get small numbers and no small direct actions...and bigger direct actions
will cause too much criminal damage to attract new people to join the protests, as then they look at you as an unruly mob.
Direct Action (non violent and not causing damage) can be fun and creative, but
unfortunately that is not the case ...it seems that most (and once again not ALL) Direct Actions are aimed at causing too much damage...it will not achieve anything...sorry.
Or if you think it does change something, please give me examples where causing damage by Direct Action has brought you the wanted result??
X-it Spook
p.s I see this article is going down on the list so I might post this again tomorrow!
SpookTheDevil
DSEI Press this time
12.09.2003 20:03
Direct Action doesn't have to involve smashing stuff up. The protests this week were mostly disruptive, blocking roads to DSEI, blocking the trains that carried the delegates.
mark
Up the unruly mob!
12.09.2003 20:10
Mobster
Homepage:
http://www.anarchistyouth.net
WTF
12.09.2003 21:27
Fuck off you 'cool squatter' pigscum!
ram
From the Author
12.09.2003 22:06
I am not a 'cool squatter', it was all good fun when I did it,
and even with your rude words, you still were not able to tell me
any examples of where direct action has given you the results you wanted.
Mark, good to hear that there was more press coverage this year, two years
ago it was a sad story with the Props and everything.
As for the two latest replies, unfortunately violence is not the way.
Call me a Liberal, Squatter..whatever.
We all have rights to our opinions..I do not judge your ways as I do not have the
answers, I was just wanting to have some conversation about the subject.
X-it Spook
SpookTheDevil
Diect Action & Damage
12.09.2003 22:11
Export of veal calves from Coventry was stopped by DA tactics including damage.
Hamlet
From the Author (before bedtime)
12.09.2003 22:30
But I would like to ask/comment, it might've stopped veal calves being
moved from Coventry (please forgive me if I got that wrong...getting tired)
But doesn't that just mean they moved the prodice elsewhere??
Or did they stop all together??
I am not trying to make fun or anything, just being curious
X-it
Spook
bah!
13.09.2003 02:05
Beofre the example let me point out that it was the same establishment that you are licking upto that is and was the culprit, the british pigscum.
All this Gandhi and non violent protest is bullshit blurted to braindeads.
The colonial pigsum was a devious violent drugs and arms trading, child killing pieces of capitalist shite as much as it is today.
So it seems some folk in India said , Ya Basta! and stood their ground.
They knew a quick death was better than a slow death at the hands of the pigscum.
So the y stood fast when it was hailed to move on. They did not budge. They did not try to reason with the pigscum who are beyond reason.
But was it peaceful. Hell no!
The pigscum started to charge, brutalise humans and progress onto shoot and kill.
Do you think the protestors licked the pigscums stinly arses. Hell no!
Instead they shouted ' fuck off you pigscum'.
The pigscum went on more rampage killing and pillaging.
The humans still said 'FUCK OFF YOU PIGSCUM!!!'
Humans won. PIgscum lost.
OK the pigscum only made a strategic withdrawal and still continues to rule the roost but purly becuase the pigs at home do not wish for an uprising to overthrow the pigscum.
The time has come to oust the pigscum
So you freewheeling filthy squatter! why not fuck off or come back and participate in the overthrow.
ram
Author wakes-up
13.09.2003 08:33
But doesn't that then mean that if we the protesters are willing to use violence against
the system, then the system can use violence against us?
I mean when the protesters throw stuff at the Police, then according to your rules the
police would be with-in their rights to use violence against you?
I would also like to point out that even when I lived in Squats, I worked full-time,
and I think my ideas and thoughs about 'freewheeling squatters' might be more radical than any written on this page, but might be another article I write.
Also, if we go on the lines of violence as an approved way.
Then shouldn't we all have supported the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as
approving of Israels tactics in Palestine (and yes, I have been to Palestine mysefl to see what happens there).
Now I don't think any of the above wars is right, but if we approve of violence as a means to solve disagrements.....
Personally I think talking would have more chance in ending crisis...but as people keep so kindly pointing out ot me, I am a 'freewheeling liberal squatter scum', doesn't that just make me want to join my fellow protesters next time. *smiles*
Hope you can all wake-up at somepoint even if it is weekend and you might have days off from work.
X-it Spook the Devil
Spook
Are you sure
13.09.2003 09:25
Did I (or infact anyone on this thread) advocate violence?
All I am have said clearly is that protestors should stand their ground.Ohterwise what is the purpose of protesting?
Take the Tianamen square protest for an example (the reasons of protests aside).
Then only the oppressive pigscum state's violence will be visible to you idiots like you.
What you say advocating is that protestors obey the immoral if not illegal dictates of the pigscum agents of those who the protests are aimed at in the first place!
Again can you understand English?
If not let me kno and I might be rewrite in most north European languages.
As for your freewheeling liberal squatter scum 'freewheeling liberal squatter scum' stint in the UK are you sure it was not part of your work?
ram
Me again,
13.09.2003 10:25
Well my English might not be as perfect as yours my dear friend, but I
did survive in the U.K for long enough.
Sorry if I misundestood some points, but what Direct Action means to
many people who are not involved in protesting, is violence.
And I was not only referring to people on this thread, but people I have talked with while I lived in the U.K.
I know that isn't the case all the time, and most protesters would never
think about violence as an acceptable way of protesting.
I agree that protesters should stand their ground up to a certain point, and there are some actions where staying put would be the way to go. But sometimes isn't the mobility of the crowd that makes the protest more visible?
As for obeying the 'pigscum' (why the name calling, you might not like the leaders and law makers but I am sure you are mature enough to use civil language?), unfortunately there are laws and like it or not. Most of them are there for a reason, and if it is standing your ground in a protest that you wish.
From experience I can tell that the police would let you choose your protesting ground and stay there as long as you like, as long as you talk to them before hand and let them know what you want to do. Naturally they would not let you sit in the middle of Oxford Street, but then again, you should be reasonable with your request.
And for my 'squatter' reply, even when I lived in the squats, I did actually have a rental flat as well, which I paid for. And no, my work had nothing to do with squatting, it was just a coincidence that I even went to my first squat before DSEI 2001.
As for re-writing in 'North European" language, unfortunately that would not help me either, as I would understand them even less than English.
All I was trying to find out by starting this thread was how protesters felt about Direct Action, Violence as a way of achieving your goals. But so far I remain sceptical as to the results it brings.
Yes, you should stand your ground, but use your common sense in those situations as well.
And then for example when you are made to stand your ground (MayDay 2001, Oxford Circus) then you want to get out after 30 minutes and try to crash through the Police (sorry pigscum) lines. Shouldn't you just sit down and enjoy your right to stand your ground?
Or do you want to move when your are contained, and when you are being moved, you want to stay?
Once again, as I do not personally know you, I can not say you would act in these ways, but it is just an observation I have made.
X-it SpookTheDevil
SpookTheDevil
perhaps
13.09.2003 12:06
bollockschops
"Spook" - Rude Language ?
13.09.2003 13:08
The simple fact is that "angry" demos (like the Poll Tax Demo) will get the much needed attention of a wider audience ! Perhaps thats why "Spooks" like yourself try to dictate what to do, and what not to do, aye ?!?
It's not just the Poll Tax that proves this point. For example it took AIDS activists in the US many years to be listened to, but only after they took to the streets throwing red paint about to simulate infected blood in their ACT-UP campaign.
And in the UK and the US people have played by the rules and written to elected representatives, goverment departments, gathered petitions etc, and gone to court over such things as the MMR fiasco, but alas our children are still being brain damaged and poisoned by injections containing mercury and other nasty contaminates, and if parents protest, even peacfully, the face going to prison for their efforts. Isn't it about time we showed our elected representatives just how fucking angry we really are !!!
Anti-Goverment-Spook
Author replies once more.
13.09.2003 13:37
the Police, after all they are only doing their job. And I for one think that
we do need Police on our streets.
Sure, their actions are not right and proper sometimes, but in the as I said they
only follow orders from higher up.
But I can honestly say that I am NOT a Police-plant, although I am sure they would
like me to work for them...*laughs*
But let me give a scenario then, Direct Action protests achieve results.
How about the 1.5 million Countryside Alliance people blocking all roads leading to central London with their tractors and lorries. And demand that hunting should be allowed, should the government then give up and let hunting go on??
Because as soon as we let people (with the numbers and organisations) start to dictate
the policies, well, I hate to say it but I think that the Anarchist or Anti-Capitalist movement would be quite much outnumbered by radical groups which are more organised and bigger in numbers.
Just a thought to once again, not all the changes people want change our society for the
better.
X-it SpookTheDevil
SpookTheDevil
pig
13.09.2003 14:19
I shall address you pig from now on. Do not get pissed off by the language instead pay attention to what I have to say. I for one do not think you are a pigscum plant instead you a stupid pig who is lost.
Instead of wasting your time trying to reason nothing constructive I suggest you starve for two days without any water or food. When your gastric juices start to eat your intestines think about (only then. Not before) the billions starving around the world especially the toddlers and their dired up mothers directly as a consequence of the actions of the pig saystem you do not wish to clash with.
After this comeback and try posting about whether one should act scared of the pigscum.
ram
Sure...
13.09.2003 17:45
I shall be quiet for two days(unless someone asks me to reply), and on Monday I shall post again under the same Title and same name.
Perhaps these two days give me time to think of something more to say.
As for the people starving around the world, instead of blaming it on the government or "pigscum", how about donating some of your income to charities that help those people, I know that is not the solution, but it would surely help. I personally donate money to charities (and sorry if I judged you and you are doing the same).
And trust me, if I had the answers to solving these problems, I would hand them to you
right now, but I have no answers. One of the reasons writing here was to find out what everyone thinks. And I have gotten some answers, I don't know if you care, but I do appriciate the replies. I might not agree with them, but still.
I would still however be interested to know of peoples reaction to the Direct Action example I posted. Because that goes to show that not all Direct Actions would be supported my the majority.
Thank you all and special thanx to Ram who kindly kept posting all along.
X-it SpookTheDevil
SpookTheDevil
Why should we give the so Called Goverment the time of day
14.01.2005 15:37
when the Englishman has no rights only those that are allowed by parliament, so why shouldn't we protest in anger, I didn't vote for any politician so who gives them the right to tell me what to do.
We don't live in a democratic society we live in a dictated society and you will obey the bastards in parliament (will i fuck) what this country needs is a REVOLUTION and kill the bastards in parliament it is a shame Guy Fawkes did not succeed.
[CHARTER 88]
In the United Kingdom, Parliament alone is sovereign - in other words, only Parliament has the right to rule. Individual people do not have any rights or duties other than those granted by Parliament, and Parliament can take away rights and duties from us at will. That is why our democracy is called a parliamentary democracy. We trust elected Members of Parliament to take decisions on our behalf.
I say good on those that REBEL against this so called Democratic Society.
BRING ON THE REVOLUTION
Dreammaster
e-mail:
master_of_dreams@ntlworld.com