Obviously, it would be a travesty if the police had gone after peaceful protestors.

But it seems more likely that they've gone after the ones who have planted firebombs in universities, firebombed lorries, threatened peoples' families and so on. The lot that don't seem quite so "peaceful".

Hey Norville, you're coming out with the "innocent have nothing to fear" line! It's rubbish. We don't know who they've gone after, we have only what the police are press releasing - and in my own experience I know how they arrest someone for attempted murder (driving down a street not running anyone down), or possession of a weapon (penknife), only to release them without charge AFTER they've told the press how scary evil people we are.

On a separate but related note, damage to property is not violence (unless people/animals are put at risk), unless you completely buy into the capitalist sanctity of property, over life. You will get a longer prison sentence intending to put a firebomb somewhere where there are no people only property, than you will running someone down in your car and killing them!

Just seen police press conference, and it said offences were: burglary, conspiracy to blackmail, and offences under SOCPA.

Now that could mean simply breaking into somewhere, planning to write to people telling them who they're investing in, and demonstrating with too many people/on the wrong day or near someone's house.

Hardly violent really.

Many of the people commenting on threads relating to direct action seem to categorise activists who aim to cause economic damage to companies as "violent". However, most do not criticise the non-violent campaigns of Gandhi. By using tactics such as sitting on railway lines, Gandhi caused a great deal of economic damage to companies, but did not harm any human or non-human sentient beings. AR activists also aim to cause economic damage to companies, but not harm anyone.

The difference between the AR campaigns and Gandhi's non-violence campaign simply appears to be that AR activists damage company property directly. But why should this make any difference. Unless you believe that cars, trucks etc. are sentient beings or in some ways should have the right to be left alone, it is difficult to see the difference between affecting a companies' share price by preventing delivery of goods, and by damaging its assets.

Of course torching something does increase global warming and particulate matter, so a case could be made for environmental vandalism, but objectors never seem to argue along these lines.