the Seriously Organised Crimminal Police Acting out some violence?

The march was allowed to march from Trafalgar Square to Parliament. It was never banned. The march was always subject to negotiation between Stop The War Coalition and The Police.

The march went extremely well indeed despite serious restrictions amounting to a ban. The advice from Liberty, the human rights organisation, was that although the restrictions could be challenged in the courts after the event, individuals choosing to turn up regardless did in the meantime face the possibility of arrest. This to anyone should represent a ban, and there was a general concern amongst anti-war groups that the restrictions had persuaded some individuals not to attend. In the end there were just a handful of arrests and, though there were suspicions that the police were targetting key organisers, there no widespread policy of arresting attendees arbitrarily.

It seems that discussions were ongoing between StWC organisers and the police, and perhaps to avoid embarrassing the government, the police eventually gave the necessary permission. How much this is due to police bureaucracy and how much is due to malicious government intervention we may never know, but the important thing is that we turned up anyway and the ban buckled under popular pressure.

There was a police blockade during the march that prevented a substantial number of protesters from crossing a busy intersection (see footage from about 5:10) that took much resolve to wear down. The police appeared to concede eventually after much chanting and non-violent action - and allowed the rest of the marchers to procede to Parliament Square. The sit-down protest not far from the intersection (also featured in the footage) may have been a factor in allowing the march to proceed unimpeded. Most police were trying to keep order despite being completely unaware of their general strategy, and protesters were frequently frustrated by police being unable to give information about whether the blockade would be permanent.

Most of the police were well-behaved on the day and major credit is due to a number of StWC organisers (orange hi-vis jackets) acting as peaceful go-betweens between the police and the marchers. However several police members, either wanting to respond to the apparent challenge to their authority, or just to exercise some thuggishness, decided to discredit their uniform. To be forced by wage slavery to act as apologists for war criminals however must rankle somewhat, so perhaps it should come as no surprise.

There was an extremely high-profile arrest at Churchill's statue and this was well captured by the independent media (side note: Churchill, much celebrated by the British state as a war hero, spoke strongly in favour of using poison gas on civilians). The police continued the arrest as expected despite a large contingent of protesters chanting: "shame on you".

All protesters deserve much credit for challenging the petty abuse of power we saw yesterday. We defied the ban on the march, so permission was granted. We persisted in continuing the march despite the blockade, and police resistance withered without significant violence. Brown has already broken his promise on restoring some of our lost liberties, but he needs to remember that we will take them anyway, whether we have his permission or not.

"Whose streets? OUR STREETS!"

"decided to discredit their uniform."?

Well a British police uniform really does have a lot of credibility doesn't it?

"Well a British police uniform really does have a lot of credibility doesn't it?"

Well, I understand the anarchist position - on which we may have to disagree - but in any case the police can't be abolished in a day. To do so in my view would risk chaos, since the various elements that are presently causing societal dislocation (and what they are is a matter of some disagreement) would still exist.

My description was a relative measure - as an observer it was (and remains) my view that there were police there who demonstrated some tolerance and diplomacy. My point was to show that some of us in the anti-war movement will give some leeway to officers who do not stoop to petty authoritarianism and jack-booted violence at demonstrations, even if we disapprove of their unthinking function as protectors of war criminals.

I think Ninski probably refers to the undeniable and continued intimidation and harassment of activists by the police.

This is a horrible account of the days events. The march was, as per usual controlled by the police for the majority of the time and as per usual the STWC stewards continue to act as "law" enforcers in the name of "democracy". Isn't it time STWC took a more acceptant stance on individuals wishing to demonstrate in ways other than ineffective A to B marches and encouraged diversity in tactics? For example the G8 demonstrations this year where by most accounts a good example of diverse actions working side by side.

A mis-quote That was in reference to Anarchist not Nimskis comment

I still think tearing the place up gets a better response than having nice police and nice demonstrators. History shows that one.

"I think [Anarchist] probably refers to the undeniable and continued intimidation and harassment of activists by the police."

Yes, I think that was what was being referred to, and I agree, selected police members are employed to intimidate activists. My making a distinction between officers of different kinds was not intended to suggest that their function in the context of policing a demonstration is benign, or that they were not intimidating dissenters. (Incidentally, I heard that officers would approach selected grass-roots individuals and greet them by name, presumably to illustrate that they were under surveillance. It's petty and I doubt it has much of a chilling effect on committed activists - often quite the opposite in fact - but to my mind it does demonstrate the political bias operating in the upper echelons of the force).

"The march was, as per usual controlled by the police for the majority of the time and as per usual the STWC stewards continue to act as "law" enforcers in the name of "democracy"".

I am interested in your thoughts, but I think you are being unnecessarily negative about the achievements of the day. We overturned both the march ban and the blockade by popular pressure, all non-violently, and with little civil disobedience. The full reasoning for the ban has not been explained adequately, in my view, and I hope that Liberty or other groups will use FOI and legal pressure to get that explored and aired in the media. In the fullness of time, I expect this cynical attempt to silence us to backfire miserably for the government, which is another win for the anti-war movement.

"Isn't it time STWC took a more acceptant stance on individuals wishing to demonstrate in ways other than ineffective A to B marches and encouraged diversity in tactics? For example the G8 demonstrations this year where by most accounts a good example of diverse actions working side by side."

What was it about the G8 demos that you want to see replicated at StW marches? Have you approached StWC to discuss your ideas? Could you not have employed your alternative methods outside of StWC guidance?

I dont view the march taking place regardless of its lawfulness being a victory only common sense. For sure STWC has the numbers to march where and when they wish (with a few obvious minor exceptions). It's not a case of if they could continue an illegal march but IF they would. Respectably they did continue regardless.

I wasn't at the G8 but reports from friends suggest that there was mostly, but not in all cases a greater respect for diversity of tactics. Be it non-violents, direct action or more radical anarchist actions every one was on the whole able to take part in ways they felt comfortable.

At this and probably every other STWC march the stewards have acted in the interest of the state by repressing diversity of action. STWC's willingness to perpetuate and participate in police activities is detrimental to long term success of the "movement". I don't wish to state individuals examples here but anyone with there eyes open can see this happen.

A solid national anti-war movement outside of STWC could only be considered desirable for many reasons. I guess its easy for me to be critical but at this time as an individual wouldn't feel happy to make a suggestion as to how to realise this.

I am not suggesting this march was not a victory but without further analysis of the effectiveness of our actions we are doomed to continue the same A to B marches with little result. This becomes even clearer to me when you hear people shouting the slogan "This is what a democracy looks like" whilst be treated like a flock of sheep by the police. Secondly to overstate the size of the victory is hugely damaging, comparatively it may have been a success but its effectiveness was minimal.