Skip to content or view screen version

protest leaders laising with police

mediawatch | 01.04.2009 10:35 | G20 London Summit | Climate Chaos | Repression | Social Struggles

according to BBC news police have agreements with protest groups.
a police spokesman is reported to have said
"Direct action is part of the plan for them. When I spoke to some of the demonstrators last night, they said their strategy was to sit down if anyone starts throwing stones, so that those who are violent can be quickly isolated."

obviously this sounds like bullshit, but we need to keep an eye on the "middle class hippy" types, such agreements with the police could easily lead to people getting nicked for nothing.
at climate camp we saw the hippy types sitting down in response to a baton charge...
we then saw lots of bleeding heads.
if a riot does start, and the "leaders" of these non-hiarachical groups start shouting "sit down" i dread to think what's going to happen to all the people who do sit down.
don't make agreements with the police.
all coppers are bastards



copy of BBC report
'Sit-down strategy' for protesters

10:23 BST, Wed 1 Apr: From Rob Broomby in the City

"Police are keeping quite a low profile, though there are cordons around the Bank of England. The early protests have been peaceful but we have seen a number of people in black hoods and face masks moving around.

"Direct action is part of the plan for them. When I spoke to some of the demonstrators last night, they said their strategy was to sit down if anyone starts throwing stones, so that those who are violent can be quickly isolated."

mediawatch

Comments

Hide the following 3 comments

Widely reported

01.04.2009 11:07

It was reported last night on Newsnight that a number of activists from the climate camp had held discussions with the Met during a meeting brokered by a Lib Dem MP yesterday. The police it was suggested were now confident that the Climate Camp was non-violent. You might have thought they would have already known that however!

Possibilities


This is why I don't go on marches or other symbolic protests

01.04.2009 11:35

This is how it usually happens - the "protest" leaders wanting to keep everything nice and fluffy, not wanting to actually change anything but simply keep making the same tedious points time and time again so they appear important (Campaign Against Climate Change etc). Ward Churchill had it right:

-----

"One will find hundreds, sometimes thousands, assembled in an orderly fashion, listening to selected speakers calling for an end to this or that aspect of lethal state activity, carrying signs “demanding” the same thing…and – typically – the whole thing is quietly disbanded with exhortations to the assembled to “keep working” on the matter and to please sign a petition.

Throughout the whole charade it will be noticed that the state is represented by a uniformed police presence keeping a discreet distance and not interfering with the activities. And why should they? The organizers will have gone through “proper channels” to obtain permits. Surrounding the larger mass of demonstrators can be seen others…their function is to ensure the demonstrators remain “responsible,” not deviating from the state-sanctioned plan of protest."

Laughable, isn’t it, that such a well controlled event – and this is the way every official rally I have ever been on works – should be considered a “protest” by the organisers? The laws in each country are tailored to suit the appetite of the population for change: a country full of people that want to fight for change needs to be kept tightly controlled; a country full of catatonic, drip-fed consumers can march all they like, be given a well-controlled soapbox on TV – and the voltage on the tasers can be turned right down.

That is, unless someone decides to break the law.

-------

(from  http://www.farnish.plus.com/amatterofscale/chapter13.htm)

Keith
- Homepage: http://www.amatterofscale.com


we need to be more disciplined& stop provocatuers

01.04.2009 16:18

for ffs

Durutti MIB