Today there is an article in the Guardian criticising the violent final eviction of climate campers by riot police. You can find it at:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/03/g20-protests-police-tactics

It is an objective article, exposing the clear contradictions between the police statements and what actually happened at Climate Camp and the Bank of England. However, what caught my attention was the final quotation by David Howarth, the Liberal Democrat justice spokesman:

"How did the police end up in a situation where they used the same degree of force on the most peaceful demonstration as they did for a violent protest at the Bank of England? They seem to only have one trick."

Mr. Howarth seems to imply that the people at the Bank of England deserved being kettled and then attacked, because they were ‘violent protesters’. However, most witnesses’ account and video footage, including some from the mainstream press, clearly contradict this assumption. This very article, written by Sandra Laville and Duncan Campbell, explains that people they spoke to at the Bank of England were not violent: ‘The Guardian saw and spoke to many people who were clearly not agitators, but who were refused permission to leave’. There is also some interesting footage from Aljazeera and a good witness account here:  http://www.the-latest.com/eyewitness-brutal-police-put-us-in-a-mouse-trap .

The smashing of RBS windows happened after the crowd had been imprisoned within a police pen with not good reason whatsoever and without food or water. It was a completely natural reaction by a group of very angry people. And attacks on the police lines were mainly acts of self-defence after the police started charging with batons and pushing people around. Why is it that Mr. Howarth is so eager to make this clear distinction between those protesting at Bishopsgate and those at the Bank of England? Sure it is nothing to do with them trying to cash in climate camp’s more recent popularity among mainly middle-class young people (and some upper class too) who tend to vote in mass? Knowing they do not stand a chance of actually winning the elections, they tend to take on ‘lost but honourable causes’ like this one, increasing their chances of getting more sits in Parliament. As they will never win any elections anyway, not pressure to fulfill their own electoral promises. However, in order for this to happen, there needs to be a clear distinction between ‘peaceful’ climate campers and those ‘violent’ anarchists. As we know, that distinction is not so clear-cut as yet. The only thing that will put an end to the irreversible destruction of our environment is the radical transformation of the current economic and social system. I don’t think this objective is very high up on the Lib Dems’ list of priorities. On the contrary, together with labours and tories, they'll do their best for this not to happen.