Protestors have often targetted the daily mail for it's right wing reportage of important political issues - there's a post further down the newswire highlighting how they scapegoat migrants.

When it comes to climate camp and the sociology of activists there, i don't think you can really blame them for portraying the campers they interviewed as being middle class. are you claiming they made these interviews up?

You've only got to watch this film on current tv of plane stupid activists tamsin osmond and co. to get a sense of their priveledged backgrounds and how they view people further down the 'food chain':

 http://current.com/items/89877328_is-it-ok-to-break-the-law.htm

the film appears to be made by someone sympathetic to the movement and their actions and they're portrayed as being resolutely middle class. How is this much different from the daily mail's reportage?

Environmentalism has always attracted and made efforts to include middle class activists. It's preservation of the status quo and existing class interests is non-threatening to them and it's apocalyptic rhetoric attracts people who have an exaggerated sense of entitlement to 'save the world'. I really wouldn't be surprised if these middle class activists 'find' careers in the so-called green sector or even in the future work for right wing media outlets such as the daily mail under some 'green media' guise.

Not that i want to support the daily mail, but i did go down to the climate camp on saturday and many there did fit the middle class stereotype....i think the diversity issue isnt simply something made up-but something that seriously needs to be discussed if the climate camp is to be a mass-mobilisation of people....

I agree with the above comments. It's not just the Daily Mail that are describing CC as young, white and middle class. There has been lots of discussion about this from other activists as well!

When Joss Garman was reposted here falsely claiming it was his generation who was suffering most from the economic downturn he failed to mention that as his daddy is a millionaire he personally won't be suffering at all.

Typical hypocritcal career environmentalist, self-absorbed and stupid.

Years ago I gave CDs full of software to hundreds of activists, none of whom were protecting their computers at all. The only complaint I got was from Garman who emailed saying that after installing ZoneAlarm it ( not him, it) cut off his daddys computer. Six technicians from his dads factory had to come to their house to reinstall the PC ( rather than say, just unistalling it).

Rich, stupid, hypocritical - and typical.

granted, but that said what exactly have people got against people getting a green job or any other job for that matter. bit of an an exaggerated sense of entitlement in thinking there to think you are entitled to dictate to people that they shouldn't work, and prolefy or impoverish themselves to prove their credentials are utterly altruistic. is tamsin not allowed to earn a crust like everyone else or somefing?

You don't need to have an organisational chart to have a heirarchy. The fact several individuals are named over and over again as spokespeople shows that an unstated heirarchy is in place. Key individuals become nodes that are easily targetted through network theory to destroy the entire structure.

There was lip-service about the camp mimicing the Zapatistas, but the Zapatista spokespeople are anonymous so maybe that would be a good policy from now on. If you have to have named spokespeople, then use the people in your ranks who do not fly, do not eat meat, do not have rich parents and a priveleged lifestyle.

The link to a film about Tamsin shows her taking on ruling class interests; BAA and the Government. She appears to have concerns about women prisoners but her comment is edited mid sentence; she says "She thought" so may me describing the class prejudices of someone else. She refers positively to radical elements of the Suffragette movement; who were working class.

The Daily Mail has tended to support the environment but to oppose the working class. This goes back to the 82 miners strike where climate change was used as a pretext for attacking the organisations of the workers. Working class initiatives against the Daily Mail and for the Climate Camp, such as that reported, should be supported. Looking forward to seeing how it went.

When you have people who become activist celebrities you will have ego bullshit seeping in. For once I agree with Danny. Anonymous spokes people would be a very good tactic on so many levels. The angry masses of the body politic does not need leaders, let along egotistical ones.

We don't need authorities but rabble rousing leaders have been vital to our survival.

The Russian Red and White media departments fed off each other to suggest that the Greens were middle class.

Thats not sociology, Sociologista. That's reconstructed racism. You sound a lot like Under Class Warrior, and you may find counselling helpful in unlocking your bigotry. When "environmentalists" like Reclaim The Streets took action with Liverpool Dockers in 1996, a whole load of this kind of media fuelled distracted consciousness fell away, removing prejudices on both sides leaving a strong bond of neighbourly comradeship, similar to that seen on recent picket lines at Visteon and Vestas, supported by Climate Campers.

Instead of gnawing away at the marquee poles down on Blackheath, why don't you wake up and smell the real traitors in the death throes of our species, the leadership of the Left and Monbiot and his chums in the commetariat. The age of stupid campaigns is now truly upon us, see today's Guardian front page and Monbiot article promoting the 10:10 campaign, supported by E.ON, EDF, and Centrica who have "promised to help customers hit their 10;10 targets(10% reduction in customers carbon footprint in 2010) by providing information on how their energy use compares with past consumption" (D.Adam. Guardian). Wow, aren't the energy multinationals really nice? That's great that they're not bothered about maximising consumption of their commodity in the pursuit of profit.

Here's the really stupid bit, under class sociologista. Monbiot's reason for taking "the pledge" (a bit catholic. can we put him on the bonfire for that?). "To shame the UK govt into adopting the moral leverage to demand immediate sharp cuts from other nations". So while E.ON and EDF are having their New Coal Planning 'lunches' with Miliband and The Met, their PR people buy a bit of free copy in the Guardian telling us to reduce our carbon footprint like it's our fault, and nothing to do with the capitalist organisation of production. Barclays is currently richer than UK thanks to Arabian Oil bail-out money, which gives them even more actual "leverage" than their recently nationalised competitors and the majority of nations. Now Monbiot is not actually that stupid, what with that marvellous education and all that lovely food, so I guess he must have been put on the E.ON PR payroll.
Time to WAKE UP!

Educated at Stowe public school and Oxford.

It's no wonder that this eco-toff wants to preserve the status quo?

However the Daily Mail are using this to attack and 'discredit' the green movement.

I see no problem in criticising the climate camp for attracting lifestylistas looking for something to put on their CV, however at least people involved in climate camp are fucking doing something.

The Daily Mail are doing fuck all, and I presume many people commenting here are doing fuck all.

Am I missing the point here? Why bother what the Daily Mail say and whether we agree with it or not? Why bother is we don't like what they say about us? they are a conservative paper with an agenda of producing a newspaper that tells its readership how nice the royal family is, what celebraties get up to, how to be scared of the big bad world and not to act out of place. once in a while their agenda crosses with ours - their campaign against GM food was excellent, but frankly why waste the time on them?

If I thought I was appeasing the Daily Mail, I would be worried that I was doing something wrong.

To me, the whole point of being radical is to puch the boundaries of change - ask for reform and you get weak reform. Ask for revolution and you might at least get strong reform.

Rosie P

An affinity group of anarchists who had been participating in Climate Camp and had been concerned about the tone and low impact of some of the mainstream camp actions decided to visit the Daily Mail head office in the hope of having a few words. The immediate trigger for this was the poor write up the Camp had received in that week's paper which stereotyped those at camp as 'young, posh idiots', although all the activists involved had many other motivations for this action. Most of all, as working-class people with a sense of basic human solidarity, all those present detested the Mail for its sexist and racist overtones and long record of consistently scapegoating and demonising marginalised social groups such as immigrants, queers, transpeople, the unemployed, youth stigmatised as "chavs", as well as specific instances like the incredibly inaccurate hack job of an article about anarchists in the run-up to the G20.

The group located the Mail's head office on Derry Street in leafy Kensington, masked up and attempted to enter the building, flying a red and black flag and shouting anti-capitalist and anti-Daily Mail chants. The group approached a door clearly marked 'Visitors', but were made to feel rather unwelcome by the reaction of several security guards - both uniformed and plain clothed - who immediately locked the revolving door and attacked and threatened the 'visitors'. Public reaction was warm, with some passers-by photographing and filming the action and shouting their opposition both to the Mail and the severity of the reaction.

There was a disproportionate over-reaction by armed police, culminating in a very visible get-together on the scenic banks of the lake in Hyde Park - several police vehicles, several anarchists, and several swans were in attendance. Although the group didn't get to have the little chat they'd intended with the Mail journalists, those involved spoke of feeling invigorated and empowered by the action and its reception - intimidating heavily armed men just by singing and asking questions, for instance, was a new experience for many of them. And we bet the hacks shit themselves a little bit too.