#ukuncut #ukunstuck what was the point?
adelayde | 28.03.2011 16:25 | Analysis | Public sector cuts
My sympathies go out to everyone in UKUncut who ended up being arrested piling out of Fortnum & Mason on Saturday, but I hope the question "what was the point of that?" is being asked amongst the organisers and the wider activist community.
What was the point of Saturday's UKUncut action that took place at the same time as the mass TUC-organised intellectual and political kettling operation?
Firstly, calling it an occupation? Fortnum & Mason is a store open to the public: so therefore if they opened the door and encouraged you to walk in, are you really occupying? Especially when your occupation lasts but a couple of hours, as this one did. It's quite possible that some of F&M's customers spend longer shopping there.
Secondly, what was the point of it? It was quite off the radar, not hugely covered by the media, and got around 140 activists and supporters of UKUncut arrested. The UKUncut people effectively kettled themselves in the shop and got themselves arrested.
I realise hindsight is a fine thing, but what was the idea? "I know, let's all shut ourselves in a building for a couple of hours whilst we wait for some of the reportedly 4,500 officers in Central London today get a little bit organised and surround the building so that they can arrest all of us as we leave."?
It's a shame really, UKUncut's been quite a good thing so far. With lots of small localised actions all across the nation, it's been effective; at least for putting the willies up the tax-dodging high-street corporates, if it's rather failed a little in getting its message across to the average person in the street.
On reflection, wouldn't it have been better to use moving protest tactics? A bit of fly posting on the windows of various establishments, a bit of paint thrown here and there, chaotic stampedes through shops like Top Man, Vodafone, Boots and F&M.....
It's all about coherency I think, and Saturday wasn't coherent. The fickle and time-shy public and the media need to understand who's doing the protesting and what they are protesting about: quick and easy. The results from Saturday were:
* a mass of people marched to Hyde Park to hear a load of speeches by a load of people, it was a good day out, people went home, the government will do nothing, but people felt solidarity and feel energised that perhaps this is only the beginning.
* some people smashed stuff up: these people were not anti-cuts per se, but rather anti-establishment, anti-capitalist, etc, and this act wasn't coherent in the context of the TUC rally.
* and a load of people occupied a posh shop owned by tax dodgers and got themselves arrested for it.
So an on-looker might be forgiven for not understanding what it was all about.
Sure smash stuff up, occupy shops; but do it under your own clear political banner and perhaps choose a time when there's not tooled-up 4,500 police officers kicking around the streets nearby....
Firstly, calling it an occupation? Fortnum & Mason is a store open to the public: so therefore if they opened the door and encouraged you to walk in, are you really occupying? Especially when your occupation lasts but a couple of hours, as this one did. It's quite possible that some of F&M's customers spend longer shopping there.
Secondly, what was the point of it? It was quite off the radar, not hugely covered by the media, and got around 140 activists and supporters of UKUncut arrested. The UKUncut people effectively kettled themselves in the shop and got themselves arrested.
I realise hindsight is a fine thing, but what was the idea? "I know, let's all shut ourselves in a building for a couple of hours whilst we wait for some of the reportedly 4,500 officers in Central London today get a little bit organised and surround the building so that they can arrest all of us as we leave."?
It's a shame really, UKUncut's been quite a good thing so far. With lots of small localised actions all across the nation, it's been effective; at least for putting the willies up the tax-dodging high-street corporates, if it's rather failed a little in getting its message across to the average person in the street.
On reflection, wouldn't it have been better to use moving protest tactics? A bit of fly posting on the windows of various establishments, a bit of paint thrown here and there, chaotic stampedes through shops like Top Man, Vodafone, Boots and F&M.....
It's all about coherency I think, and Saturday wasn't coherent. The fickle and time-shy public and the media need to understand who's doing the protesting and what they are protesting about: quick and easy. The results from Saturday were:
* a mass of people marched to Hyde Park to hear a load of speeches by a load of people, it was a good day out, people went home, the government will do nothing, but people felt solidarity and feel energised that perhaps this is only the beginning.
* some people smashed stuff up: these people were not anti-cuts per se, but rather anti-establishment, anti-capitalist, etc, and this act wasn't coherent in the context of the TUC rally.
* and a load of people occupied a posh shop owned by tax dodgers and got themselves arrested for it.
So an on-looker might be forgiven for not understanding what it was all about.
Sure smash stuff up, occupy shops; but do it under your own clear political banner and perhaps choose a time when there's not tooled-up 4,500 police officers kicking around the streets nearby....
adelayde
Comments
Display the following 6 comments