MayDay DISGRACE!!!

Caliden · 02-05-2004 10:23pm

good to see the mob afraid of the gudai resistance when they backed them away so easily.
good job, pld!

QBall · 02-05-2004 10:29pm

Originally posted by Goodshape
There were some small groups who looked like they may be out to cause some sort of a fracus, but it never happined and the feeling throughout was peaceful.

"It never happened"? Ah right, so you just looked like you were throwing stuff. The Garda that was injured just looked like she was hurt. Hmm... a likely story.

Oh, and ye collectively owe me a tenner. I had to spend EUR20 instead of the usual ~EUR10 on a taxi because we had to divert around your protest. Do me a favour and organise a whip around among your mates. PM me for an address to send it to. No, I'm not joking.

DadaKopf · 02-05-2004 11:31pm

C'mere... anyone, how many protesters were injured by Garda attacks? How many were provoked and unprovoked?

Is anyone in Indymedia getting this down?

Redleslie · 03-05-2004 12:04am

Originally posted by QBall
"It never happened"? Ah right, so you just looked like you were throwing stuff.

The only people I saw throwing stuff were hardly what I'd call genuine protesters, drunks in tracksuit bottoms who might not have even known about the march until they read about the 20000 hardcore rioters the tabloids said were coming. In most cases they were prevented from throwing things by protesters and the stuff I saw them throw tended to hit people on the front line of the demo, rather than the gardai. An empty can can't be thrown too far. I thought the water cannon was brought out too soon and there were a few gung ho riot squaddies about but on the whole the gardai did their job well. Apart from failing to stop every idiot throwing stuff, protesters did alright, even these foreign anarchists refrained from using their weapons and got invited into a resident's house to dry their water cannoned clothes. The worst behaviour I saw was public pissing.

I got a taxi back to town and the driver's opinion was that the operation was a practice run for Bush's visit. I wonder what stories will be invented to keep people away from that one.

Goodshape · 03-05-2004 12:05am

Just my account, believe what you will.

My own feelings are that up untill that point it was a successful, peaceful protest. What happined afterwards was brought too far by the guardi. Maybe they were honestly expecting a riot, but they didn't get one - and they used the water cannons anyway.

Basicly, what you're missing is that we were expressing (various) opinions - not all of them that great maybe, but we do have the right to do this.

Redleslie · 03-05-2004 12:22am

Originally posted by DadaKopf
C'mere... anyone, how many protesters were injured by Garda attacks? How many were provoked and unprovoked?

Is anyone in Indymedia getting this down?

What do you mean by provoked and unprovoked? There were calls for everyone to sit down but others refused saying that if we did, we'd be too easy to hit. True enough, a group who did sit down got clubbed straight away. So oddly, sitting down provoked a more robust response than keeping on one's feet and pushing police lines.

QBall · 03-05-2004 12:44am

Originally posted by Redleslie
The only people I saw throwing stuff were hardly what I'd call genuine protesters, drunks in tracksuit bottoms...

Of course, real protesters are sober, and much better dressed.

Whether they were "genuine" or not, they were still interspersed with the crowd. If the genuine protesters don't want the missile-throwing types they need to re-think their advertising (see previous posts) and re-organise their image.

Anti-(globalisation|capitalist|whatever) protesters will be seen as sources of violence as long as long as they can be linked with past disturbances.

In the reports that I saw, neither RTE or Sky actually mentioned what the protesters were protesting about. Surely the point of the demonstration was to:

a) Make their views known to the politicians
b) Make their views known to the general public.

a) You may as well send a letter. The politicians will pay about as much attention to that. In fact they might even pay more attention given that it's a "legitimate" form of communication.
b) The vast majority of the general public have no idea what the protest is about. All they "know" is that it costs lots of money to police and that it's run by the same free-loading hippy types that fought the poice in Genoa.

I think that the best way for the protesters to have a chance at getting what they want is for them to form a political party and campaign in a mainstream way. It may not be as fun as a demonstration with a carnival atmosphere but it is far more likely to gain them results. If they have the support that many of them claim, they should have no trouble getting elected. If they can't get elected, well then that will tell its own story. People who are outside the tent pissing in don't get any respect.

Originally posted by Redleslie
I got a taxi back to town and the driver's opinion was that the operation was a practice run for Bush's visit.

My taxi driver on the way home was convinced that the Gardai "started the fight" ("like they always do") and that the protesters were "completely peaceful". Of course, we know that taxi drivers are the most reliable source of facts.

Zombrex · 03-05-2004 12:48am

It was on IndyMedia (ie the protestors own words) that they attempted to breach the police line, and that missiles were thrown at the police line.

I am not excusing a police over reaction (if there was any) but c'mon, the police are human. If you attempt to provoke them by breaching the police line they aren't going to sit there and go "please don't do that, we have asked nicely."

If you throw stones at a tiger are you surprised when he bites your head off

QBall · 03-05-2004 1:02am

Originally posted by Goodshape
What happined afterwards was brought too far by the guardi. Maybe they were honestly expecting a riot, but they didn't get one - and they used the water cannons anyway.

What I saw on the news was a measured and professional response from the Gardai. It was a huge improvement on the infamous Reclaim the Streets violence and I was pleased to see that the Gardai had learned so much.

Originally posted by Goodshape
Basicly, what you're missing is that we were expressing (various) opinions - not all of them that great maybe, but we do have the right to do this. [/B]

Sorry if I seemed like I was missing that point. I believe very strongly in the right to peaceful protest (even while I doubt its effectiveness). However I do also believe the following:

1) There is no (and should not be a) right to violent protest.
2) "Pushing police lines" as mentioned by Redleslie is unacceptable, intimidating and downright insulting to the police.
3) Protesters in a violent protest, whether actually being violent or not, should not complain when they are mixed up in the inevitable police response. If you don't want to be involved, leave.
4) The Gardai, whether you like it or not, are officers of the law. If they ask you to do something, you should do it. Whether you choose to believe it or not, they exist for your safety as well as everyone elses.

Goodshape · 03-05-2004 1:49am

1) There is no (and should not be a) right to violent protest.

Agreed, there's no right to violence.

2) "Pushing police lines" as mentioned by Redleslie is unacceptable, intimidating and downright insulting to the police.

Didn't see much of that, although they did quite a bit of rushing themselves. It wasn't just 'go no further', they basicly marched us back to O'Connell St. (quite intimidating being charged at by a riot squad)

3) Protesters in a violent protest, whether actually being violent or not, should not complain when they are mixed up in the inevitable police response. If you don't want to be involved, leave.

Why is a police 'responce' of this manner inevitable following a peaceful protest?

4) The Gardai, whether you like it or not, are officers of the law. If they ask you to do something, you should do it. Whether you choose to believe it or not, they exist for your safety as well as everyone elses.

The water cannons came before the order to dispurse. And the gardai certenitly didn't exist for our safety the other night.

protesters will be seen as sources of violence as long as they can be linked with past disturbances.

True. The government, the EU and the multi-nationals are the ones to benifit from generating a 'distrubance'. It's an iron-cast defence against any message that may have been trying to get heared (in this case, largely anti-capitilist ones). Interesting that.

Obviously what get's through to the public is largely down to the media. But then, most of them are large multi-nationals.

QBall · 03-05-2004 2:35am

Originally posted by Goodshape

Originally posted by QBall
3) Protesters in a violent protest, whether actually being violent or not, should not complain when they are mixed up in the inevitable police response. If you don't want to be involved, leave.

Why is a police 'responce' of this manner inevitable following a peaceful protest?

Notice that I explicitly said "violent protest". A police response is inevitable following a violent protest. I would be extremely disappointed in them if there wasn't

Originally posted by Goodshape

Originally posted by QBall
protesters will be seen as sources of violence as long as they can be linked with past disturbances.

True. The government, the EU and the multi-nationals are the ones to benifit from generating a 'distrubance'. It's an iron-cast defence against any message that may have been trying to get heared (in this case, largely anti-capitilist ones). Interesting that.

If you are suggesting that the Gardai were instructed by the government, the EU and/or multi-national corporations to incite violence among the protesters I think you are being paranoid.

My point still stands (and is in fact backed up by what you have just said): the people you are protesting against benefit from the violence. Hence you should distance your movement(s) from violent protest. Failure to do this will result in further marginalisation of your views.

Originally posted by Goodshape
Obviously what get's through to the public is largely down to the media. But then, most of them are large multi-nationals.

Multi-nationals are not implicitly evil.

bonkey · 03-05-2004 10:59am

You know...its funny...

I've been thinking about the "logic" (and yes, I use that term loosely) put forwards as teh explanations on both sides of this event....both prior to and after the event.

Firstly, lets look at the demonstrators.

The demonstrators have insisted for quite a while that :

1) The protests are always peaceful
2) The police have an agenda to play with their toys / beat up protestors / support TeH P0wAh / ??
3) Even when its not hte polive who start the violence, its not the protestors either - its people looking to start trouble in amongst the protestors.
4) The police are wrong in attacking the peaceful protestors when something does start, because they are attacking innocent people.
5) THe organisers of the protest are not responsible for the trouble-makers.

Now, I can't figure this out.

Apparently, if I walk along with a protest for an hour or so, and then hurl a brick at a cop....I am not actually part of the protest. Because I've thrown the brick, I'm now classifiable as some drunken bystanding trouble-maker.
Now, if the police retaliate to the brick-thrower, they're wrong. They should just know that the brick-thrower is obviously not part of the protest, and should know who threw it, and why. Now, when they don't do this, its because they have an agenda to start trouble. Its not because a brick was thrown at them...its because they want to start trouble. (I'm curious as to how the brick-thrower didn't want to start trouble, I must say, but lets get back to that).

So...this continues, and after a while, the police decide they've had enough of these non-protestors hidden amongst the protestors. Its not the protestors fault these trouble-makers are there. Its not even their fault that the troublemakers are on the same route as them, are using them to hide amongst. And they by no means should be held accountable for the damage that the trouble-makers cause. God no - its the police's job to hold that type of responsibility, not the organisers. This bit is important. Remember it - its the police's job to bear responsibility for dealing these trouble makers, not the organisers.

So the police deal with them. Only thats not acceptable either. The police should apparently psychically know who is and is not a trouble-maker. They should know who are the people who are innocently sitting - as they insist is their right - in the middle of two violent groups (police and troublemakers). They are wrong to try and disperse the group so that the individuals causing trouble no longer have anywhere to hide, and they are wrong to try and decide that all fo the protestors are causing trouble. Oh, and they're wrong to try and simply get to the trouble-makers through the protestors who don't get out of their way and who are preventing them from effectively doing they job they (the protestors) insist is the police's responsibility in the first place.

All I see is a line of reasoning which can be summed up in advance of the event - the police will be wrong. It doesn't matter what they do, the protestors have enough contradictory stances that the police must be wrong.

So what about those who have been knocking the protestors. Well, they're pretty much just the reverse argument. The police are right to do all of these things, as they are clearly only doing their job. However, when the police are called out needlessly, then its the police's fault and that of the government. They should have known better. Only a corrupt, incompetent, farcical joke of a government as ours could overreact so badly.

Of course, if we remember back to some events where the police weren't ready for a possible flare-up (think of, say, the soccer riots in Lansdowne in teh mid 90s)...then its the police's fault for not being there just in case.

And when they get it right.....and have the riot police there for the riots.....well, there isn't even a "well done" generally offered at the end of it. Nope...its just a load of abuse dumped on the police and/or protestors for the violence anyway.

You can't win. You really can't.

I'm just remembering Clinton coming to Ireland some time back...when they apparently welded all manhole covers on the road he was going to travel.

I'm wondering how many people complained bitterly that it was nothing but a waste of money....especially when, subsequent to all of the security measures, there wasn't a single credible attack on the President's life while in the country. All that money wasted.

Before knocking the expenditure (and I do agree that there is a case to be made for a review, but not for a kangaroo-court review), I think the knockers should ask themselves three important questions :

1) Had there been less security, and riots (or worse) had happened, how critical of our police would you have been
2) What information did you know to be true by (say) last Friday, what information did you believe to be true last Friday, and how good are your sources?
3) Based on the answers to the above, if you were responsible for the security of a number of foreign signitaries from 24 seperate nations, and the established pattern of local security forces almost constantly underestimating the manpower needed to deal with the issues which will arise when such international events clash with the likes of economics protestors.........would you rather over- or under-estimate your requirements?

jc

monument · 03-05-2004 3:50pm

Again...

Originally posted by monument
Commenting on last night’s very small riot a garda press officer talking on TV3’s news said, it ended up with the garda having to “issue a degree of punishment”

I’d like to know when the garda were given the right to issue “punishment”?

therecklessone · 03-05-2004 3:54pm

Originally posted by monument
Again...

Have you tried asking them?

monument · 03-05-2004 5:03pm

Not a question per say, however if this is the mentality of a press officer one has to wonder about the mentality of the police force which he is publicly representing. One would have to wonder about the mentality of the decision makers, never mind about rank and file officers.

monument · 03-05-2004 6:53pm

From news articles in today’s Irish Times…

“..the organisers stopped it around 500 meters before the Ashtown Roundabout, after it became apparent gardai were blocking their way.”

“Just after 8.30 p.m., a group of 100 protesters moved towards the uniformed Garda line, chanting slogans.” A second group of around 20 masked protesters moved behind them pushing them at the Garda line

So only about 100 protesters approached the garda line. It was all over in less then half an hour.

Unlike some clams in some reports, only person who appeared at the special setting of the court has an address out side the Republic.

One was arrested for stealing a garda cap, all others were charred on public order offences (breach of the peace and/or failure to comply with the direction of a Garda – the second in my view is a joke to a democratic way of life), while another arrested said he was only trying to get home by bus.

The names and address were published as they are in any other story about a person or persons being arrested. Nothing unusually about it.

While on the subject of police overreacting and inflaming events, it is worth noting an article on page 2 of the Irish Times. It cites the garda trying to make an arrest on the streets of Killarney at 1.30 am, after a rally which during the day, as the reason “The crowd turned hostile and begin throwing missiles and bottles at the gardai”.

vorbis · 03-05-2004 7:52pm

I thought the police did a good job. No major incidents and the peaceful protests were able to proceed without hinderance. What I really can't get is the innocent protestors who hang around after a protest turns violent. They stand in the way of the riot squad and then complain about getting hit.

oscarBravo · 03-05-2004 11:00pm

Originally posted by monument
all others were charred on public order offences (breach of the peace and/or failure to comply with the direction of a Garda – the second in my view is a joke to a democratic way of life)

Your idea of a democratic way of life is to ignore the police? Does a police force figure at all in your concept of democracy?

monument · 04-05-2004 1:03am

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Your idea of a democratic way of life is to ignore the police?

In a way, yes. The police should have no right to tell or to make any one do any thing unless they are doing wrong.

There should be no such charge as "failure to comply with the direction of a Garda", it contradicts freedoms (as do other things in the public order act), but if some is doing wrong they should be arrested for such.

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Does a police force figure at all in your concept of democracy?

Yes. But to pretect us, not to control us when we are not doing wrong.

Morpheus · 04-05-2004 9:10am

If you are sitting down protesting, and a guy at the back lobs a bottle at the GS, and the riot squad moves up, you are now between the riot squad and the bottle throwing scumbag.

The GS move the riot wall forward and tell u to move because your in their way and as their duty they are trying to remove the thug from the street. You are blocking the riot wall stopping them from doing this so therefore you are failing to comply with their order whilst they were doing their duty.

This was failure to comply with the direction of a Garda.

You should have moved your protest back, although i think the best protest would have been for the ENTIRE peaceful protesting group (500 or so???) to reach the destination and SIT DOWN.

Now you have 20 or so muppets, dressed in black, faces covered, standing where they can easily be seen to throw stuff, the media sees you peacefully protesting, and sees these wa*nkers that fcuked up your protest carrying on like that. The protests is peaceful you say, therefore shouldnt the Garda should be able to send out 20 or so officers safely into the protest and reprimand these people and then retreate back to the standoff point and allow you to have your sitdown protest safely and in the eyes of the media, effectively?

monument · 04-05-2004 11:20am

Originally posted by Morphéus
Now you have 20 or so muppets, dressed in black, faces covered, standing where they can easily be seen to throw stuff, the media sees you peacefully protesting, and sees these wa*nkers that fcuked up your protest carrying on like that. The protests is peaceful you say, therefore shouldnt the Garda should be able to send out 20 or so officers safely into the protest and reprimand these people and then retreate back to the standoff point and allow you to have your sitdown protest safely and in the eyes of the media, effectively?

If only.

04-05-2004 1:35pm

If only.

Perhaps trying it might bring some results rather than rejecting it out of hand. You're so in love with the idea of Police Brutality, you're not prepared to try anything that might reduce the chance of it happening.

The Gardai did well. Cool, measured approach to an aggressive front.

bonkey, You post is spot on.

cruiserweight · 04-05-2004 1:43pm

I would like to say congratulations to the gardai from what I saw everything was well controlled and everything went off without any major incidents.

monument · 04-05-2004 2:08pm

Originally posted by Mina Slimy Self-preservation
Perhaps trying it might bring some results rather than rejecting it out of hand.

Are you talking to me, or your self?

As I’m not rejecting the idea in Morphéus’ last paragraph, but rejecting the idea that the garda would try such.

Originally posted by Mina Slimy Self-preservation
The Gardai did well. Cool, measured approach to an aggressive front.

About 20 aggressors in crowd of about 120 that approached the Garda line, the only real "aggressive front" was the line of police with riot gear. The aggressors in the protest did not have an "aggressive front".

So, police in full riot gear was not a “Cool, measured approach”.

uberwolf · 04-05-2004 2:17pm

to my knowledge (at least according to reports I saw) the riot police were called in in response to a ban garda being struck on the head with a missile of some description. So bringing in people sufficently protected to guard against these missiles is hardly unmerited. The Gardaí were attacked.

04-05-2004 2:20pm

So, police in full riot gear was not a “Cool, measured approach”.

So you'd prefer the Gardai to take damage from protestors or these skanger types that were causing trouble?

About 20 aggressors in crowd of about 120 that approached the Garda line, the only real "aggressive front" was the line of police with riot gear. The aggressors in the protest did not have an "aggressive front".

No aggressive front? What abt the 20 people you mentioned? 20 people can still do alot of damage to unprotected police, especially with bottles filled with sand. The Gardai received trouble, and dealt with it well. Would you have prefered teargas, and baton charges?

monument · 04-05-2004 3:35pm

Originally posted by Mina Slimy Self-preservation
No aggressive front? What abt the 20 people you mentioned? 20 people can still do alot of damage to unprotected police, especially with bottles filled with sand. The Gardai received trouble, and dealt with it well.

20 or so trouble makers and how may guards?

Originally posted by Mina Slimy Self-preservation
Would you have prefered teargas, and baton charges?

No, I’d prefer a measured response to 20 or so trouble makers in a crowd of around 120. And police in full riot gear was not such.

uberwolf · 04-05-2004 3:39pm

Originally posted by monument
20 or so trouble makers and how may guards?

not trying to be really smart but there are no mono et mono (sp?) rules re: riot control.

No, I’d prefer a measured response to 20 or so trouble makers in a crowd of around 120. And police in full riot gear was not such. [/B]

the riot gear is as much to protect themselves from the missiles that were being launched at them as it is to intimidate any trouble makers. Do you debate the right of the Gardaí to have as safe a workplace as is feasible?

04-05-2004 3:40pm

20 or so trouble makers and how may guards?

monument, this is not meant to be a brawl between lads outside of a nightclub or such. This is people disturbing the peace, and bringing violence to the Gardai. They needed to be stopped quickly, with the least amount of damage done to either the Gardai or to "innocents". The Riot Gear is there to do both. I prefer overkill in number of Gardai, to 15 Gardai hospitalised because they failed to bring enough people.

No, I’d prefer a measured response to 20 or so trouble makers in a crowd of around 120. And police in full riot gear was not such.

Well, people complain abt baton charges, so how would you expect them to deal with 20 troublemakers, who attack from a crowd, and then hide in it? Please tell me a reasonable way to do so........ Because either way they're going to be criticised for handling these troublemakers badly.

monument · 04-05-2004 3:57pm

a reasonable way to do so........

Originally posted by Morphéus
Now you have 20 or so muppets, dressed in black, faces covered, standing where they can easily be seen to throw stuff, the media sees you peacefully protesting, and sees these wa*nkers that fcuked up your protest carrying on like that. The protests is peaceful you say, therefore shouldnt the Garda should be able to send out 20 or so officers safely into the protest and reprimand these people and then retreate back to the standoff point and allow you to have your sitdown protest safely and in the eyes of the media, effectively?

MayDay DISGRACE!!!

Comments