MayDay DISGRACE!!!

ferdi

Originally posted by ReefBreak
displaying the spelling and grammatical prowess of a 10 year-old.

no need for personal insults

dont bring your personal frustrations to boards.

Redleslie

Originally posted by klaz
Water cannons aren't very precise weapons so of course some people will be hit that are not involved. Also generally there'll be a crowd around when violence occurs. Unfortuently theres a mentality that goes with crowds, to be curious and want to know whats going on. Back away, and move away from the trouble, and you would have been fine. Let me guess, you went over for a peak to see who was causing the trouble?

Have you ever been at one of these protests? if not, have you ever at least bothered trying to find out what actually happens at them and why, even though you might disagree with the substance of the protest itself? I doubt it somehow but feel free to attempt to prove that you actually have some idea of what you're talking about.

Glad to see you're admitting it.

Admitting what exactly? If you want a discussion on the merits and demerits of anarchism (or any other political philosophy) then start a new thread and I might even contribute the little bit I know about the subject, but if your standard of debate is going to be stuck around the one liner name calling level, as I strongly suspect it would be, then I wouldn't bother if I were you.

if you believe that the Police forcebly dispersing a crowd thats causing trouble shouldn't happen.

I don't have much of a problem with the police taking on people who cause trouble but I do have a problem with them when they launch unprovoked attacks on crowds of people or use plain clothes officers to instigate violence and use it as an excuse to bale into all and sundry; and if you find such scenarios incredulous, then you, in fact, are the one who has quite a bit of growing up to do, and a lot of reading.

Victor

Originally posted by seamus
If you organise an event, then you're responsible for who shows up.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=155555&perpage=20&pagenumber=1

Originally posted by seamus
It is nobody's responsibility to police [others] except the Gardai.

seamus

Don't be silly Victor. Obviously that quote was the in context of driving. Would you like me to qualify everything I say, devoid of context? If I had said it on this board, referring to a similar situation, maybe then I'd concede, but that's taking the piss.

It's people leaving the policing up to the Gardai that doesn't help the general level of crime on our streets.

klaz was correct, I don't believe for a second that the Gardai should smack around innocent bystanders, but a Garda in the middle of big crowd, people shouting, throwing things at him, doesn't have time to stop, look around and try and make sure he doesn't hit anybody who's just standing around. If he did, he'll probably be on the receiving end of a rock or baseball bat.

If you don't want to get hit, you don't stand in the middle of a rioting crowd. I don't see what the confusion is. If a brawl started around you in a bar, would you stand in the one position and complain when you got smacked with a bottle?

Turner

Originally posted by Redleslie

Yes, at previous protests the heroic police never battered, teargassed or watercannoned anyone except carefully targeted brick and stick wielding baddies.
[/B]

Originally posted by Spacedog
>
>c) There is no need for thousands of riot police as the history of
>recent protests in Ireland (think of Feb 15th, March 20th, Shannon etc)
>have been completely peaceful

You will probably find that they are acting the way they do out of fear. In a riot situation the police are generally outnumbered.

Many police officers around the world have been seriously injured and even killed in riot/protest situations.

This film indicates what can happen in a riot situation. The police officer in this was fatally injured.

Warning shocking images!!
Video.

monument

Originally posted by seamus
If you organise an event, then you're responsible for who shows up.

---

Is there any one organiser? Even if there was how could they police every person who turns up?

For example Mr X could turn up because he does not like the organisers and plans to cause trouble to show them in up.

Victor

Originally posted by seamus
klaz was correct, I don't believe for a second that the Gardai should smack around innocent bystanders, but a Garda in the middle of big crowd, people shouting, throwing things at him, doesn't have time to stop, look around and try and make sure he doesn't hit anybody who's just standing around. If he did, he'll probably be on the receiving end of a rock or baseball bat.

Then that individual has no place on riot duty - the fundamental principal of riot duty (and much of hte rest of policing) being discipline.

Redleslie

Originally posted by ReefBreak
I wish I was in the Riot Squad on monday. Crack some posh/hippy/commie heads.

Seems that Reefbreak has some immature fantasies about dishing out some of that IRA scum style thuggery he claims to despise so much.

seamus

Originally posted by Victor
Then that individual has no place on riot duty - the fundamental principal of riot duty (and much of hte rest of policing) being discipline.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The primary goal of riot control is dispersal. If a person is standing in the middle of the crowd, he's hindering that dispersal, and should be subject to the same dispersal mechanisms.

Spacedog

Originally posted by klaz
I think he's pointing out that if you hang around with troublemakers its quite easy to be called one yourself. If theres trouble happening, and you're just standing in close proximity, making no move to get away, its quite acceptable to count u in as being a troublemaker.

Like that poor girl who was dragged down Grafton St. by the hair and thrown in a paddy wagon face first for standing on a pedestrionised street! as seen on Prime Time last year. 'Look at her standing there like a serial murderer/date rapist!' surely innocent people are guilty by standing in proximity to suspocious behavour. :rolleyes: <-- my second eye roll ever on boards, the first also on this thread, are people getting more stupid, or am I becomming more cynical? (rhetorical)

seamus

Originally posted by Spacedog
Like that poor girl who was dragged down Grafton St. by the hair and thrown in a paddy wagon face first for standing on a pedestrionised street! as seen on Prime Time last year. 'Look at her standing there like a serial murderer/date rapist!' surely innocent people are guilty by standing in proximity to suspocious behavour. :rolleyes: <-- my second eye roll ever on boards, the first also on this thread, are people getting more stupid, or am I becomming more cynical? (rhetorical)

Nobody deserves that kind of treatment. Nobody here is saying that they do. The above situation is a million miles away from what we're talking about.

Redleslie

Originally posted by seamus
Nobody deserves that kind of treatment. Nobody here is saying that they do. The above situation is a million miles away from what we're talking about.

Well it's a better example than Chief's football hooligan video.

seamus

Originally posted by Redleslie
Well it's a better example than Chief's football hooligan video.

You're joking right?
Policeman getting beaten to death in a riot by a large group of subhuman scumbags -v- Girl getting a few smacks by scumbag Gardai after a case of mistaken identity.

The first is an example of what happens when mob mentality takes over. The second is a case of abuse of power, completely devoid of any relevance to riots.

Spacedog

Originally posted by seamus
Nobody deserves that kind of treatment. Nobody here is saying that they do. The above situation is a million miles away from what we're talking about.

So if you happen to be excercising your freedom to attend a protest peacefilly when the cops club you to a bloddy pulp, it's a million miles away. police brutality is police brutality, I'm taking no leaps of faith to make this connection here.

seamus

Originally posted by Spacedog
So if you happen to be excercising your freedom to attend a protest peacefilly when the cops club you to a bloddy pulp, it's a million miles away. police brutality is police brutality, I'm taking no leaps of faith to make this connection here.

*whooosh* <---- That's the sound of my point going over your head. I do believe that girl wasn't protesting against anything.

I've never said police brutality is OK. I've never said the Gardai should rush a group of peaceful protestors. My gripe is with those peopel who a) Claim it's not their problem if scumbags turn up to their protests, and b) Complain when they get injured by anti-riot measures while standing in the middle of a riot, involved or otherwise.

So if you happen to be excercising your freedom to attend a protest peacefilly when the cops club you to a bloddy pulp, it's a million miles away. police brutality is police brutality, I'm taking no leaps of faith to make this connection here.

I'm going to get some criticism for this but.... When theres a march/protest on, with thousands of people attending all dancing, shouting, perhaps smoking/drinking, mistakes can happen. The wrong person gets taken for some violence within the crowd. It happens. Its unfortunate.

But If the Gardai are as bad as you make them out to be, why isn't this a police state, where the Gardai have automatic weapons to take care of protestors? How come its isolated incidents, and not grenades going off in the middle of crowds?

Redleslie

Originally posted by seamus
You're joking right?
Policeman getting beaten to death in a riot by a large group of subhuman scumbags -v- Girl getting a few smacks by scumbag Gardai after a case of mistaken identity.

The first is an example of what happens when mob mentality takes over. The second is a case of abuse of power, completely devoid of any relevance to riots.

Start a thread called 'Football Hooliganism - Right or Wrong?' if you want, but it has relevancy to this topic, unless you want to argue that every football supporter not involved in fighting has no right to complain if they get charged and battered, and that they should bolt for the exits at the first hint of trouble.

Spacedog

Originally posted by klaz
I'm going to get some criticism for this but.... When theres a march/protest on, with thousands of people attending all dancing, shouting, perhaps smoking/drinking, mistakes can happen. The wrong person gets taken for some violence within the crowd. It happens. Its unfortunate.

But If the Gardai are as bad as you make them out to be, why isn't this a police state, where the Gardai have automatic weapons to take care of protestors? How come its isolated incidents, and not grenades going off in the middle of crowds?

It's going that way by the looks of things.

now thats what i call paranoia

bonkey

Originally posted by Redleslie
unless you want to argue that every football supporter not involved in fighting has no right to complain if they get charged and battered, and that they should bolt for the exits at the first hint of trouble.

I'd say that they have a right to complain to the club owners who clearly didn't take enough care in their own security, and thus allowed a riot to break out.

You may recall that this was the type of conclusion which was reached in the FA subsequent to the massive amount of rioting problems they had in the late 80s and 90s - it was the clubs responsibility.

However, they do not have a right to complain about the police. The police in those situations have a very clear position - to end the riot.

They do not have the luxury of sitting back and thinking...hmmm...ok...I'll wait to see this guy attacking someone before I can decide he's a rioter rather than an innocent bystander caught up in the rush towards me. They do not have the luxury of saying "ahh..he's begging me to stop...that means he's no longer a threat, so I can turn my back on him". They do not have the luxury of time, of space, of any of the things that it would take to be able to do the job in the way you seem to be proposing.

If you are an innocent bystander, then there most certainly is an onus on you to get out of there. Not only is it sensible self-preservation (i.e. the rioters are as much a threat to you as the police), but you will be adding to the problem by remaining there or running with the mob, regardless of whether or not you take any violent action yourself, and it is nothing short of fantasy-land unrealism to expect the police to be able to distinguish you from the guy who is picking his opening to inflict maximum damage with a concealed weapon.

And if that doesn't convince you, consider how dangerous mobs are just in terms of the dynamic of large numbers or erattically moving people. People get thrown to the ground, trampled on. I had a friend who got knocked over by a surge of people at an event and landed on a broken glass which punched through 4 of the 5 tendons in one of her hands. If you're an innocent bystander, then not trying to get out of the mob is as inherently self-destructively stupid a thing to do as I can imagine.....even if the police weren't an issue.

jc

Redleslie

Originally posted by bonkey
I'd say that they have a right to complain to the club owners who clearly didn't take enough care in their own security, and thus allowed a riot to break out.

You may recall that this was the type of conclusion which was reached in the FA subsequent to the massive amount of rioting problems they had in the late 80s and 90s - it was the clubs responsibility.

However, they do not have a right to complain about the police. The police in those situations have a very clear position - to end the riot.

If trouble breaks out in say, a part of the ground's north stand, there is no need for the police to gas and batter everyone they can find in the east, west and south stands, unless they want the match to be abandoned, because it looks like their team is losing. Ideally they'd probably prefer if no away supporters turned up at matches at all and so they might try to intimidate people into not showing up by spreading scare stories and rumours about travelling hooligans out to cause mayhem and indicate that if you show up you’re liable to get battered.

I’ll try reply to the rest after w/end or something. Gotta go do some work.

seamus

Originally posted by Redleslie

If trouble breaks out in say, a part of the ground's north stand, there is no need for the police to gas and batter everyone they can find in the east, west and south stands, unless they want the match to be abandoned, because it looks like their team is losing. Ideally they'd probably prefer if no away supporters turned up at matches at all and so they might try to intimidate people into not showing up by spreading scare stories and rumours about travelling hooligans out to cause mayhem and indicate that if you show up you’re liable to get battered.[/B]

What are you on about? What's the relevance? If trouble breaks out in one stand, necessitating the police, usually they'll abandon the match and evacuate all of the other stands...

Spacedog

why is the pheonix park being closed? I would think there would a more suitable place to contain a riot than the enclosed vulnerable streets of private property in the city, you can call me paranoid all you like, but the fact remians that a public space is being closed to supress the right of the people to express their disapproval within sight of the entrance to the confarence.

neXus9

Originally posted by Ajnag
Anarchy can also mean a society with more emphasis's on personal responsibilty as oppesed to state control obsessing with controling every aspect of life.

This is a resonable excuse in somewhere oppressive like China where they don't really care about what the people actually want. I don't think though in Ireland, there is any valid excuse for anarchy.

There is a lot of supposedly anti capitalists who wouldn't think twice on spending a fortune on a pair of baggy skater jeans by their fave brand. They're funny.

seamus

I saw a sticker today on my lunch, something along the lines of:
"CAPITALISM KILLS!
MAY DAY 2004
JOIN THE FIGHT!"

Intending a peaceful protest....suuuuurrree.

BuffyBot

Originally posted by seamus
I saw a sticker today on my lunch, something along the lines of:
"CAPITALISM KILLS!
MAY DAY 2004
JOIN THE FIGHT!"

Intending a peaceful protest....suuuuurrree.

So when someone is "fighting the power" on boards, it means they're going to DeV's place and riot? The word "fight" doesn't equate to an incitement to riot.

chabsey

Originally posted by seamus
I saw a sticker today on my lunch, something along the lines of:
"CAPITALISM KILLS!
MAY DAY 2004
JOIN THE FIGHT!"

Intending a peaceful protest....suuuuurrree.

Well if there's no intention to imply violence then it would have perhaps have been better to substitute the words 'kill' and 'fight'. Overall it comes across forcefully and the tinest hint of that type of 'attitude' on the day might be all it takes for the situation to explode. Perhaps reading too much into it but I think a better sticker would have been:

Capitalism is not very good at all at all.
May Day 2004
Join with us as we peacefully protest against Capitalism not being that nice a thing.


You might need a bigger sticker.

Sand

why is the pheonix park being closed? I would think there would a more suitable place to contain a riot than the enclosed vulnerable streets of private property in the city, you can call me paranoid all you like, but the fact remians that a public space is being closed to supress the right of the people to express their disapproval within sight of the entrance to the confarence.

Its easier to keep rioters penned in on narrow city streets and squares as the london police showed. If they get into phoenix park youve got to maintain a huge perimeter.

And whilst youve got a right to protest guaranteed under the constitution that right is qualifed - protestors cannot protest in ways that are only to cause trouble or inconvenience to others.

So two good reasons why Phoenix Park is out of bounds.

seamus

Originally posted by BuffyBot
So when someone is "fighting the power" on boards, it means they're going to DeV's place and riot? The word "fight" doesn't equate to an incitement to riot.

Well if there's no intention to imply violence then it would have perhaps have been better to substitute the words 'kill' and 'fight'. Overall it comes across forcefully and the tinest hint of that type of 'attitude' on the day might be all it takes for the situation to explode. Perhaps reading too much into it but I think a better sticker would have been:

Capitalism is not very good at all at all.
May Day 2004
Join with us as we peacefully protest against Capitalism not being that nice a thing.


You might need a bigger sticker.

Although the two of you are quite probably right that they're only phrases, they would be more appropriate if May Day protests didn't have a history of violence.

The fact that they do means that these stickers are irresponsible and could encourage the wrong people to turn up looking for a riot. People equate May Day protests with violence, and stickers like this do nothing to remove this stigmatism, despite organisers claiming that they're only interested in peaceful protests.

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
And whilst youve got a right to protest guaranteed under the constitution that right is qualifed - protestors cannot protest in ways that are only to cause trouble or inconvenience to others.

Tell that to the Blue Flu crowd, who illegally and fraudulently marched through Dublin.

Originally posted by seamus
Girl getting a few smacks by scumbag Gardai after a case of mistaken identity.

I think you'll find she was thrown head first from the van.

Originally posted by seamus
I do believe that girl wasn't protesting against anything.

Not in any formal sense, but she was objecting to a garda car reversing over her.

Originally posted by seamus
Complain when they get injured by anti-riot measures while standing in the middle of a riot, involved or otherwise.

I was on hte DART about 2 years ago, gang A in the station decided to stone gang B on the train, are you saying it was my fault for staying on the train (along with various grannies, parents with toddlers etc.) instead of braving the hail of stones? Whats the difference between that riot and one associated with a protest?

Originally posted by bonkey
I had a friend who got knocked over by a surge of people at an event and landed on a broken glass which punched through 4 of the 5 tendons in one of her hands.

So it was you friend's fault? Blame the victim?