G20 Summit Riots in London

Veni Vedi Vici

Hi All,

Meant to get back to you all sooner (a few PM's to reply to too). This ones a quickie (I'll flesh the OP out later):

An article from the Daily Mail can be found here if you'd like to learn more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1166349/Protesters-storm-RBS-office-thousands-anti-capitalists-ransack-City-G20-riot.html

Here's an excerpt if your not a fan of hyperlink:

Hundreds of anarchists went on the rampage this afternoon as the G20 protests descended into violence.
Several police officers were injured and a branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland targeted as drunken troublemakers brought chaos to London's Square Mile.
A small number of protesters, many with their faces covered by bandanas, broke into the RBS building after windows at its entrance were smashed.
A printer and various other items of equipment were seen

Hundreds of protesters cheered as a blue office chair was used to smash one of the blacked-out branch windows.

Graffiti was also daubed on the side of the building as other demonstrators threw eggs and flour.
Fortunately the bank was empty because RBS had warned employees to stay away during the protests.
There was security in place but this had to be bolstered by police as the protests turned ugly.
An RBS spokesman said: 'We are aware of the violence... The safety of our employees and our customers is of paramount importance to us.
'We had already taken the precautionary step of closing selected City of London branches, including the Threadneedle branch.'
By 2.30pm, the protesters had been evicted from the premises and police

A police helicopter hovered overhead as the officers tried to get the crowds under control. They were heard chanting 'shame on you' and hurled missiles.
Many demonstrators suffered minor injuries and were seen bleeding from the head after police beat them off with batons as they tried to force their way through.
The clashes came just as it seemed the demonstration, which was also attended by comedian Russell Brand, would pass off peacefully.

Around 4,000 demonstrators were penned in front of the Bank of England as riot vans blocked off surround streets, preventing hundreds of others entering the square.

Masked and hooded men also tried to breach police lines to get to a climate camp in nearby Bishopsgate.

Police forced them back as they were pelted with empty beer cans, fruit and flour. At least one officer was seen with blood spurting from his head.
Chants of 'f*** the police' and 'our street' were heard as police reinforcements were drafted in.
A line of police holding back protesters was overwhelmed by the demonstrators, who surged forward, briefly pinning officers against the wall.

Police retaliated with a surge of their own, as helmeted

Here's a few select images:







Heres Russell Brand incidentally:




Is this a sign of civil unrest yet to come in the United States? Is anyone concerned with the medias portrayal off the protestors or do you feel its justified?

humanji

I'd say it's a case of a few actual protesters, a few hundred drunken scumbags wanting to smash as much stuff as possible and a load of cops, a fair few I'd say were more than heavy handed with dealing with the scumbags. All the while those in the Summit completely ignore them and try and figure out how they can keep themselves rich.

All in all, it seems no different ot any other G Summit.

Sofa_King Good

Was this the cause?

http://i652.photobucket.com/albums/uu243/sweetponds/P1000460.jpg

Kess73

Methinks Russell Brand made a wisecrack to anothergrandfather, but had not checked that the aforementioned grandfather had 400 grandchildren, who chased Russell Brand into the bank.

Quaver

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Is this a sign of civil unrest yet to come in the United States? Is anyone concerned with the medias portrayal off the protestors or do you feel its justified?

Violence is very rarely, if ever, justified.

delop

Does anyone think that these G20 Protests are being underreported ? News coverage seems lite compared to other news items like the Olympics Torch protests..

this was also a bit sus http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/30/cctv-london-government-transport-g20

liberal

most of the protesters romantic idealists with a black and white view of politics

I watch one young protester being interview on France 24 he siad "We're because we're anti-global warming", I wonder what his views on gravity are or if he intends to boycott the year 2010

humanji

delop wrote: »

Does anyone think that these G20 Protests are being underreported ? News coverage seems lite compared to other news items like the Olympics Torch protests..

this was also a bit sus http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/30/cctv-london-government-transport-g20

They're pretty much a non-event in the media, I'd say. There's a protest during every summit and it's always the same. People are bored of it. It's not newsworthy unless something new happens.

bonkey

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Is this a sign of civil unrest yet to come in the United States? Is anyone concerned with the medias portrayal off the protestors or do you feel its justified?

Are these not questions more suited to (say) the Politics forum?

There doesn't seem to be a conspiracy here.

Veni Vedi Vici

bonkey wrote: »

Are these not questions more suited to (say) the Politics forum?

There doesn't seem to be a conspiracy here.

If you're a skeptic then there's never a conspiracy theory.

If you're a conspiracy theorist then the G20 Summit would tie in with an elitist globalist agenda (bankers, new world order, illuminati, bilderberg et al.)

I don't believe topics such as these might be well received in the suggested forum.

meglome

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

If you're a skeptic then there's never a conspiracy theory.

If you're a conspiracy theorist then the G20 Summit would tie in with an elitist globalist agenda (bankers, new world order, illuminati, bilderberg et al.)

I don't believe topics such as these might be well received in the suggested forum.

Em okay. What CT have you presented here exactly?

Veni Vedi Vici

meglome wrote: »

Em okay. What CT have you presented here exactly?

I'm not presenting a conspiracy theory so much as I'm presenting a conspiracy theory genre:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=g20+summit+conspiracy

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=g20+summit+protests+conspiracy

In light of the recent protests I felt a discussion might be worthwhile.

Mahatma coat

I'd concur that a discussion is merited, there would be no point in trying to have the same discussion in the Politics forum as we would just get shouted down as conspiracyloons instead of being engaged, although it would be interesting to invite some of the vetrans of politics here to engage in a debate.

G20 is bildaberg for the cameras, everything is preordained before the meetings start.

Run_to_da_hills

First fatality at G20 Riots.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/5091795/G20-protests-demonstrator-dies-and-87-arrested-following-clashes-with-police.html

6th

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'd concur that a discussion is merited, there would be no point in trying to have the same discussion in the Politics forum as we would just get shouted down as conspiracyloons instead of being engaged, although it would be interesting to invite some of the vetrans of politics here to engage in a debate.

G20 is bildaberg for the cameras, everything is preordained before the meetings start.

Ok so you want to discuss something here that is not a CT because if you discuss it in the appropriate forum people wont see things the way you want to?

This forum is not a doodle pad for people who happen to have an interest in CTs.

6th

bonkey wrote: »

Are these not questions more suited to (say) the Politics forum?

There doesn't seem to be a conspiracy here.

Agreed.

Thread moved to Politics.

Politics Mods feel free to return/lock/delete.

Cheers

6th

Mahatma coat

well yeah, and I await confirmation of my position since you've moved it.

the discusion of the G20 encompasses many varying points of view, with many people aproaching the subject from many points of view, we in the CT community have our point of view on this and as such the CT forum was established for the purpose of discussing this, the Politics forum has its own charter wit different rules and different Mods.

is_that_so

I can't see the politics in this myself. Summit with lots of world leaders , large groups get together to protest with same old slogans peppered with a bit of violence. At at time like this one would assume that the crisis might have registered, yet they offer no ideas and seem happy to remain locked in that bizarre 1970s twilight zone of pseudo anti-state far-left delusions and football hooliganism.

delop

I thought by starting the thread in CT, that the conversation would lean towards the CT, and I wanted the CT guys to contribute....

Sometimes it feels like this BB gets Mod'ed for the sake of Mod'ing , and thats not a CT...

sceptre

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Is anyone concerned with the medias portrayal off the protestors or do you feel its justified?

I've long been a little concerned with the way the Daily Mail portrays a lot of things but that's why I don't read it. Contrast the story you quoted with, say, the Guardian's coverage of the same events.

Veni Vedi Vici

sceptre wrote: »

I've long been a little concerned with the way the Daily Mail portrays a lot of things but that's why I don't read it. Contrast the story you quoted with, say, the Guardian's coverage of the same events.

Noted. I was also concerned about how the press seemed to be on standby like a frenzied flock.

bonkey

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

I was also concerned about how the press seemed to be on standby like a frenzied flock.

The press are "on standby" because the occurrence of these events are almost as predicatable as the occurrence of the summit itself.

Veni Vedi Vici

delop wrote: »

I thought by starting the thread in CT, that the conversation would lean towards the CT, and I wanted the CT guys to contribute....

Sometimes it feels like this BB gets Mod'ed for the sake of Mod'ing , and thats not a CT...

I'm of the same understanding. Even the most soft core conspiracy theorist will recognize the significance of the summits in terms of globalism and a one world government. The links in my last post spells this out. Its the equivilant of redirecting a thread on sloth and repentance from the Christianity forum to the economic forums.

I had pointed out to 6th that an application of the same logic would rule out President Obama and Lisbon Treaty conspiracy discussions.

Veni Vedi Vici

bonkey wrote: »

The press are "on standby" because the occurrence of these events are almost as predicatable as the occurrence of the summit itself.

Yep. The pictures have offered little to the credibility of the cause of these 'extremist anarchists'.

Many folk on the Alex Jones (I know he doesn't hold a lot of weight around here :pac:) website maintain that these tantrums of civil unrest are exactly what the 'elitists' are relying on. In effect, they believe that it will justify the implementation of more stringent counter-measures against protesters in general.

DrumSteve

always nice to see the professional "anarchists" getting wheeled out for this one. rather than having anything real or relevant to give to people its just an opportunity to smash some **** up isn't it?

co-incidentally what do these people do when they are not protesting? do they work? if not do they accept handouts from the state they so readily despise? all a bit hypocritical really.

Mahatma coat

Bloody amateur Anarchists

Should try a more classy approach

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAPLpHyBrlg

the Chasers :D:D:D:D:D:D

Macha

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

An article from the Daily Mail can be found here if you'd like to learn more

I didn't think anyone was under the illusion that reading the Daily Mail would further their understanding of anything. Oh except that all of England's problems are caused by the wilfully unemployed, immigrants and paedophiles and that all members of these groups should be round up and shot.

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Here's a few select images:

Precisely. A few select images. Why not post some up of what was mostly a peaceful protest?

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Is this a sign of civil unrest yet to come in the United States? Is anyone concerned with the medias portrayal off the protestors or do you feel its justified?

I think it's a sign of protest at the current political and economic system that is long overdue in many countries.

I'm more worried about the steady loss of civil rights in the UK and the increasingly unsettling police tactics including:
-forcing people to give their names and have their photo taken of anyone attending any sort of rally and keeping a database of these details.
-the disrespect and distrust shown to members of the public and members of the media when engaged in entirely lawful behaviour.
-new police techniques like "kettling" that hem people in to confined areas and don't let them out

I just hope this sort of police attitude doesn't make it's way over here, as it did briefly during the "Reclaim the Streets" demonstration about 5 years ago.

astrofool

taconnol wrote: »

Precisely. A few select images. Why not post some up of what was mostly a peaceful protest?

Precisely because a peaceful process (unless carried through right to the end) is not newsworthy. IF the protesters want to be taken seriously, then they have to sort out their side of things first, and that means weeding out the undesirables, the conspiracy nuts, the anarchists, who will undermine them at every turn in every interview they give.

If they can't stand up against themselves, what chance do they have against the governments of the world?

It's like saying after Hiroshima was bombed, why not post images of the 99.9% of Japan that was fine?

Macha

astrofool wrote: »

Precisely because a peaceful process (unless carried through right to the end) is not newsworthy.

Correct.

astrofool wrote: »

IF the protesters want to be taken seriously, then they have to sort out their side of things first, and that means weeding out the undesirables, the conspiracy nuts, the anarchists, who will undermine them at every turn in every interview they give.

You're making the mistake of viewing the protestors as one homogenous group. There were people from many different groups, complaining about a wide variety of issues. Why should one group have to take responsibility for the rest in order for their points to be taken seriously?

We should have the intelligence to be able to view the protestors as the separate groups and individuals they are, not simplifly the matter and lump them all in together - that's just being lazy.

astrofool wrote: »

If they can't stand up against themselves, what chance do they have against the governments of the world?

This comment is just strange.

astrofool wrote: »

It's like saying after Hiroshima was bombed, why not post images of the 99.9% of Japan that was fine?

And this is just silly. The vast majority of protestors were peaceful. The obsession of a few media outlets with focusing in on the few violent protestors does nothing but pander to their audience and obscure the reality of the situation. And it detracts away from the core message of the protests. How convenient.

mike65

I presume many have already moved on to Strasbourg.

astrofool

taconnol wrote: »

You're making the mistake of viewing the protestors as one homogenous group. There were people from many different groups, complaining about a wide variety of issues. Why should one group have to take responsibility for the rest in order for their points to be taken seriously?

The protestors themselves are making the mistake of allowing these fringe groups protest alongside them, and as long as the peaceful protestors allow this to happen, they will get tarred with the same brush, and their message will never get through.

I certainly wouldn't respect an organisation or company who had a few rogue agents who constantly showed them in a bad light, without them getting excluded/fired. I don't see why anyone should respect the group of protestors until they can organise themselves to get rid of the bad elements (I hazard a guess that it's due to a misled belief of strength in numbers and timidness to stand up to these people).

And I wouldn't go as far to call it a media obsession when these riots are as predictable as the seasons, images of people fighting and rioting gets ratings, simple as that.

Anyway, your comment was why don't they show images of the 99% peaceful protestors and the answer is that nobody cares or wants to watch and listen to the peaceful protestors when they know the good stuff (riots) is just around the corner.

Macha

astrofool wrote: »

The protestors themselves are making the mistake of allowing these fringe groups protest alongside them, and as long as the peaceful protestors allow this to happen, they will get tarred with the same brush, and their message will never get through.

And how to you propose that the genuine protestors "disallow" the lunatic fringe from protesting? They can condemn them but that's about it. It isn't their job to control them.

They will only all get tarred with the same brush as long as people are intellectually lazy and see them as the same group. It requires a bit more effort to realise they're not all one and the same.

astrofool wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't respect an organisation or company who had a few rogue agents who constantly showed them in a bad light, without them getting excluded/fired. I don't see why anyone should respect the group of protestors until they can organise themselves to get rid of the bad elements (I hazard a guess that it's due to a misled belief of strength in numbers and timidness to stand up to these people).

Again, how do you suggest that they remove the rogue elements that very often are anarchists and do not belong to any organisation, let alone many of the legitimate organisations?

You're still making the mistake of assuming they belong to the same organisation.

astrofool wrote: »

And I wouldn't go as far to call it a media obsession when these riots are as predictable as the seasons, images of people fighting and rioting gets ratings, simple as that.

Well, yes I would call it an obsession. It's an obsession in certain media outlets to paint certain elements of society (teenagers, travellers, unemployed, protestors) in as negative a light as possible and to hell with balanced reporting of the facts. The Daily Mail has refined it down to a fine art.

astrofool wrote: »

Anyway, your comment was why don't they show images of the 99% peaceful protestors and the answer is that nobody cares or wants to watch and listen to the peaceful protestors when they know the good stuff (riots) is just around the corner.

I'm aware of that but I still think things like this should be questioned instead of silently expected and accepted.

astrofool

If other protestors are causing their message to be turned into an outbreak of violence, then it is their job to ensure that these people are not allowed to protest with them, whether that be by helping the police, or by completely removing support from these groups, by protesting in different areas where they can't cause trouble (away from banks and mcdonalds for example).

Again, as I said earlier, these people have to first stand up against themselves, against that person standing right beside them who throws a brick, or makes a run in a black mask against the police, singles them out, and turns them over to the authorities, until these elements are removed, and until they can get their own house in order, how can they be taken seriously when protesting against the massed governments of the world.

I know they belong to many different organisations, but you can't expect the populace to get more "intellectually active" while these riots keep on occurring. People, generally, abhor violence.

Macha

Last post on this because I feel like I'm just repeating myself.

astrofool wrote: »

If other protestors are causing their message to be turned into an outbreak of violence, then it is their job to ensure that these people are not allowed to protest with them, whether that be by helping the police, or by completely removing support from these groups, by protesting in different areas where they can't cause trouble (away from banks and mcdonalds for example).

So you put the responsibility with other protestors? That's just crazy.

There are G20 protests. I as an individual decide to go and protest. Others decide to go and throw things. Suddenly I am not just responsible for my own right to peaceful protest but according to you I now have to:

a) help police to get rid of the violent elements (even though I probably know very little about these people)
b) remove support for them (uh, how?)
c) protest in a different area to them (again, even though I probably know very little about them)

That's just silly, unworkable and putting the responsibility on entirely the wrong people. What you're talking about is police work. Individuals have the right to peaceful protest and they should be able to do so withougt having to feel responsible for other individuals acting unlawfully. Is it now the responsibility of every person out drinking on a Saturday night to get rid of the nasty element of people who get drunk and make a nuisance out of themselves? Of course not.

astrofool wrote: »

Again, as I said earlier, these people have to first stand up against themselves, against that person standing right beside them who throws a brick, or makes a run in a black mask against the police, singles them out, and turns them over to the authorities, until these elements are removed, and until they can get their own house in order, how can they be taken seriously when protesting against the massed governments of the world.

*sigh* you're just making so many assumptions here. How do you know that they know the person beside them? Why do you think it's their responsibility to start making citizens arrests? Would you really try to apprehend a masked individual throwing bricks? Come on.

They are taken seriously by people who are able to distinguish between a cause and it's supporters, between legitimate protestors and an unrelated violent individuals.

astrofool wrote: »

I know they belong to many different organisations, but you can't expect the populace to get more "intellectually active" while these riots keep on occurring. People, generally, abhor violence.

I know people abhor violence. It still isn't an excuse to remain ignorant.

It's funny because while you're so happy heaping responsibility on protestors to do things outside their jurisdiction, you're perfectly happy to absolve the general populace from responsibility for educating itself on the facts of what are largely peaceful protests.

Driseog

There has never been policy made at any G meeting. Apparently Gordon Brown was quoted as saying that all countries should be allowed to continue to achieve unbridled economic expansion so maybe its a good thing that no agreements come from these pointless summits.
I normally wouldn't be one for violence but I think that particular protest needed to be violent to reflect the anger that people are feeling at the moment. In fact I think the violent riot should be brought back because I think the problem is that those in charge aren't afraid of the people anymore and they should be.

Red Sleeping Beauty

taconnol wrote: »

I didn't think anyone was under the illusion that reading the Daily Mail would further their understanding of anything. Oh except that all of England's problems are caused by the wilfully unemployed, immigrants and paedophiles and that all members of these groups should be round up and shot.


Precisely. A few select images. Why not post some up of what was mostly a peaceful protest?


I think it's a sign of protest at the current political and economic system that is long overdue in many countries.

I'm more worried about the steady loss of civil rights in the UK and the increasingly unsettling police tactics including:
-forcing people to give their names and have their photo taken of anyone attending any sort of rally and keeping a database of these details.
-the disrespect and distrust shown to members of the public and members of the media when engaged in entirely lawful behaviour.
-new police techniques like "kettling" that hem people in to confined areas and don't let them out

I just hope this sort of police attitude doesn't make it's way over here, as it did briefly during the "Reclaim the Streets" demonstration about 5 years ago.

Unfortunately Ireland has a "riot squad" that aren't afraid to use heavy handed tactics. Even regular Guards down in Rossport used their batons on protestors . They also use video cameras to document everything.

The Garda have also "borrowed" some water cannons from Northern Ireland for a few marches/protests.

taconnol wrote: »

Correct.


You're making the mistake of viewing the protestors as one homogenous group. There were people from many different groups, complaining about a wide variety of issues. Why should one group have to take responsibility for the rest in order for their points to be taken seriously?

We should have the intelligence to be able to view the protestors as the separate groups and individuals they are, not simplifly the matter and lump them all in together - that's just being lazy.


This comment is just strange.


And this is just silly. The vast majority of protestors were peaceful. The obsession of a few media outlets with focusing in on the few violent protestors does nothing but pander to their audience and obscure the reality of the situation. And it detracts away from the core message of the protests. How convenient.

Indeed. It's disgraceful that a "normal" couple with kids or an oap seen protesting passionately wouldn't make it to the headlines.

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Is this a sign of civil unrest yet to come in the United States? Is anyone concerned with the medias portrayal off the protestors or do you feel its justified?

Yes, very much so.
It's absurd, anyone who protests at a protest where there may be violence is tared with the same brush and that these new "anti-terror" laws could be used against you (although the UK's Public Order Act seems to provide them with enough legal ammo).
I've been to a few protests and the tactics used (by the Gardaí can be very intimidating and antagonistic. Sure heck, that "kettling" tactic they use(d) is extremely scary and worrying....

http://news.google.co.uk/news?um=1&ned=uk&cf=all&ncl=1323957701
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/the2009g20londonsummit/2009/04/200943142224511944.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7981932.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/03/g20-protests-police-kettling - look at the copper at 2min 43 - dried blood on his illuminous jacket -


Widespread reporting of violent protests will of course deter ("normal/law biding") people from leaving their homes to join a protest. It's more than just a matter of concern but who's going to to anything about it ? As long as it's just some "anarchist thugs" "hooligans" or "hippies" being beaten up then your 2point4 family probably won't press their TD/representative too much to do anything such as investigate these "tactics" used by police.

oscarBravo

Alan Rouge wrote: »

They also use video cameras to document everything.

Those vicious bastards.

Red Sleeping Beauty

There was a house/squat raided and dozens of people were arrested and detained using cable ties.

http://news.google.co.uk/news?um=1&ned=uk&cf=all&ncl=1325479748
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2009/04/03/g20-protests-police-arrest-dozens-in-raids-on-squats-86908-21249772/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7978105.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/03/g20-protests-police-tactics
http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/992

"cynical display of power" just about sums it up adequtely I think.



Also , a man died in suspicious circumstances -
walking home from work and then he drops to the ground and dies from a heart attack. Police say medics trying to treat him were pelted with bottles, or the police were pettled with bottles. Not like their cordon helped though

Macha

Alan Rouge wrote: »

Also , a man died in suspicious circumstances -
walking home from work and then he drops to the ground and dies from a heart attack. Police say medics trying to treat him were pelted with bottles, or the police were pettled with bottles. Not like their cordon helped though

Actually, the Independent Police Complaints Commission is now investigating if the man in question was assaulted by police.

nvestigators are examining a series of corroborative accounts that allege Ian Tomlinson, 47, was a victim of police violence in the moments before he collapsed near the Bank of England in the City of London last Wednesday evening. Three witnesses have told the Observer that Mr Tomlinson was attacked violently as he made his way home from work at a nearby newsagents. One claims he was struck on the head with a baton.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/05/g20-protest-ian-tomlinson