Tiresome Lefties/Anarchists riot In Edinburgh

mike65

Its only Monday and they're at it. Sure they'll be out of cash by Wednesday*!

from bbc

G8 unrest escalates in Edinburgh

There have been scuffles involving police and protesters
Police have sent in officers trained in public order to deal with several hundred anti-G8 protesters in the centre of Edinburgh.

Missiles were thrown and weapons recovered as the trouble escalated, Lothian and Borders Police said.



Lines of officers have forced back protesters at various locations. Roads are closed and businesses are being advised to consider shutting.

A senior officer accused protesters of pursuing their own "selfish agenda".

Tension began to rise during the "Carnival For Full Enjoyment", which was called by anti-capitalist groups.

The Wombles and Dissent are committed to fighting capitalism and the ideas of the G8.

Its proberly about time these tossers were turned by ordinary capitalists.

This from indymedia.ie

There wasnt much happening today in Edinburgh action-wise. I got up early and took a very leisurely cycle into the city centre from Muirhouse, trying to take in a bit of the city centre, but at the same time avoiding as many hills as possible. It was a bit depressing at times cycling around and seeing some of the businesses who had decided to put up boards on their windows - and then those that didnt. Loads of small newsagents, local businesses, and shops that you would never even think would be a target, such as a photocopy shop, a picture framers, and a greasy spoon café all had the boards up. Whereas places like The Gap, McDonalds, and Starbucks on Princes Street all operated as if nothing was different. I would have hoped that the media scare stories would have had some effect on the multinationals rather than small independent shops..

Methinks the corner shop has more to worry about as thier insurance hike will be harder to bear after The Wombles have visited.

Mike

*they can get by with the ATMs of course.

Cojofl

Rest assured these people represent all anarchists and the media gives the general public a clear understanding of what anarchy is about.

is_that_so

There is something very brave about people who believe so strongly in something that they have to hide their faces.

Sand

Rest assured these people represent all anarchists and the media gives the general public a clear understanding of what anarchy is about.

Well, thats the hard part about the "fellow travellers" attitude to violent groups within the anti-globalisation fraternity.

pete

riot?

shuushh

doesnt sound much like a riot to me

There is something very brave about people who believe so strongly in something that they have to hide their faces.

scarf around the face has become more symbolic than anything at this stage

Cojofl

shuushh wrote:

doesnt sound much like a riot to me

You mean to suggest anarchists can gather in public without rioting?

oscarBravo

shuushh wrote:

doesnt sound much like a riot to me

Depends on your definition of "riot", I suppose. Throwing missiles at police has to move it some way towards fitting the bill, no?

shuushh wrote:

scarf around the face has become more symbolic than anything at this stage

Symbolic of what, exactly?

is_that_so

scarf around the face has become more symbolic than anything at this stage

White hoods are also symbolic

Hydroquinone

Yup, the KKK wear hoods
Rioters wear hoods/scarves
Gunmen at IRA/UVF funerals, when there is a gun salute over the coffin
The hostage takers in the Middle East
Bank robbers
Muggers

All these people wear hoods because they are criminals who don't want to be identified or show enough of their face to cctv or any other sort of camera or to any potential witnesses who might identify them in the future.

Right enough, some people call it bravery, (though I do realise you weren't is_that_so). But let's be right, it is to elude whoever is after them, not for any other romantic or symbolic reason.

Ajnag

Yawn,
Here we go with the generalisations again.

Pah, Why I even comment?
Hows about one description that I think we can all agree on: Criminal.
Mind leaving out the political commentry now?
Or do we love taring all with one brush?

Andrew 83

Another symbol is the business suit of the white collar criminals taking millions away from the ordinary people in most western countries.

Hydroquinone

Ajnag wrote:

Yawn,
Here we go with the generalisations again.

Pah, Why I even comment?
Hows about one description that I think we can all agree on: Criminal.
Mind leaving out the political commentry now?
Or do we love taring all with one brush?

I dunno, the topic here is anarchists. I would have thought that all anarchists were political to some degree or other. I can leave out the muggers and the robbers, if you like - they don't tend to be enormously political, from what I've heard.

But really, go on; tell us - why do you comment?
I'm only dying to know. Oh, no, wait a minute. I'm not.

Sand

Ajnag has a sorta point. They are crinimals. And lets be honest, theyre probably little mummies boys at the end of the day whose anarchist politics could probably be written on the back of a postage stamp.

For one thing anarchists are philisophically law abiding - anarchism doesnt work without an absolute agreement to abide by the law. Anarchism isnt the absence of law, its merely the absence of a state. And secondly, most streams of anarchism are pacifist - the state rules and exists through violence and the control of violence so if people dont employ violence and disavow it, the state - theoretically - will collapse.

Hence these lads are basically twits with some political slogans, which as we all know is a dangerous combination. If theres something the "movement" should be condemned for its that they tolerate and lend credence to these guys by not disavowing them and telling them theyre not wanted or welcome. Instead the attitude has been decidely neutral bordering on supportive.

Ajnag

Sand wrote:

Ajnag has a sorta point. They are crinimals. And lets be honest, theyre probably little mummies boys at the end of the day whose anarchist politics could probably be written on the back of a postage stamp.

For one thing anarchists are philisophically law abiding - anarchism doesnt work without an absolute agreement to abide by the law. Anarchism isnt the absence of law, its merely the absence of a state. And secondly, most streams of anarchism are pacifist - the state rules and exists through violence and the control of violence so if people dont employ violence and disavow it, the state - theoretically - will collapse.

Hence these lads are basically twits with some political slogans, which as we all know is a dangerous combination. If theres something the "movement" should be condemned for its that they tolerate and lend credence to these guys by not disavowing them and telling them theyre not wanted or welcome. Instead the attitude has been decidely neutral bordering on supportive.

Pretty much agree with you there sand, It could also be noted that anarchism ,classical conservatism and libertarianism have a lot of common threads. The generalisation "lefties/anarchists" is somewhat disingenous and tiresome in its self.

Id like to point out how the whole "left/right" hemegony has degraded modern political thought in that it do's more to create a single divide of antagonism instead of allowing intelligent debate among people with differing philosiphys.

Id wonder about the movement comment tho, granted those who claim to be the "movement" are somewhat silent. However as their is no centralised form of organisation its hard to apply that term its tough to call. The generalisations used also ignore those who are pro-globalisation and trade, but who actually want it to be done under a just system of law. It's a pity that the criminal acts of a few and the media's unwillingness to discriminate between the different groups of protest led to uneducated views of generalisation.

But really, go on; tell us - why do you comment?
I'm only dying to know. Oh, no, wait a minute. I'm not.

Way'da'go prove my point,
Enjoy a nice cup of GFY.

frootfancy

Funny how its just to throw bottles, bricks, bins and benches at the police then its unjust for the police to use force back. BBC coverage was good as it showed just what the anarchists were doing to involke the force used.

In terms of definition if there are 12 or more people in the same place using/ threatening violence for a common purpose in a manner whereby reasonable people fear for their safety is technically classed as a riot. Reports say there were around 1000 people causing trouble so technically its a riot.

SkepticOne

So these anarchists, militants whatever you want to call them, does anyone think that they have some political aim that they see being achieved with their activities? Or is it just a bunch of kids having a bit of a laugh? They seem to be totally disconnected with genuine political activity and the concerns of ordinary people.

pickarooney

A lot of Muslims cover their faces.
Some football fans riot.
Many people make sweeping generalisations.

Hobbes

SkepticOne wrote:

So these anarchists, militants whatever you want to call them, does anyone think that they have some political aim that they see being achieved with their activities?

Bit of column A, bit of column B. I would say there are a core group of members that instigate a lot of the violence and mob mentality takes over.

Deadwing

F*cking tree huggers the lot of them. Theyre the same tossers that go to socialist worker protests and think that they actually do make a difference and really are changing the world by sitting around talking about how great things would be if only they were in power.
"save the trees! Stop bush!"
"eh ok how do you plan on stopping bush and getting the US out of shannon?"
"Uhmmm...well have a march!"
"Great..hope that works out for ya"
Then they go out with ski masks on and chuck rocks at cops once a year at G8 and think "Our work here is done, weve sent a message to those fat cats in washington!!" etc etc. Yeah, the only message youre sending is that:
1. The only thing you do well is riot.
2. If rioting is all youre good at its no wonder you dont have any say in world politics.
3. Youre a bunch of spoiled teenagers who listened to one too many generic angry teen records
4. Have a f*cking shower you f*cking tree hugging hippy TWATS

SkepticOne

Hobbes wrote:

Bit of column A, bit of column B. I would say there are a core group of members that instigate a lot of the violence and mob mentality takes over.

So these core members - the ones who deliberately instigate the violence - are they working towards some goal that they feel is advanced in some way by their activities?

The impression is given that at the core there is nothing there. It is simply a group of people that enjoy a bit of aggro and that the reason such activity takes place is not because of legitimate grievances but rather because the police are not doing their job with sufficient robustness.

The alternative view would be that these people might be misguided in their methods but have ligitimate concerns.

saibhne

Deadwing wrote:

F*cking tree huggers the lot of them. Theyre the same tossers that go to socialist worker protests and think that they actually do make a difference and really are changing the world by sitting around talking about how great things would be if only they were in power.
"save the trees! Stop bush!"
"eh ok how do you plan on stopping bush and getting the US out of shannon?"
"Uhmmm...well have a march!"
"Great..hope that works out for ya"
Then they go out with ski masks on and chuck rocks at cops once a year at G8 and think "Our work here is done, weve sent a message to those fat cats in washington!!" etc etc. Yeah, the only message youre sending is that:
1. The only thing you do well is riot.
2. If rioting is all youre good at its no wonder you dont have any say in world politics.
3. Youre a bunch of spoiled teenagers who listened to one too many generic angry teen records
4. Have a f*cking shower you f*cking tree hugging hippy TWATS

Deadwing,
Talk about sweeping generalisations! I'm not a huge fan of the SWP but I've been on many protests that they were involved in and have never seen even a hint of a riot starting from their members or those involved. In fact to the contrary, When Bush visisted Blair in the North a few years ago I witnessed a concerted attempt by some pre-bush supporters to incite some kind of riot (they ran into the crowd waving the stars and stripes and hurling abuse) the response from the many protesters including the SWP was to sit down on the road and ignore them - I was quite impressed, as I said I'm not a huge fan of the SWP. They may be loud and angry but that's their right.

Also, "having a march" as you say is a valid and historically effective way of making a point in a modern democracy. Without it we would have very small recourse against our political representatives outside of election time. Having said that, due mainly to the blunt instrument that our media is, I believe that the violence at the G8 meetings and any other protest is counter productive to the cause.

And most importantly, I would also say about those rioting that their politics are extreme and anti capitalist (socialist/communist/anarchist?) not environmentalist, tree hugging is probably very low on their agenda.

oscarBravo

saibhne wrote:

Also, "having a march" as you say is a valid and historically effective way of making a point in a modern democracy. Without it we would have very small recourse against our political representatives outside of election time.

No argument there. That said, there is a civic duty to conduct public protests in a peaceful and orderly manner.

saibhne wrote:

Having said that, due mainly to the blunt instrument that our media is, I believe that the violence at the G8 meetings and any other protest is counter productive to the cause.

Hang on - violence is counter-productive because of the way it's portrayed by the media??

Are you serious?

sovtek

frootfancy wrote:

Funny how its just to throw bottles, bricks, bins and benches at the police then its unjust for the police to use force back. BBC coverage was good as it showed just what the anarchists were doing to involke the force used.

Yes the BBC coverage was good...the commentary of the idiot BBC reporter was terrible though.
What we saw was groups of people being pushed and pushed and pushed and hit and beaten by cops....and then one or two people pushed back.
They talked about weapons....but not ONE clip on the BBC report I saw showed anyone using them. We also heard about people attacking shops....but we did not see ONE bit of that.
I saw ONE "missle"...a large rock that was probably picked off the ground and the cops easily deflected it with his shield...this was AFTER they were constantly beating at their legs and pushing the crowd.
What I saw was the police pushing people and getting some of it back...and then guys with black hoods who weren't doing anything but getting hit by police and pushed with shields...of course the moron talking the whole time they were showing these black faces was speaking of how bad they were.

jman0

I watched a few newscasts and i saw relatively small groups of people being pushed back by cops in riot gear who woud sometimes baton the lower extremities of the people they were pushing back. I saw one clip where one such protester seemed to retaliate by tossing a bin into the air in the general direction of some cops. The newscaster told us their was violence by protesters, that some protesters were just there to try and cause trouble but i didn't see this in the footage i got.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

The newscaster told us their was violence by protesters, that some protesters were just there to try and cause trouble but i didn't see this in the footage i got.

I think I can help you out there...

Pic curtesy of The independent

pete

CHIEF CONSTABLE PETER WILSON, HEAD OF G8 POLICE CO-ORDINATION CENTRE wrote:

It's local policing, front-line policing the way we do business round here.

That was achieved on Saturday at the very happy event because the organisers co-operated with us.

On Monday, the difference was that we had no-one who wanted to co-operate and we needed to make sure we made the city safe.

From my viewing of the pictures, Lothian and Borders Police seem to have co-ordinated an effort which kept most of the traffic out of the city, kept a safe environment.

Although I'm sure people may have been scared by the size of the operation, it was designed to ensure public safety and largely that's what we've achieved.

SCOTTISH GREEN MSP MARK BALLARD wrote:

Police officers were letting people, including innocent bystanders - but also groups of young people drinking alcohol - into the areas where there were disturbances, but they were not letting anyone out.

We thought that the safest route would be through Princes St Gardens but once in there we found ourselves trapped between two lines of police.

The police gave no clear instruction regarding what they wanted the protesters - and bystanders who had found themselves caught up in it - to do. We moved into Princes St where we were pushed up and down the street . The police seemed to lack a clear plan about how to defuse the situation and there was no clear communication, for example by an officer with a loud-hailer.

Police were rushing into the crowd and antagonising them. It was the most surreal and bizarre policing I have ever seen.

Police seemed to be inflaming the situation by letting innocent bystanders wander into the areas of trouble, then not let them exit.

Today has sadly marked a departure from the good-natured and calm atmosphere of Saturday's march and I urge police and protesters to work to restore that calm ahead of Wednesday's summit.

SCOTTISH SOCIALIST LEADER COLIN FOX wrote:

I have witnessed some of the most violent policing o my entire life. I witnessed squads of riot police clear Princess Street Gardens by charging and attacking anyone who got in their way, including innocent Edinburgh people sunbathing after work.

The day started with a carnival atmosphere which was completely destroyed by heavy-handed and violent policing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4651207.stm

Half-Bicycle

I've been on plenty of marches/demos and have had to endure unprovoked attacks by the so-called "authorities". I have seen officers of the ahem, "law" laugh as the put the boot in fellow protesters.

Now, I hate generalisations, so I won't say all coppers are filth.

But some are evil baskets all the same.

And naturally, some protestors are idiots too.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

I think I can help you out there...

hmm, makes me wonder what the cop did to illicit such a response from a member of the general public.

SkepticOne

It is a sad day when a man can't walk down the Queens Highway masked and carrying a stick.

saibhne

oscarBravo wrote:

No argument there. That said, there is a civic duty to conduct public protests in a peaceful and orderly manner. Hang on - violence is counter-productive because of the way it's portrayed by the media??

Are you serious?

Oscar
Can see how that might be construed other than how I intended. In this context of a protest being the public trying to make a point, I meant to infer that if there is any violence associated with that protest (even if it is confined to a minority) the media will lead with that story thus diluting and distorting the message that a peaceful protest can achieve.
The Irish times today is an example with a front page story about clashes with anti-capitalists and anarchists - not much mention of those who are there to request an abolition of third world debt or fairer world trade and who are protesting in a peaceful manner... Media coverage like that negates their efforts.

saibhne

saibhne wrote:

Oscar
Media coverage like that negates their efforts.

I'd have thought that the problem actually lay with the armed balaclaved protesters feeding the media.
There were no riots for instance in hyde park that I heard of the other day.

Running around masked is childish , immature and anathema to most ordinary citizens-obeying the law is not however.

saibhne

Earthman wrote:

I'd have thought that the problem actually lay with the armed balaclaved protesters feeding the media.
There were no riots for instance in hyde park that I heard of the other day.

Running around masked is childish , immature and anathema to most ordinary citizens-obeying the law is not however.

Don't know if I read you correctly Earthman but I think we agree - I was referring to the efforts of the peaceful protestors being negated by those who choose violence to express their protest. Not sure if they are feeding the media though, more like they feed off each other - used to work on a radio news service and the maxim "if it bleeds it leads" was the order of the day.

btw I like your signature quote, the one about coming around and meeting the other extreme - who's it from?

civdef

I watched a few newscasts and i saw relatively small groups of people being pushed back by cops in riot gear who woud sometimes baton the lower extremities of the people they were pushing back.

They're called distraction strikes - do little physical damage (hurt a bit though), and are generally preferable to the baton-strikes-to-head alternative...

I saw one clip where one such protester seemed to retaliate by tossing a bin into the air in the general direction of some cops. The newscaster told us their was violence by protesters, that some protesters were just there to try and cause trouble but i didn't see this in the footage i got.

I saw footage on RTE of park benches being launched at police - does that count?

saibhne

saibhne wrote:

btw I like your signature quote - who's it from?

It's a comment from Clint Eastwood of all people from Time march '05.


I'm tempted to say it made my day when I read it first but that would be a very very very bad pun.

jman0

civdef wrote:

I saw footage on RTE of park benches being launched at police - does that count?

I might have seen something similar, on RTE last night i saw a park bench on it's side, standing up. But i don't remember seeing it being launched at police however.

mycroft

jman0 wrote:

I might have seen something similar, on RTE last night i saw a park bench on it's side, standing up. But i don't remember seeing it being launched at police however.

A park bench was used to shove at police lines.

I particularly liked the group tearing up a flower bed to throw at police, and ya'll are complaining about enviromental destruction.

The violent protest at a major economic summit has had its day. When Seattle, Goethenburg, Genoa had happened, next to no one knew of the G8 or IMF or World bank. And protestor tactics were so confusing and straight to police that the protestors were able to shut down or distrupt the summits, effectively highlighting their cause.

4 years after Genoa Gordon Brown, and the international development secretary are marching and speaking at drop the debt conferences and rallies, and police tactics isolate and distrupt protestors, resulting in small groups of protestors lashing out ignorantly.

Debt relief is on the agenda, the trick is now is to intellectually engage your opponent, and ensure that debt relief, aid, and trade barriers are dropped or continued in the most effective manner possible, and honest manner.

You're not going to do that by wearing a balaclava and screaming f*ck the pigs.

tim3115

Completely agree with what Deadwing said earlier.

hmm, makes me wonder what the cop did to illicit such a response from a member of the general public.

Makes me wonder why these people are still allowed to walk the streets brandishing weapons. Cops should be tougher these days, it doesn't make sense anymore. It seems that the little groups get more protection than ever but it should be the other way around. The Police should have the last say, no matter what the situation. Trust has to be placed in the members. And I trust any officer to clear our streets of such scúm.

pete

Earthman wrote:

I think I can help you out there...

Pic curtesy of The independent

the retractable baton being swung by the policeman can be seen more clearly here:



so is it possibly a case of self defence? and if so, by and from whom?

uberwolf

pete wrote:

so is it possibly a case of self defence? and if so, by and from whom?

the policeman is entitled to carry the baton, and would have been operating under orders in using it.

The 'protester' was carrying a weapon illegally. His intent is pretty clear to anyone viewing the situation. Also the masked hero is further through his swing.

jman0 wrote:

I might have seen something similar, on RTE last night i saw a park bench on it's side, standing up. But i don't remember seeing it being launched at police however.

approx 2 seconds earlier on that same RTE coverage they showed the bench being launched at a line of policemen.

jman0 wrote:

hmm, makes me wonder what the cop did to illicit such a response from a member of the general public.

naturally the masked person carrying the weapon didn't precipitate the response from the cop. Utterly unthinkable.

SkepticOne

It looks to me that the the black-clad, masked and armed fellow and the policeman are engaging in "direct action". Talking does not always work.

shuushh

sorry symbolic was probably the wrong word, tradition probably best describes the wearing of the black scarf around the face, obviously they also wear it to elude police forces ect as someone pointed out they are breaking the law as they are trying to change a system they dont believe in

the casual attempt to associate anarchists with the KKK was both amusing, pathethic and worthy of The Daily Express all at the same time

so make up your mind lads either there tree hugging soft weak pussies
or are they a bunch of criminal terrorist thugs which is it

not that i agree with alot of their beliefs but i do enjoy their attitudes to protest

pete

uberwolf wrote:

The 'protester' was carrying a weapon illegally.

It looks more like one of the pieces of wood the SWP etc nail their posters to when making placards than a 'weapon' brought with malice aforethought.

His intent is pretty clear to anyone viewing the situation.

With all due respect I can't help but feel that speaks more of your own prejudices than anything else.

Also the masked hero is further through his swing.

Well now... if you look at the stance of both, you can see that the protestors arms are already fully extended - it looks to me like it would be physically impossible for him to swing anywhere near the police officer. Looks more like a defensive stance to me.

On the other hand, the police officer appears to be shifting his weight onto his left leg, as if moving forward towards the protestor while swinging his baton.

But i guess that speaks more of my own prejudices than anything else, what with me not actually having seen any of this first (or second) hand.

Sand

Id like to point out how the whole "left/right" hemegony has degraded modern political thought in that it do's more to create a single divide of antagonism instead of allowing intelligent debate among people with differing philosiphys.

I agree, right and left dont really mean much at all beyond labels to associate negatively with opponents. I do it, and everyone else does it too. Postions are so multi-faceted that they cant be contained in those labels anymore. If youre in favour of equal recognition for homosexual unions, but against abortion are you on the right or left? Especially if the basis for opposing abortion is the same as the basis for supporting homosexuals equality before the law - that everyone should have the same rights, even the unborn. Are ultra-nationalists right or left? Is religion of the right politically, even though if anything, its traditional encouragement of charity and goodworks would tend to fit in with socialists redistribution philosophy?

Even anarchists - who are traditionally painted as being on the left - are more complex than that...anarcho-capitalists and synidcalist anarchists would agree on only one thing - the state needs to go, theyd disagree on practically every other decision on how society should be organised.

I'd have thought that the problem actually lay with the armed balaclaved protesters feeding the media.
There were no riots for instance in hyde park that I heard of the other day.

Yep - The march the day before passed without incident as far as I heard, despite the same police force being involved. About the only constant in these riots across Europe is that its the same circle of black masked morons travelling for the summer holidays to smash things up and get in fights with the local cops. Its different police forces every time, they cant *all* be suddenly thugs looking for a scrap. Most would be guys with families, doing a job, who just want to head home and see the match like anyone else who dont need the hassle of getting a brick thrown at them or getting investigated.

And in a popularity contest between the police force of any democratic state and black masked tools smashing up city centers....well, its no contest in the minds of the public.

The Irish times today is an example with a front page story about clashes with anti-capitalists and anarchists - not much mention of those who are there to request an abolition of third world debt or fairer world trade and who are protesting in a peaceful manner... Media coverage like that negates their efforts.

Then it would be in the best interests of everyone if the organisers of these marches co-operated with the authorities to remove the disruptive elements who hijack the publicity. The English FA took responsibility for dealing with the hooligan elements that hijacked the England teams trips abroad. They could have put their hands up and said - nothing to do with us, we didnt invite them. But that doesnt really change the impression given, of at least toleration of these guys - the most common view Ive seen from people involved in this stuff is that these "anarchists" might have questionable methods but their hearts are in the right place.

Nuttzz

pete wrote:

Looks more like a defensive stance to me.

of course if he wasnt wearing a face mask and carrying a weapon in the first place he wont need a defensive stance....

pete

Sand wrote:

Its different police forces every time, they cant *all* be suddenly thugs looking for a scrap. Most would be guys with families, doing a job, who just want to head home and see the match like anyone else who dont need the hassle of getting a brick thrown at them or getting investigated.

And some would be the type who get their kicks dragging kids into police cells and beating the living **** out of them*. Some would be the type we all saw on TV beating the crap out of "rioters" on Dame Street. Maybe some would even be the type who plant evidence, fake confessions and frame innocent people.

Investigated? A fairly recent development, that one.

Yes, most are good guys with families. But some most certainly aren't - sometimes if feels like there's a few too many among the ranks of our supposed defenders of the peace.

* Yes, allegedly. Unfortunately a claim i've heard alleged by the alleged victims and seen the bruises first hand a few too many times.

pete

Nuttzz wrote:

of course if he wasnt wearing a face mask and carrying a weapon in the first place he wont need a defensive stance....

All I'm saying is context is everything.

Blackjack

To be honest, and having been in the general vicinity this week, I can safely say that this was an organised Riot. These groups have been hanging around offices in Edinburgh and taking photos of the entrance areas of Buildings which house various companies.
While much of this may have been to confuse the police as much as anything else, it's hardly the behaviour of peaceful protestors.

The Police policy was one of containment, rather than confrontation. When these people started to get out of hand, and only then, was when the police reacted.

An office belonging to one financial Organisation had 3 bricks thrown in through their windows. One Office had to be evacuated under Police escort.

When you see the mess that has been made of the beautiful princes street gardens (that are there for everyone to enjoy) it's an absolute disgrace. The benches that were yesterday being lobbed at Police are memorials donated by people from all over the world, some native of Edinburgh, and others from people who just want to give something so that people can enjoy a seat in one of the world's most beautiful cities. The fact that these tossers decided to do their best to wreck the place yesterday only decreases any sympathy I have for their cause.
This article (requires registration, free) as well as this one gives a local perspective of the events.

It's been in the news leading up to today that this would be the troublesome event. The "Organisers" had no permission (and did not request any) to March, and their only intention was one of violence.

Funnily enough there was no trouble today. Maybe it's Giro day.

pete

SkepticOne wrote:

So these anarchists, militants whatever you want to call them, does anyone think that they have some political aim that they see being achieved with their activities? Or is it just a bunch of kids having a bit of a laugh? They seem to be totally disconnected with genuine political activity and the concerns of ordinary people.

Dissent Ireland is a local working group of the DISSENT NETWORK. Dissent Ireland is a network of activists who have come together to organise against the G8 Summit to be held in Scotland in July of 2005. The group is open to anyone who is willing to work within the hallmarks of Peoples Global Action;

http://www.dissentireland.org/

What is PGA?

From the 23rd to the 26th of February of 1998, grassroots movements of all continents met in Geneva to launch a worldwide coordination network of resistance to the global market, a new alliance of struggle and solidarity called Peoples' Global Action against 'free' trade and the WTO (PGA). That was the birth of this global tool for communication and coordination for all those who fight the destruction of humanity and the planet by capitalism and build local alternatives to globalisation.

The defining documents of the PGA are its five hallmarks, its organisational principles and its manifesto.

At the conference in Bangalore, India in August 1999 the hallmarks and the organisational principles were amended to reflect discussions about clarifying differences to right-wing anti-globalizers. A new second hallmark was added.
The Hallmarks were changed at the conference in Cochabamba 2001.

HALLMARKS:

1. A very clear rejection of capitalism, imperialism and feudalism; all trade agreements, institutions and governments that promote destructive globalisation.

2. We reject all forms and systems of domination and discrimination including, but not limited to, patriarchy, racism and religious fundamentalism of all creeds. We embrace the full dignity of all human beings.

3. A confrontational attitude, since we do not think that lobbying can have a major impact in such biased and undemocratic organisations, in which transnational capital is the only real policy-maker;

4. A call to direct action and civil disobedience, support for social movements' struggles, advocating forms of resistance which maximize respect for life and oppressed peoples' rights, as well as the construction of local alternatives to global capitalism.

5. An organisational philosophy based on decentralisation and autonomy.

http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/en/index.html

frootfancy

* Yes, allegedly. Unfortunately a claim i've heard alleged by the alleged victims and seen the bruises first hand a few too many times.[/QUOTE]


Are you a lawyer?

pete

frootfancy wrote:

* Yes, allegedly. Unfortunately a claim i've heard alleged by the alleged victims and seen the bruises first hand a few too many times.

Are you a lawyer?[/QUOTE]
No. Why - do you not like them either?