no subject

[taimatsu]

I've been watching the live BBC video stream here for a little while. It is driving me slightly batty how so much of the coverage is from the point of view of government, police and business-people and takes very little account of the diversity of protestors and what they are actually there for. A lot of it is "anarchists", "police are worried", "these people are very experienced", "the police don't want them to do this", "no signs of any violence yet", "I'm sure many of these protestors are peaceful" and so on and so forth, and essentially presenting the protests as involving mainly scary, secretive, eeeevil anarchists using uncontrolled new technology instead of being the kind of thing that lots of people I know, normal, fairly middle-class people, are in sympathy with and some of whom are out there. Of course there are crazy people (I've just seen a sign saying "7-7 MI5 DID IT") but there are sensible and legitimate reasons to protest too and they are not being covered.

If I wasn't doing my last school volunteer day today I'd probably be out there. I'm really unimpressed with the way the BBC seems to be whipping up a climate of fear around these protests and representing the protestors as scary and other.

Comments

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

It is indeed very misleading, but it happens every time, it's not a new phenomenon.

(It's one of the reasons why I was suggesting on my LJ the other day that this form of protest is obsolete.)

[taimatsu]

*nod* I know :/

[madwitch.livejournal.com]

Considering that the pushing, shoving and throwing things at police has already started, I'd say they had some kind of point.

[taimatsu]

*nod* Of course there are troublemakers out there. But I'm aware of several different reputable peaceful organisations who are marching today, and plenty of people who would never be interested in violence. I don't think the troublemakers honestly necessarily outweigh the peaceful protestors except in terms of what makes good television pictures. I'm just worried that a few "hardcore anarchists" as they keep being described are leading the BBC to describe everyone out there like that, and to describe legal peaceful protests in ways which make them seem like dark deviant activity. I object to that.

[hsenag.livejournal.com]

Not watching the video stream, but http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7975597.stm looks like a plausible summary of the protests to me.

[madwitch.livejournal.com]

The troublemakers are primarily the veterans of the poll tax riots, they're very good at this.

The BBC News 24 feed has been switching between the very peaceful protest which has police helping the protesters to get up on the barricades to speak, and the one which is just full of thugs. It makes the difference clear.

Sadly, because of the latter, the point is now lost. It will just be another day of violence, little else.

[arron-shutt.livejournal.com]

Did you watch Charlie Brooker's Newswipe last week? They covered a similar topic with the protests at the return of the soldiers from Iraq. I'm not a great fan of his presentation style, but he hits all the right notes in what he says..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/search/?q=newswipe

[diffrentcolours]

Unless of course the pushing and shoving of demonstrators by police happened first, and people are just trying to defend themselves...

[madwitch.livejournal.com]

Well, it was shown live on News 24, and all the police were doing was standing in a line as per the plan for policing the protest. It was from Black Block. They are one of the "anarchist" groups who were behind the violence in the Poll Tax riots. They have stated, prior to today, that they were intending to start violence. They were clearly armed with the kind of things that you don't just find lying around on Threadneedle Street.

It may be nice to think that all protesters are peaceful and the police are thugs, but it's not the case in the slightest.

[diffrentcolours]

It might be nice to think that all protesters are anarchists, and that all anarchists are violent, and that all police are lovely, but it's not the case in the slightest.

My personal experience of being involved in demonstrations and protests is that given a choice between trusting a policeman and a demonstrator, I'd pick the demonstrator any time.

[madwitch.livejournal.com]

And had I said that all protesters were anarchists, you would have a point.
However, as I was clearly only talking about one part of the protest, and one specific and well know anarchist group called Black Block, you don't.

My personal experience of being involved in protests is that whilst most of the protestors are peaceful, you almost always have a core of people intent on violence, and the police are mostly fine if you're nowhere near that. Individual experience being just that.

[diffrentcolours]

I'm amused that you think that the Black Block is a "specific and well known andarchist group". The Black Block is the name for any group of anarchists marching together. It is not inherently violent. It's just a lot of people wearing black, with anarchist flags, in one place at the same time.

I've personally seen peaceful Black Blocks being kettled by police, squeezed in and detained and unable to move or sit down or leave individually. I've seen distressed people needing medical treatment after this, and I've seen policemen baiting protesters to start trouble.

Again, the police are far more likely to start trouble at a demonstration than anarchists.

[madwitch.livejournal.com]

The Black Block at this protest, then. I guarantee that they were not peaceful in the slightest. Also, I have been typing Black Block and meaning Class War, the name bit of my brain has obviously died. And whilst I'm certain Class War has many peaceful members, it also has several violent ones.

Really, you don't find the kind of weaponry that they were holding lying around in the street around there. It's clear you haven't seen that footage. Whoever is more likely in your opinion to cause trouble, which I think is wrong, but there you go, in this case that I am referring to, it was not the police.

And that's it.

[elethiomel.livejournal.com]

the police are far more likely to start trouble at a demonstration than anarchists

Do you really believe that?

The police, who are hugely outnumbered, who are there because they have to be, rather than they want to be, who know they are being filmed as well as watched by colleagues and senior officers, who cannot hide behind anonymity and may well lose their jobs and pensions if they 'start trouble'?

They are more likely to start it? The last thing a copper wants is for it to all kick-off and to be faced with 10,000 angry, rioting protesters!

Still, lets assume there is a small percentage of police officers who want to start a fight. Just as surely, there is a small percentage of protestors who want to fight. If you assume the percenatage is the same in both group (again, unlikely - the % of protesters there for a ruck is likely to be higher than the % of coppers there for a ruck) then, given the police are outnumbered around 50 to 1 then logic dictates it's far more likely that any trouble will have been started by protesters.

[mirrorshard.livejournal.com]

My personal experience of being involved in protests is that whilst most of the protestors are peaceful, you almost always have a core of people intent on violence

They're not a core; they're a lunatic fringe.

[addedentry.livejournal.com]

The Independent printed a map with the heading "How to join/avoid the protests" (-: