Hello again,

Just back from my second set of protest watching, I headed along to Waverly 
Shopping Centre after seeing the crowd behind Rose Street being cornered (on 
TV).  When I arrived at Waverly Shopping Centre, the street leading to St 
Andrews Square was blocked by police.  About 70 protesters had gathered and 
were chanting the usual.  After ten or so minutes, the police pulled back to 
just behind McDonalds on St Andrew Square, and the crowd shouted "Retreat, 
Retreat!"

The crowd stayed rowdy and to my amazement, the police essentially 
disappeared.  The riot police got into the vans, and drove up waterloo place 
and down towards Leith walk, and the other police vans reversed and parked 
out of sight.

It was very strange after the police left, people mingled and chatted 
amongst themselves, and the crowd got bigger - but everything remained calm 
and peaceful...

....All of a sudden, whistles, shouting and bagpipes(?) - over the road from 
McDonalds.  The little lane opposite McDonalds had filled with Riot Police, 
and the protesters had started to charge them and throw bottles, McDonalds 
Milkshakes and Bins.  I saw a few bricks fly over too, and one police chap 
took a full McDonalds shake in the face.  The Riot Police charged back at 
the crowd and everyone scattered back onto Princess Street just outside the 
Waverly Shopping Centre front steps (Is it Princes Mall now?).  The 
protesters and riot police has running battles for maybe five minutes, just 
in time for around 30 Riot Vans to scream along Princess Street and empty 
their load - 100+ police started to jump out the vans just opposite Top 
shop, and everyone, myself included climbed up onto the terraced area on top 
of Princes Mall.  Before long, Police had again blocked all streets in and 
out of the immediate area, and 20 or so offices with Alsatians approached 
the crowds.  Around 10 protesters sat on the ground in the middle of all the 
riot police, and banged drums, shouted abuse etc.  There were a few 
scuffles, running  backwards and forwards, but after 20 min or so, the 
police disintegrated, as did the crowd.

This all happened between 9 and 10 pm (ish).

Jimbobbery.

Sounds like fun. Wish I was there.

"Jim"  wrote in message
news:daccnp$6a3$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...

> Hello again,
>
> Just back from my second set of protest watching, I headed along to
Waverly
> Shopping Centre after seeing the crowd behind Rose Street being cornered
(on
> TV).  When I arrived at Waverly Shopping Centre, the street leading to St
> Andrews Square was blocked by police.  About 70 protesters had gathered
and
> were chanting the usual.  After ten or so minutes, the police pulled back
to
> just behind McDonalds on St Andrew Square, and the crowd shouted "Retreat,
> Retreat!"
>
> The crowd stayed rowdy and to my amazement, the police essentially
> disappeared.  The riot police got into the vans, and drove up waterloo
place
> and down towards Leith walk, and the other police vans reversed and parked
> out of sight.
>
> It was very strange after the police left, people mingled and chatted
> amongst themselves, and the crowd got bigger - but everything remained
calm
> and peaceful...
>
> ...All of a sudden, whistles, shouting and bagpipes(?) - over the road
from
> McDonalds.  The little lane opposite McDonalds had filled with Riot
Police,
> and the protesters had started to charge them and throw bottles, McDonalds
> Milkshakes and Bins.  I saw a few bricks fly over too, and one police chap
> took a full McDonalds shake in the face.  The Riot Police charged back at
> the crowd and everyone scattered back onto Princess Street just outside
the
> Waverly Shopping Centre front steps (Is it Princes Mall now?).  The
> protesters and riot police has running battles for maybe five minutes,
just
> in time for around 30 Riot Vans to scream along Princess Street and empty
> their load - 100+ police started to jump out the vans just opposite Top
> shop, and everyone, myself included climbed up onto the terraced area on
top
> of Princes Mall.  Before long, Police had again blocked all streets in and
> out of the immediate area, and 20 or so offices with Alsatians approached
> the crowds.  Around 10 protesters sat on the ground in the middle of all
the
> riot police, and banged drums, shouted abuse etc.  There were a few
> scuffles, running  backwards and forwards, but after 20 min or so, the
> police disintegrated, as did the crowd.
>
> This all happened between 9 and 10 pm (ish).
>
> Jimbobbery.
>
>

> Sounds like fun. Wish I was there.



Fun is the wrong word.

Entertaining?  Well it beats watching Big Brother.
Scary?  You better believe it.

I could go on...

I will.

Upsetting?  Yep, seeing a bunch of lawless thugs let loose on our lovely 
city.
Stupid?  The protesters are pretty stupid if they think this will do any 
good.

However, the best word to describe the entire day for me - surreal.  I will 
probably never experience anything like it again, it was trully surreal to 
me.

Jimbobbery.

In article <daccnp$6a3$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, Jim 
 writes

>This all happened between 9 and 10 pm (ish).


Interesting. I was on the number 8 bus that went through St Andrews 
Square and up North Bridge not long after half past, and there was no 
sign of anything at all - they must've cleared up pretty quickly.

Steve
-- 
Steve Glover, Fell Services Ltd. Available
Weblog at http://weblog.akicif.net/blogger.html
Home: steve at fell.demon.co.uk, 0131 551 3835
Away: steve.glover at ukonline.co.uk, 07961 446 902

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 23:21:00 +0100 someone who may be "Jim"
 wrote this:-


>It was very strange after the police left, people mingled and chatted 
>amongst themselves, and the crowd got bigger - but everything remained calm 
>and peaceful...


I don't find that strange at all.


>...All of a sudden, whistles, shouting and bagpipes(?) - over the road from 
>McDonalds.  The little lane opposite McDonalds had filled with Riot Police, 
>and the protesters had started to charge them and throw bottles, McDonalds 
>Milkshakes and Bins.  I saw a few bricks fly over too, and one police chap 
>took a full McDonalds shake in the face.


That really is going too far. The shake probably contains GM "food".
What was the protestor thinking:-)

One would assume, from corporate media reports, that McDonald's
would be a blackened shell, yet it looked much the same as ever this
morning when I passed. I doubt if they could have replaced the
entire facade overnight.


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"Jim"  wrote in message 
news:daccnp$6a3$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...

> Hello again,
>
> Just back from my second set of protest watching, I headed along to 
> Waverly Shopping Centre after seeing the crowd behind Rose Street being 
> cornered (on TV).  When I arrived at Waverly Shopping Centre, the street 
> leading to St Andrews Square was blocked by police.  About 70 protesters 
> had gathered and were chanting the usual.  After ten or so minutes, the 
> police pulled back to just behind McDonalds on St Andrew Square, and the 
> crowd shouted "Retreat, Retreat!"
>
> The crowd stayed rowdy and to my amazement, the police essentially 
> disappeared.  The riot police got into the vans, and drove up waterloo 
> place and down towards Leith walk, and the other police vans reversed and 
> parked out of sight.
>
> It was very strange after the police left, people mingled and chatted 
> amongst themselves, and the crowd got bigger - but everything remained 
> calm and peaceful...
>
> ...All of a sudden, whistles, shouting and bagpipes(?) - over the road 
> from McDonalds.  The little lane opposite McDonalds had filled with Riot 
> Police, and the protesters had started to charge them and throw bottles, 
> McDonalds Milkshakes and Bins.  I saw a few bricks fly over too, and one 
> police chap took a full McDonalds shake in the face.  The Riot Police 
> charged back at the crowd and everyone scattered back onto Princess Street 
> just outside the Waverly Shopping Centre front steps (Is it Princes Mall 
> now?).  The protesters and riot police has running battles for maybe five 
> minutes, just in time for around 30 Riot Vans to scream along Princess 
> Street and empty their load - 100+ police started to jump out the vans 
> just opposite Top shop, and everyone, myself included climbed up onto the 
> terraced area on top of Princes Mall.  Before long, Police had again 
> blocked all streets in and out of the immediate area, and 20 or so offices 
> with Alsatians approached the crowds.  Around 10 protesters sat on the 
> ground in the middle of all the riot police, and banged drums, shouted 
> abuse etc.  There were a few scuffles, running  backwards and forwards, 
> but after 20 min or so, the police disintegrated, as did the crowd.
>
> This all happened between 9 and 10 pm (ish).
>
> Jimbobbery.


Jim,

I was blocked near The Balmoral hotel last night by the riot police from 
7.30pm till 8.30pm.

Left: http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~fzero/G8/Img_3557.jpg

Right: http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~fzero/G8/Img_3558.jpg

Was finishing work and find myself in the middle of a few trouble makers...

> One would assume, from corporate media reports, that McDonald's
> would be a blackened shell, yet it looked much the same as ever this
> morning when I passed. I doubt if they could have replaced the
> entire facade overnight.



McDonalds was fine, I even saw  a few "protesters" eating bic macs, and I 
had a lovely apple pie.  All action was directed at the riot police over the 
road.

Jimbobbery.

This is the very beginning of all the trouble at this location, mental.

David Hansen  wrote:


> That really is going too far. The shake probably contains GM "food".
> What was the protestor thinking:-)


E's 'avin' a go at GM food now!

FoFP

I was arround the same place arround 7pm.

If folk thought it was scarey they obviously haven't been to a European
footy game.

Got a wee bit concerned though by the gas mask sitting in an ambulance
support vehicle.

Walked along Princes street and up Lothian road and saw no damage - except
for a few loose kerb stones at the bottom of the mound.  Probably caused by
lost police vans.

Paul

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 12:52:35 +0100, Jim wrote:


> 
>> One would assume, from corporate media reports, that McDonald's
>> would be a blackened shell, yet it looked much the same as ever this
>> morning when I passed. I doubt if they could have replaced the
>> entire facade overnight.
> 
> 
> McDonalds was fine, I even saw  a few "protesters" eating bic macs, and I 
> had a lovely apple pie.  All action was directed at the riot police over the 
> road.


How do you know they were protesters? Do you have magic mind reading
glasses?

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 12:25:52 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be M Holmes
 wrote this:-


>David Hansen  wrote:
>
>> That really is going too far. The shake probably contains GM "food".
>> What was the protestor thinking:-)
>
>E's 'avin' a go at GM food now!


Got to get it in somewhere:-)


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

> How do you know they were protesters? Do you have magic mind reading
> glasses?


1: The placards.
2: The flags.
3: The black masks.
4: Their chanting.
5: Their running at the police.
6: Their throwing of a milkshake, which they had been drinking before 
lobbing it.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 13:57:17 +0100, Jim wrote:


>> How do you know they were protesters? Do you have magic mind reading
>> glasses?
> 
> 1: The placards.


I saw very few placards anywhere.


> 2: The flags.


I think I saw about 3 flags total.


> 3: The black masks.


They were wearing them in McDonalds?


> 4: Their chanting.


In McDonalds?


> 5: Their running at the police.


The police were in there to?


> 6: Their throwing of a milkshake, which they had been drinking before 
> lobbing it.


Perhaps a patron angry at the way the police were behaving?

>> 1: The placards.
>
> I saw very few placards anywhere.


And I saw lots, your point is?




>> 2: The flags.
>
> I think I saw about 3 flags total.


And again, I saw lots, what are you getting at?




>> 3: The black masks.
>
> They were wearing them in McDonalds?


I have no idea.  Why?



>> 4: Their chanting.
>
> In McDonalds?


Again, haven't a clue, why do you ask?



>> 5: Their running at the police.
>
> The police were in there to?


I doubt it.



>> 6: Their throwing of a milkshake, which they had been drinking before
>> lobbing it.
>
> Perhaps a patron angry at the way the police were behaving?


Perhaps they are just anorchist thugs?  Which is more likely?  I get angry 
with people all the time, I don't throw things and hit them.

Jimbobbery.

Jim wrote:


> > They were wearing them in McDonalds?
>
> I have no idea.  Why?


Because you seem certain they went and ate in macdonalds, but some of
us are unconvinced, and you haven't actually said how you gathered this
information.

It seems at least equally likely that a local macdonalds user, of the
type who enjoy baiting the police anyway, hurled the aforementioned
crap beverage.
Or, as their patrons spread food and packaging around the city, and
their homes too probably, as a matter of course, the 'shake' was just a
handy weapon.


> I get angry
> with people all the time, I don't throw things and hit them.


And you get significantly less news coverage!

The link between those angry with the G8, and finding their right to
protest peacefully somewhat cutailed yesterday, and those who are just
angry and want to battle the polis is  tenuous.  The anarchists do the
majority of protesters a disservice.
I saw the main police tactic of 'penning' or enclosing groups of
protesters and detaining them for hours at first hand.  It appeared to
make quite ordinary people upset and angry, and overall it escalated
the situation more than if people had been allowed to actually march
somewhere, and protest, however slowly.

Alex

> Because you seem certain they went and ate in macdonalds, but some of
> us are unconvinced, and you haven't actually said how you gathered this
> information.



No, I am certain that they ATE McDonalds, I never said inside the place. 
There was a group of five or six munching big macs and cheeseburgers, with 
juice and shakes.  They had flags and banners and one of their milkshakes 
found its way into some cops face.  They were definately not local Edinburgh 
schemies, they were wairing all black, blowing whistles and waving their 
blag flag with some red logo on it.



>> I get angry
>> with people all the time, I don't throw things and hit them.
>
> And you get significantly less news coverage!


So, whats your point?




> The link between those angry with the G8, and finding their right to
> protest peacefully somewhat cutailed yesterday, and those who are just
> angry and want to battle the polis is  tenuous.  The anarchists do the
> majority of protesters a disservice.
> I saw the main police tactic of 'penning' or enclosing groups of
> protesters and detaining them for hours at first hand.  It appeared to
> make quite ordinary people upset and angry, and overall it escalated
> the situation more than if people had been allowed to actually march
> somewhere, and protest, however slowly.



You mean, if they had been allowed to march right up to the door of Standard 
Life etc, and trash the place?

Think about it brainbox.

Jimbobbery.

"Jim"  wrote in message
news:dads9d$gc3$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...

>
> > One would assume, from corporate media reports, that McDonald's
> > would be a blackened shell, yet it looked much the same as ever this
> > morning when I passed. I doubt if they could have replaced the
> > entire facade overnight.
>
>
> McDonalds was fine, I even saw  a few "protesters" eating bic macs, and I
> had a lovely apple pie.  All action was directed at the riot police over
the
> road.
>
> Jimbobbery.


Ahahaha you eat McDonalds food!

"Jim"  wrote in message
news:dae02n$rrf$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...


> 6: Their throwing of a milkshake, which they had been drinking before
> lobbing it.



Perhaps they found it not to their tastes?

"Jim"  wrote in message
news:daef11$guq$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...

> > Because you seem certain they went and ate in macdonalds, but some of
> > us are unconvinced, and you haven't actually said how you gathered this
> > information.
>
>
> No, I am certain that they ATE McDonalds, I never said inside the place.
> There was a group of five or six munching big macs and cheeseburgers, with
> juice and shakes.  They had flags and banners and one of their milkshakes
> found its way into some cops face.  They were definately not local
Edinburgh
> schemies, they were wairing all black, blowing whistles and waving their
> blag flag with some red logo on it.
>
>
> >> I get angry
> >> with people all the time, I don't throw things and hit them.
> >
> > And you get significantly less news coverage!
>
> So, whats your point?
>
>
>
> > The link between those angry with the G8, and finding their right to
> > protest peacefully somewhat cutailed yesterday, and those who are just
> > angry and want to battle the polis is  tenuous.  The anarchists do the
> > majority of protesters a disservice.
> > I saw the main police tactic of 'penning' or enclosing groups of
> > protesters and detaining them for hours at first hand.  It appeared to
> > make quite ordinary people upset and angry, and overall it escalated
> > the situation more than if people had been allowed to actually march
> > somewhere, and protest, however slowly.
>
>
> You mean, if they had been allowed to march right up to the door of
Standard
> Life etc, and trash the place?


Yes, it's a genuine pity this wasnt allowed.


>
> Think about it brainbox.


I just did, "jimbob" :-)

Jim wrote:


> You mean, if they had been allowed to march right up to the door of Standard
> Life etc, and trash the place?
>
> Think about it brainbox.


Er, you think about it.  Oh yes, you weren't there, there were many
many police.  Plenty to protect standard life or whatever and allow
people to actually protest next to what they want to protest against.
Exactly how easy do you think it is to trash a modern office building,
from outside, with a heavy police presense ?

You are seriously divorced from the reality of the situation,
'brainbox', or perhaps 'boxbrain', you watch too much tv.

Get a life and a conscience, you churlish self-obsessed slug.

Alex

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:12:24 +0100 someone who may be "Jim"
 wrote this:-


>No, I am certain that they ATE McDonalds, I never said inside the place. 


Do McDonald's now have take away hatches on the outside of their
"restaurants" where "anti-capitalist anarchist rioters" can get
their McCrap without going inside?


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

"Alex Bird"  wrote in message
news:1120581800.079956.326450@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


> The link between those angry with the G8, and finding their right to
> protest peacefully somewhat cutailed yesterday, and those who are just
> angry and want to battle the polis is  tenuous.  The anarchists do the
> majority of protesters a disservice.
> I saw the main police tactic of 'penning' or enclosing groups of
> protesters and detaining them for hours at first hand.  It appeared to
> make quite ordinary people upset and angry, and overall it escalated
> the situation more than if people had been allowed to actually march
> somewhere, and protest, however slowly.


However as they had not cleared any march route officially with the council
and the police they actually had no right to have a march in the first
place.  As much as the protestors may dislike it there are laws governing
holding a protest march.  As far as I can see, provided the correct
procedure is gone through, the city of Edinburgh council does grant
permission for the majority of march requests.  The fact that they gave
permission for such a huge march on Saturday surely indicates that they are
not trying to stifle people's wish to demonstrate.  If however you do not go
through the correct procedure and get permission then your "march" is
illegal and will be curtailed if you attempt to go through with it and I for
one am very happy that this is the case.

If you want a city where random groups of people can start up a protest
march at any time without warning and play havoc with day-to-day life then I
think you may have to look for another country or another planet.  The
majority of people don't want the continual disruption (and danger) this
would involve and are quite happy that all marches must obtin the permission
of the council and the police to have legal standing.

Tamzin

Tamzin wrote:


> If you want a city where random groups of people can start up a protest
> march at any time without warning and play havoc with day-to-day life then I
> think you may have to look for another country or another planet.  The
> majority of people don't want the continual disruption (and danger) this
> would involve and are quite happy that all marches must obtin the permission
> of the council and the police to have legal standing.



I'm afraid this is _exactly_ what many people are unhappy about.  You
have the luxury of a beautiful city where you can go about your daily
life without disruption and danger.  Many people in the world don't as
a direct result of the behaviour of our corporations and the military
force used to back them up, not to mention the arms we sell to
disgusting regimes.  Think yourselves lucky.

AFAIK the need to clear a route with the police is quite a recent
development, and not an integral part of the right to protest.  This
democracy survived for some considerable time without it.

Alex

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 21:33:19 +0100 someone who may be "Tamzin"
 wrote this:-


>If you want a city where random groups of people can start up a protest
>march at any time without warning and play havoc with day-to-day life then I
>think you may have to look for another country or another planet.


The protestors on Monday were rather different to a traditional
Edinburgh mob, despite the best attempts of police and mass media.

From http://www.auldedinburgh.co.uk/cityinfo/allareas.htm

"It was in the Grassmarket in 1736 that an Edinburgh mob lynched
Captain Porteous, who was the commander of the Town Guard. Porteous
had ordered the guard to fire upon a crowd with fatal results. He
was put on trial and convicted of murder - but then he received a
reprieve. Angered, a mob captured Porteous from the Old Tolbooth,
which stood on the Royal Mile near St Giles', and hanged him in the
Grassmarket."


-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

In article  SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk wrote...


> One would assume, from corporate media reports, that McDonald's


'Corporate media reports'?

Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

I must emphasise the observation that you are a *wanker*, Hansen.

Mike Dickson, Edinburgh, Scotland

"Alex Bird"  wrote in message

>
>I'm afraid this is _exactly_ what many people are unhappy about.  You
>have the luxury of a beautiful city where you can go about your daily
>life without disruption and danger.  Many people in the world don't as
>a direct result of the behaviour of our corporations and the military
>force used to back them up, not to mention the arms we sell to
>disgusting regimes.  Think yourselves lucky.


Advocating throwing away safeguards that make this country such a safe and
pleasant place to live on the grounds that less fortunate countries do not
enjoy those safeguards is frankly insane (or completely naive) and
ultimately a meaningless gesture.  I think that the right to hold protest is
vital but equally these things have to be controlled if tragedy is to be
avoided.  Anywhere where large crowds of people congregate is potentially
unsafe and allowing groups of people to bring the city to a standstill
whenever they choose would soon start to annoy you if it were allowed.


> AFAIK the need to clear a route with the police is quite a recent
> development, and not an integral part of the right to protest.  This
> democracy survived for some considerable time without it.


And I happen to think that we would be extremely foolish to abandon it.  I
very much believe that only the more extreme among us, those who want to
cause harm, would take advantage of any laxity in the rules surrounding
protests with a resultant increase in violent mobs of the sort that plagued
our history before the safeguards so apparently despised came into being.
The trouble with crowds of enthused people is that they are collectively
less intelligent than the individuals who make it up.  They could decide to
resort to violence and potentially murder on a whim.  Do you want to see
lynch mobs?  Or political rallies where bystanders get caught up in violence
against their will?  Or perhaps we could have the criminal gangs apparently
spontaneously protesting but using the resulting mayhem to loot shops and
rob anyone who gets in their way?  Just think of the ugly crowds that form
outside the homes of those accused (and not yet found guilty) of taboo
crimes?  Do you think that they should be allowed to congregate there and
threaten violence or worse?  No I'll have regulations and control by the
police over any of those situations thanks very much.

Don't you think that people sometimes need to be told that they are not
allowed to indulge their own primitive desires to scapegoat and punish
somebody for a perceived wrong especially where the somebodies they choose
may not actually be to blame.  As an example - I know that if someone
murdered someone that I love I would want vengeance.  Lets not beat about
the bush - I would want to murder the perpetrator.  I strongly believe
however that I should not be allowed to do so and that the law should be
applied by someone outside the situation.   To get back to the point I think
that mobs get it wrong more often than not.  On Monday they apparently
planned to harangue employees of suspect organisation and try to get them to
skive off.  What if said employees had defended their employer?  It wouldn't
be much of a mental leap for the protestors to decide to retaliate with
violence and for the situation to spiral out of control.  You will never
convince me that it is OK for crowds of people to hold uncontrolled protests
of this kind because people are hot-headed and confrontational(and I include
myself in this) and this applies doubly to those who are so caught up in the
issues at hand that they want to disregard the laws set down to keep
everyone safe while peaceful protests are occurring.

As I already said I do not believe that the council here in Edinburgh is
restrictive in granting permission to hold protest marches - in fact they
seem to allow far too many of the bloody things IMHO.  I am sure had that
the people who created havoc on Monday presented a reasonable plan to the
council and police then they too would have been granted the right to
demonstrate peacefully.  I do not understand how anyone can consider it a
desirable situation to allow random groups of people are able to blockade
areas of the city and cause distress and intimidation to residents without
any recourse to the police and the council

Tamzin

"David Hansen"  wrote in message
news:qivlc1duel6v8e7pa2sbrehsksmn4p6gq0@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 21:33:19 +0100 someone who may be "Tamzin"
>  wrote this:-
>
> >If you want a city where random groups of people can start up a protest
> >march at any time without warning and play havoc with day-to-day life
then I
> >think you may have to look for another country or another planet.
>
> The protestors on Monday were rather different to a traditional
> Edinburgh mob, despite the best attempts of police and mass media.
>
> From http://www.auldedinburgh.co.uk/cityinfo/allareas.htm
>
> "It was in the Grassmarket in 1736 that an Edinburgh mob lynched
> Captain Porteous, who was the commander of the Town Guard. Porteous
> had ordered the guard to fire upon a crowd with fatal results. He
> was put on trial and convicted of murder - but then he received a
> reprieve. Angered, a mob captured Porteous from the Old Tolbooth,
> which stood on the Royal Mile near St Giles', and hanged him in the
> Grassmarket."


This is exactly the sort of thing that I would fear.  I don't think that
mobs should be able to take the law into their own hands like this.  If
there is enough popular discontent then get a fucking revolution going but
deciding to kill someone when the law has said no is just rubbish.  Of
course I am against the death penalty anyway which colours my attitude
somewhat :o)

Tamzin

> > You mean, if they had been allowed to march right up to the door of
> > Standard Life etc, and trash the place?
>
> Yes, it's a genuine pity this wasnt allowed.


Surely that's a retarded argument.

Smash Standard Life, because they are an evil corporation of capitalist
bastards... Ooops, they're a mutual aren't they?

D'oh!

-- 
Steven Hill

Your child may be an honor student, but you're still an idiot.

> Do McDonald's now have take away hatches on the outside of their
> "restaurants" where "anti-capitalist anarchist rioters" can get
> their McCrap without going inside?




No, why do you ask?  Oh I see, you can't read properly.

I said:
"No, I am certain that they ATE McDonalds, I never said inside the place.
There was a group of five or six munching big macs and cheeseburgers, with
juice and shakes.  They had flags and banners and one of their milkshakes
found its way into some cops face.  They were definately not local Edinburgh
schemies, they were wairing all black, blowing whistles and waving their
blag flag with some red logo on it."


David, at which point did I say I saw them BUY a McDonalds?  I have no doubt 
in my mind - they must have been INSIDE to purchase the food, I just never 
saw it.

jim.

> Er, you think about it.  Oh yes, you weren't there, there were many
> many police.


Correct I was nowhere near Standard Life.


> Plenty to protect standard life or whatever and allow
> people to actually protest next to what they want to protest against.


Why should they be allowed to protest against a place of work for hundreds 
of people?  Why should the workers be trapped inside whilst the shelfish 
brat bastards shout and chant, all in the hope of a free ride from the state 
benefit system.  Why cant the LAZY FUCKS get a job like the rest of us hard 
workers?


> Exactly how easy do you think it is to trash a modern office building,
> from outside, with a heavy police presense ?


All depends how much of a push and shove exists, all it takes is for a 20 or 
30 man battle to kick off, and hundreds would have been able to run riot.


> You are seriously divorced from the reality of the situation,
> 'brainbox', or perhaps 'boxbrain', you watch too much tv.


I watch very little TV, maybe the news now and again, otherwise im on the 
XBOX, checking email or working.


> Get a life and a conscience, you churlish self-obsessed slug.


Get a job SCROUNGER.

Jim.

> Perhaps they found it not to their tastes?



Well if the bin had been intact, they could have used it :)  But with 
anarchy, the simple normal things in life, like bins, can be destroyed very 
quickly.  Just well our quick thinking police force was in place to keep the 
animals under control :)

Jim.

> I'm afraid this is _exactly_ what many people are unhappy about.  You
> have the luxury of a beautiful city where you can go about your daily
> life without disruption and danger.



Good :)  Just the way I like it.


>  Many people in the world don't as
> a direct result of the behaviour of our corporations and the military
> force used to back them up, not to mention the arms we sell to
> disgusting regimes.  Think yourselves lucky.



We do, very lucky.



> AFAIK the need to clear a route with the police is quite a recent
> development, and not an integral part of the right to protest.  This
> democracy survived for some considerable time without it.


A welcome change if you ask me, stopped your nutters causing too much of a 
scene yesterday.

Jim.

> Ahahaha you eat McDonalds food!



Wow, I should do stand up ehh?

I also eat:

Burger King
KFC
Fish & Chips
Pizza Hut
Dominos

I frequent the following places at least once a month:

The Patio
The Mussel Inn
Fischers in the City
TGI's
The Filling Station
The Standing Order
Brannagins
The Tickled Trout
Cafe Rouge - one of my faves :)
Cafe St Honore - another fave, reminds me of Paris
Martin Wishart
Bells Diner - a burger to die for

Actually I eat out roughly three or four nights a week, very enjoyable. 
Today on the way home from work I had a Sweet Chilli Chicken sarny, a large 
coke and an Apple Pie for tea - courtesy of McDonalds - im loving it!!!

Ooh - also I LOVE Costa & Starbucks, visit Costa every morning around 9, 
Starbucks less often.

Jim.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 23:24:27 +0100, Tamzin wrote:


> As I already said I do not believe that the council here in Edinburgh is
> restrictive in granting permission to hold protest marches - in fact they
> seem to allow far too many of the bloody things IMHO.


Their favourite method of restricting undesirable gatherings is to charge
them for the insurance costs. Given that insurers have taken the
opportunity to ramp up prices in the wake of 9/11 this is a fairly
effective of way of stopping organised events.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 23:27:47 +0100, Tamzin wrote:


> This is exactly the sort of thing that I would fear.  I don't think that
> mobs should be able to take the law into their own hands like this.  If
> there is enough popular discontent then get a fucking revolution going but
> deciding to kill someone when the law has said no is just rubbish.  Of
> course I am against the death penalty anyway which colours my attitude
> somewhat :o)


So to what extent would the law have to overreach itself before you
considered an unlawful protest justified? I'm just curious.

"Alex Bird"  writes:


>Tamzin wrote:

>> If you want a city where random groups of people can start up a protest
>> march at any time without warning and play havoc with day-to-day life then I
>> think you may have to look for another country or another planet.  The
>> majority of people don't want the continual disruption (and danger) this
>> would involve and are quite happy that all marches must obtin the permission
>> of the council and the police to have legal standing.

>I'm afraid this is _exactly_ what many people are unhappy about.  You
>have the luxury of a beautiful city where you can go about your daily
>life without disruption and danger.  Many people in the world don't as
>a direct result of the behaviour of our corporations and the military
>force used to back them up, not to mention the arms we sell to
>disgusting regimes.  Think yourselves lucky.

>AFAIK the need to clear a route with the police is quite a recent
>development, and not an integral part of the right to protest.


Recent? It was required in Edinburgh at least 40 years ago, and I
suspect is at least as old as rush hour motorised traffic.


--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB,  Informatics,  JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Alex Bird wrote:

> Tamzin wrote:
> 
> 
>>If you want a city where random groups of people can start up a protest
>>march at any time without warning and play havoc with day-to-day life then I
>>think you may have to look for another country or another planet.  The
>>majority of people don't want the continual disruption (and danger) this
>>would involve and are quite happy that all marches must obtin the permission
>>of the council and the police to have legal standing.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid this is _exactly_ what many people are unhappy about.  You
> have the luxury of a beautiful city where you can go about your daily
> life without disruption and danger.  Many people in the world don't as
> a direct result of the behaviour of our corporations and the military
> force used to back them up, not to mention the arms we sell to
> disgusting regimes.  Think yourselves lucky.
> 
> AFAIK the need to clear a route with the police is quite a recent
> development, and not an integral part of the right to protest.  This
> democracy survived for some considerable time without it.
> 
> Alex
> 

You'd prefer the Halcyon days of a magistrate reading the riot act 
followed by a sabre wielding cavalry charge?

In article <daehpv$kc2$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com> real@a.b.c.co.uk wrote...


> > You mean, if they had been allowed to march right up to the door of
> Standard
> > Life etc, and trash the place?
>
> Yes, it's a genuine pity this wasnt allowed.


Why?

Mike Dickson, Edinburgh, Scotland

In article  spamtrap@zombywuf.org wrote...


> > 1: The placards.
> I saw very few placards anywhere.
>
> > 2: The flags.
> I think I saw about 3 flags total.


Hang on...I think I know what the problem is. See, *we* are all talking
about what happened in Edinburgh - the one in Scotland - on Monday. You
must be talking about the one that happened in Acacia Avenue, Harrogate
last Thursday.

Mike Dickson, Edinburgh, Scotland

"Tamzin" wrote:


> "Alex Bird"  wrote in message
>>
>>I'm afraid this is _exactly_ what many people are unhappy about.  You
>>have the luxury of a beautiful city where you can go about your daily
>>life without disruption and danger.  Many people in the world don't as
>>a direct result of the behaviour of our corporations and the military
>>force used to back them up, not to mention the arms we sell to
>>disgusting regimes.  Think yourselves lucky.
>
> Advocating throwing away safeguards that make this country such a safe and
> pleasant place to live on the grounds that less fortunate countries do not
> enjoy those safeguards is frankly insane (or completely naive) and
> ultimately a meaningless gesture.


The point is if 1st world corporations are responsible for the boot 
currently on the face of 3rd world nations, and these corporations are 
backed by "military force", then working WITH the Establishment (ie telling 
the wielders of this "military force" when you're going to march, who's 
going to be there and so forth) isn't exactly going to save the 3rd world is 
it? Scaring a few Embra wussies who collapse into blubbering heaps on the 
ground if they can't get to work on time or buy a seafood sandwich is a 
small price to pay, if this theory is correct. That was the point made.

I btw don't think the theory's correct. Free markets, free trade, 1st world 
corporations all the way.

Steve Christie wrote:


> I btw don't think the theory's correct. Free markets, free trade, 1st world
> corporations all the way.


I really don't think it's black or white, one way or the other; I push
for whichever side achieves the best balance at that point in time IMO.
 Toeing a party line is a bit like giving up the right to think.
Support the corporations if you like, but I wouldn't expect any support
back from them unless you're a shareholder or director.

Alex

Jim wrote:


> A welcome change if you ask me, stopped your nutters causing too much of a
> scene yesterday.


You seem to have trouble with the idea that some people who wanted to
attend the carnival/protest were _not_ members of the black bloc, nor
did want any violence.  Why TF are they my nutters ?
Are the protesters who fought for working conditions and votes in the
past my 'nutters' too ?  How can you be sure their protests wouldn't
have been sidelined by the CJB too ?

Alex

Zombywuf wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 23:27:47 +0100, Tamzin wrote:
>
> > This is exactly the sort of thing that I would fear.  I don't think that
> > mobs should be able to take the law into their own hands like this.  If
> > there is enough popular discontent then get a fucking revolution going but
> > deciding to kill someone when the law has said no is just rubbish.  Of
> > course I am against the death penalty anyway which colours my attitude
> > somewhat :o)
>
> So to what extent would the law have to overreach itself before you
> considered an unlawful protest justified? I'm just curious.


Well if you want a justified law breaking protest, why not protest
outside the Houses of Parliament?

There seems to be no good reason for banning protesting there IMO. But
no, lets just break some bins and have a fight.

TTH

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 03:45:45 -0700, the_tattie_howker wrote:


>> So to what extent would the law have to overreach itself before you
>> considered an unlawful protest justified? I'm just curious.
> 
> Well if you want a justified law breaking protest, why not protest
> outside the Houses of Parliament?


Well dodged.

Zombywuf wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 03:45:45 -0700, the_tattie_howker wrote:
>
> >> So to what extent would the law have to overreach itself before you
> >> considered an unlawful protest justified? I'm just curious.
> >
> > Well if you want a justified law breaking protest, why not protest
> > outside the Houses of Parliament?
>
> Well dodged.


How so? It is illegal to protest within a certain radius of the
parliament. You don't have to hurt anyone to protest there so its now a
victimless crime. The law has overreached itself.

Or were you just thinking of something you might agree was worth
protesting against?

TTH

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 04:02:32 -0700, the_tattie_howker wrote:


> Zombywuf wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 03:45:45 -0700, the_tattie_howker wrote:
>>
>> >> So to what extent would the law have to overreach itself before you
>> >> considered an unlawful protest justified? I'm just curious.
>> >
>> > Well if you want a justified law breaking protest, why not protest
>> > outside the Houses of Parliament?
>>
>> Well dodged.
> 
> How so? It is illegal to protest within a certain radius of the
> parliament. You don't have to hurt anyone to protest there so its now a
> victimless crime. The law has overreached itself.


So would you be joining me on this protest?

"Zombywuf"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.07.06.11.16.34.370065@zombywuf.org...


> So would you be joining me on this protest?


If I cared about such an issue, I would try to express a well-argued case 
both in person to MPs and via the media.  When I hear people demonstrating, 
chanting meaningless one-line slogans, I always immediately veer towards the 
opposite point of view.

Zombywuf wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 04:02:32 -0700, the_tattie_howker wrote:
>
> > Zombywuf wrote:
> >> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 03:45:45 -0700, the_tattie_howker wrote:
> >>
> >> >> So to what extent would the law have to overreach itself before you
> >> >> considered an unlawful protest justified? I'm just curious.
> >> >
> >> > Well if you want a justified law breaking protest, why not protest
> >> > outside the Houses of Parliament?
> >>
> >> Well dodged.
> >
> > How so? It is illegal to protest within a certain radius of the
> > parliament. You don't have to hurt anyone to protest there so its now a
> > victimless crime. The law has overreached itself.
>
> So would you be joining me on this protest?


Not at the moment because, as 'a' suggests, we need to enter into
dialogue to get the MPs to redress it. If they won't, then I may
protest. However, I won't be joining you if you continue to support the
hooligansim that's been going on recently.

TTH

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 05:01:24 -0700, the_tattie_howker wrote:


>> So would you be joining me on this protest?
> 
> Not at the moment because, as 'a' suggests, we need to enter into
> dialogue to get the MPs to redress it. If they won't, then I may
> protest. However, I won't be joining you if you continue to support the
> hooligansim that's been going on recently.


So we're back to the original question:


>> >> >> So to what extent would the law have to overreach itself before
>> >> >> you considered an unlawful protest justified? I'm just curious.

Zombywuf wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 05:01:24 -0700, the_tattie_howker wrote:
>
> >> So would you be joining me on this protest?
> >
> > Not at the moment because, as 'a' suggests, we need to enter into
> > dialogue to get the MPs to redress it. If they won't, then I may
> > protest. However, I won't be joining you if you continue to support the
> > hooligansim that's been going on recently.
>
> So we're back to the original question:
>
> >> >> >> So to what extent would the law have to overreach itself before
> >> >> >> you considered an unlawful protest justified? I'm just curious.


Which is different to whether I'd join in a justifiable but unlawful
protest.

It is entirely reasonable for me to find your protest justifiable
without wishing to protest myself. Take cannabis for example. The law
against its use creates a victimless crime. When I'm objective and
principled about it, I think it should be legalised. If you were to
protest about its criminalisation, I'd think you were justified. But
since I don't care about it beyond the idea of principle, I'm not going
to bother joining in.

So if you meant when would I join in, you should have said.

TTH

In article <BpKye.3$O22.0@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk> steve.christie@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk wrote...


> The point is if 1st world corporations are responsible for the boot
> currently on the face of 3rd world nations


What, you mean it has *nothing* to do with civil war, corrupt
politicians, disease, religious primitivism and gross overpopulation?


> Scaring a few Embra wussies who collapse into blubbering heaps on the
> ground if they can't get to work on time or buy a seafood sandwich is a
> small price to pay, if this theory is correct. That was the point made.


I'm sure these actions are saving African lives *as we speak*.

Mike Dickson, Edinburgh, Scotland

"Jim"  wrote in message 
news:daf2ej$huv$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...

>
>> Ahahaha you eat McDonalds food!
>
>
> Wow, I should do stand up ehh?
>
> I also eat:
>
> Burger King
> KFC
> Fish & Chips
> Pizza Hut
> Dominos


[slurp]

So, what you seem to be saying is that you eat take-away/pub food 3 or 4 
nights a week with a visit to a half decent restaurant once or twice a year.

Bit on the heavy side by any chance?

In article  the_tattie_howker@tiscali.co.uk wrote...


> It is entirely reasonable for me to find your protest justifiable
> without wishing to protest myself. Take cannabis for example. The law
> against its use creates a victimless crime.


Now this is interesting. Explain why the crime is 'victimless'.

Mike Dickson, Edinburgh, Scotland

"Steven Hill"  wrote in message 
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0507052331120.9547-100000@kerouac.projectcolo.org.uk...

>> > You mean, if they had been allowed to march right up to the door of
>> > Standard Life etc, and trash the place?
>>
>> Yes, it's a genuine pity this wasnt allowed.
>
> Surely that's a retarded argument.
>
> Smash Standard Life, because they are an evil corporation of capitalist
> bastards... Ooops, they're a mutual aren't they?


Mutuality doesn't really make any odds in the case of Standard Life, 
something I suspect you know already, and it certainly doesn't diminsh their 
capitalist credentials.

"Alex Bird"  wrote in message
news:1120638723.558251.312430@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Jim wrote:
>
> > A welcome change if you ask me, stopped your nutters causing too much of
a
> > scene yesterday.
>
> You seem to have trouble with the idea that some people who wanted to
> attend the carnival/protest were _not_ members of the black bloc, nor
> did want any violence.  Why TF are they my nutters ?


Because they think that they should be able to hold these sort of illegal
protests without following the rules laid down to ensure the safety of both
protestors and geneal public alike.  Would you agree to this disregard of
the rules if a group with views counter to your own, such as (I hope) orange
marchers or the BNP, decided to go ahead with their parades without
obtaining permission and following police guidelines beforehand?  I think
not.  The trouble is that if you allow those with benign intentions the
freedom to hold spontaneous unplanned marches then you must also allow the
nutters to do so.  And that is where the danger lies.  I don't mind my
freedom to hold random protest marches being curtailed if it means that the
vicious amongst us are prevented from being able to create a reign of terror
with their spontaneous, intentionally intimidating actions.


> Are the protesters who fought for working conditions and votes in the
> past my 'nutters' too ?  How can you be sure their protests wouldn't
> have been sidelined by the CJB too ?


It was clearly demonstrated on Saturday's march that a gathering organised
in co-operation with the police and the council as the law demands is far
less likely to be sidelined by groups determined to cause trouble.  It's
telling is it not that this march was significantly larger than the nonsense
we saw on Monday and yet the threat of trouble was contained right at the
start.  this in turn meant that the message of the march was not drowned out
by outbreaks of violence and lawlessness.  To me this is clear proof that
the message is far less likely to be sidelined where the protestors follow
the laws created to govern the conduct of such marches.  Ideally it would be
lovely if spontaneous peaceful protests could be held whenever and wherever
we liked but even if activist groups were not concentrated in the city it
seems clear that the local schemies would jump at the chance to hijack such
an event.  Likewise we do have to have consideration for our fellow
residents and demanding the right to give able to bring the city to a
standstill without warning does suggest a certain lack of concern for our
neighbours (in the widest sense of the word).

Tamzin

"Zombywuf"  wrote in message
news:pan.2005.07.05.23.45.34.252730@zombywuf.org...

> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 23:27:47 +0100, Tamzin wrote:
>
> > This is exactly the sort of thing that I would fear.  I don't think that
> > mobs should be able to take the law into their own hands like this.  If
> > there is enough popular discontent then get a fucking revolution going
but
> > deciding to kill someone when the law has said no is just rubbish.  Of
> > course I am against the death penalty anyway which colours my attitude
> > somewhat :o)
>
> So to what extent would the law have to overreach itself before you
> considered an unlawful protest justified? I'm just curious.


I've no idea.  All I can say for sure is that IMHO things would have to
change for the worse in a really major way.  Perhaps if the government
abolished parliament and set itself up as a dictatorship or if they started
to really make inroads into our civil liberties or if said inroads were
trivial in themselves but increasing in quantity and frequency.

I know that our record in the UK is not perfect and that there are some
serious concerns about civil liberties but on a day-to-day basis I feel safe
and free to hold whatever opinions I want and to express them.  If I started
to doubt this then perhaps I might decide that illegal protests would be the
way forward.  Ironically if things had got to that stage I expect that the
government would be prepared to suppress such protests with lethal force and
to imprison those participating.  It's a bit of a paradox that the need for
illegal protests would be strongest where there would be the most personal
danger involved in organising one.

I accept that I may be living in a fools paradise and that certain groups in
the UK do feel that they are always scrutinised and in danger of
apprehension.  Unfortunately I don't know much about them because they are
doubtless all kept out of citizen's way by the security services :o)  For
that reason I am willing to accept that we may already have reached the
point where illegal protests are justifiable but that the information is
being kept from us.

Tamzin
(If I don't post again you will knw that THEY have got to me)

In article <dahldj$ri4$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, Tamzin
 wrote:


> "Zombywuf"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.07.05.23.45.34.252730@zombywuf.org...
> >
> > So to what extent would the law have to overreach itself before you
> > considered an unlawful protest justified? I'm just curious.
> 
> I've no idea.  All I can say for sure is that IMHO things would have to
> change for the worse in a really major way.  Perhaps if the government
> abolished parliament and set itself up as a dictatorship or if they started
> to really make inroads into our civil liberties or if said inroads were
> trivial in themselves but increasing in quantity and frequency.


ID cards on indefensible grounds, abolition of jury trials, indefinite
detention without trial...  Sounds like quantity and frequency to me.

Sam

"Mike Dickson" wrote:


>> The point is if 1st world corporations are responsible for the boot
>> currently on the face of 3rd world nations
>
> What, you mean it has *nothing* to do with civil war, corrupt
> politicians, disease, religious primitivism and gross overpopulation?


Read the whole post.


>> Scaring a few Embra wussies who collapse into blubbering heaps on the
>> ground if they can't get to work on time or buy a seafood sandwich is a
>> small price to pay, if this theory is correct. That was the point made.
>
> I'm sure these actions are saving African lives *as we speak*.


See above. And then below.



Quote: "I btw don't think the theory's correct. Free markets, free trade, 
1st world corporations all the way."

> However as they had not cleared any march route officially with the council
> and the police they actually had no right to have a march in the first
> place.


Of course they had a right to.  Whether the council thought they had
a right to stop it is irrelevant.



> As much as the protestors may dislike it there are laws governing
> holding a protest march.


You are confusing legality with morality.



> As far as I can see, provided the correct procedure is gone through,
> the city of Edinburgh council does grant permission for the majority
> of march requests.


They have no right to forbid any.



> If you want a city where random groups of people can start up a protest
> march at any time without warning and play havoc with day-to-day life
> then I think you may have to look for another country or another planet.


Like Edinburgh a few years ago?  Their power to forbid marches only dates
from the Thatcher regime.



> The majority of people don't want the continual disruption (and danger)
> this would involve


It involves no such thing, as anybody who remembers the situation before
Thatcher could tell you.



> and are quite happy that all marches must obtin the permission of the
> council and the police to have legal standing.


Like in Burma or Indonesia, you mean?  For fucksake, it isn't even that
bad in Turkish Kurdistan (I've seen unannounced demos go ahead without
police interference myself, in Urfa and Diyarbakir).

==============  j-c  ======  @  ======  purr . demon . co . uk  ==============
Jack Campin:  11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/>   for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Jack Campin - bogus address wrote:


> You are confusing legality with morality.


I think you're just confused.


> They have no right to forbid any.


On grounds of public safety? If not, read the riot act, and crack their
skulls. WHich would you rather have? No protest, or a week in hospital?


> It involves no such thing, as anybody who remembers the situation before
> Thatcher could tell you.


Mmmmm riot act, sabre charges, fantastic.

-- 
Steven Hill

"The things you see when you haven't got your chloroform"
				- John Pate

>> You seem to have trouble with the idea that some people who wanted to
>> attend the carnival/protest were _not_ members of the black bloc, nor
>> did want any violence.  Why TF are they my nutters?
> Because they think that they should be able to hold these sort of illegal
> protests without following the rules laid down to ensure the safety of
> both protestors and geneal public alike.


The rules were not imposed to ensure safety.  They were imposed
to suppress miners striking to preserve their livelihoods against
Thatcherism in the 1980s.  The general public didn't come into it.

==============  j-c  ======  @  ======  purr . demon . co . uk  ==============
Jack Campin:  11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/>   for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557

"Jack Campin - bogus address"  wrote in message
news:bogus-0AFBD1.23215007072005@news.news.demon.net...

> >> You seem to have trouble with the idea that some people who wanted to
> >> attend the carnival/protest were _not_ members of the black bloc, nor
> >> did want any violence.  Why TF are they my nutters?
> > Because they think that they should be able to hold these sort of
illegal
> > protests without following the rules laid down to ensure the safety of
> > both protestors and geneal public alike.
>
> The rules were not imposed to ensure safety.  They were imposed
> to suppress miners striking to preserve their livelihoods against
> Thatcherism in the 1980s.  The general public didn't come into it.
>


Whatever - as they operate now they serve to protect the general public from
the mayhem that would result from having impromptu protest marches on a whim
on busy city streets.  People deserve to have some notice of likely delays
and disruptions to their plans, dontcha think?  Or do you believe that we
deserve no warning at all and thus no choice to avoid the danger if, for
example, we are afraid of crowds or need to set aside extra time for a
necessary journey?  I would say that taking the latter approach aligns your
scruples with those displayed by the bastards that did the dirty deed in
London today.

Tamzin

"Jack Campin - bogus address"  wrote in message
news:bogus-EBC21B.23162907072005@news.news.demon.net...

> > However as they had not cleared any march route officially with the
council
> > and the police they actually had no right to have a march in the first
> > place. (Tamzin)
>
> Of course they had a right to.  Whether the council thought they had
> a right to stop it is irrelevant. (Jack Campin)


I am very pleased to say that there is no unfettered legal right in this
country to hold a march when, where and how you choose.   And since "moral
rights" have no status in law in this country unless enacted by statute then
to all intents and purposes your only "right" to hold a march occurs when
you have obtained the necessary permissions and stick to the route and
timescale provided when applying for those permissions.

As far as I am concerned people may do what they wish so long as they are
not causing trouble to other people.  When their activities do start to
impinge on other people then I believe that the law should start imposing
limitations on whatever it is they want to do.  Something like a protest
march will obviously have an effect on other residents so there are clear
rules about the conduct of such marches.  If these are not followed then the
march has no standing in law and the police are permitted to either break it
up completely or else to allow it to proceed provided the marchers follow
instructions given by the police.

To be quite honest I don't really believe that there are such things as
"moral rights" which somehow exist in their little universe quite separate
from legal rights.  All our treasured civil liberties are dependent on laws
and not on some mythical list of moral rights and could be reversed by the
government by a law at any time.  And to return to marches I can assure you
that if the matter were being discussed in a court it would be the legal
rules that were considered.  Stating that you had a moral right to do
exactly as you pleased without any consideration for the disruption being
caused to others would cut no ice with the judge or sheriff.


> > As much as the protestors may dislike it there are laws governing
> > holding a protest march.
>
> You are confusing legality with morality.


I most certainly am not - you are the one who seems to be stating that the
alleged possession of a "moral right" to march means that you can disregard
all the legal requirements for holding one.  Even if we are talking in
purely moral terms I don't believe that anyone has a "right" to hold a
protest march without prior warning no matter how emotive the issue and it
frightens me that so many people are apparently demanding it.  To me that
attitude is arrogant with its blatant disregard for the welfare of people
trying to go about their normal business and the assumption that their
inconvenience is trivial.  Would you be so happy if a cause you disagreed
with had held all these protests over the last week and caused you serious
personal stress and financial loss?  Would you be mollified if the
protestors told you that you should just put up with a little inconvenience
for the good of the cause (which you don't believe in remember)?  I just
find this inability to empathise with fellow humans breathtaking.   You are
basically saying that if there is an issue that you feel strongly about then
people inconvenienced by it should just shut up and stop being so
narrow-minded but twere the positions reversed and some group whose ideals
you detest were saying the same to you I bet you would be shrieking with
outrage at the arrogance and selfishness.

What you want would lead only to disruption, intimidation and violence.   It
wouldn't just be do-gooder, bleeding heart liberals having a march on every
street corner you know?  For example would you think it OK for a group of
people to be able to turn up at the home of someone they disliked and start
marching and chanting abusive slogans?  I certainly hope not but if you
allow benign groups the right to hold demos when, where and how they wish
without having to obtain permission or accept guidance then you must allow
it to all groups no matter how vicious their intention.  Do you want groups
like the BNP being allowed to hold impromptu demos with barely concealed
threats of violence aimed at ethnic minority shoppers on Princes Street
every Saturday?  Or pro-life groups being able to hold a permanent demo
outside places where abortions take place so that they can harass staff and
patients?   Anywhere where a large group of people gather together to
protest about issues and actions for which they are blaming another group of
people needs to be policed for flashpoints between protestors and those they
are intimidating, local yobbos joining in for a laugh and all the other
things that can go wrong.


> > As far as I can see, provided the correct procedure is gone through,
> > the city of Edinburgh council does grant permission for the majority
> > of march requests.
>
> They have no right to forbid any.


Go and read the statutes - they can forbid any march that looks like it
might cause trouble or impose conditions on how it is run to try to avoid
the trouble.


> > If you want a city where random groups of people can start up a protest
> > march at any time without warning and play havoc with day-to-day life
> > then I think you may have to look for another country or another planet.
>
> Like Edinburgh a few years ago?  Their power to forbid marches only dates
> from the Thatcher regime.


Looks like there was one good thing came out of her reign after all then.



> > The majority of people don't want the continual disruption (and danger)
> > this would involve
>
> It involves no such thing, as anybody who remembers the situation before
> Thatcher could tell you.


Well I see a lot of different people in and around Edinburgh both socially
and for work.  Not one of them appreciates all these illegal marches (please
note that I do not include the MPH march or any of the others which went
through the proper channels) and the trouble they've caused.  And not one of
them thinks that the police instigated the violence from Monday onwards.
And before you start making "deductions " about the type of people with whom
I associate let me assure you that I work in some of the most deprived areas
of the city as well as more "genteel" areas and that my friends and
acquaintances cover an extremely diverse range of backgrounds and present
circumstances.


> > and are quite happy that all marches must obtin the permission of the
> > council and the police to have legal standing.
>
> Like in Burma or Indonesia, you mean?  For fucksake, it isn't even that
> bad in Turkish Kurdistan (I've seen unannounced demos go ahead without
> police interference myself, in Urfa and Diyarbakir).


I am afraid I know nothing of the laws relating to marches in any of those
countries.  I do however think it ironic that once a country reaches the
stage where unlawful marches are justified the people are usually too afraid
to do so because they know that the forces will shoot to kill or that they
are likely to disappear after a visit from the secret police if they
organise or participate in such a demo.  Of course a great many "activists"
in the UK would like  to persuade us that the same sanctions apply here but
we just don't know about it.  It makes me sick that people can pretend to
believe such things given the horror that characterises the lives of people
living in a real police state.

Tamzin

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 23:54:34 UTC, "Tamzin" 
 wrote:


> Would you be mollified if the
> protestors told you that you should just put up with a little inconvenience
> for the good of the cause (which you don't believe in remember)? 


I would be genuinely interested to know Jack's view of the thwarted 
marches at Drumcree over the past few years. And weren't the BNP 
refused permission to march through an overwhelmingly Asian part of 
Burnley?

No easy answers, I think.

Ian

Jack Campin - bogus address  wrote:

[Lawful demonstrations...]


> The rules were not imposed to ensure safety.  They were imposed
> to suppress miners striking to preserve their livelihoods against
> Thatcherism in the 1980s.  The general public didn't come into it.


Of course said striking miners did drop a concrete block from a motorway
overpass onto a miner headed to work, murdering him.

Personally I think that's what tore the arse out of it. You just can't
get good help...

FoFP

Tamzin  wrote:


> What you want would lead only to disruption, intimidation and
> violence.  It wouldn't just be do-gooder, bleeding heart liberals
> having a march on every street corner you know?


Y'know: if the G8 Marches don't achieve anything else, they've done a
darned good job of raising Tamzin's conciousness.

FoFP

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 01:52:23 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be M Holmes
 wrote this:-


>Jack Campin - bogus address  wrote:
>
>[Lawful demonstrations...]
>
>> The rules were not imposed to ensure safety.  They were imposed
>> to suppress miners striking to preserve their livelihoods against
>> Thatcherism in the 1980s.  The general public didn't come into it.
>
>Of course said striking miners did drop a concrete block from a motorway
>overpass onto a miner headed to work, murdering him.


As I recollect it the people who dropped the concrete block were
youngsters who thought they were helping the cause, but they may
have been striking miners.

It was the Heads of the Valleys road rather than a motorway.

The deceased was a taxi driver.

The courts finally decided that it was manslaughter.

Unsurprisingly, given your earlier postings, you neglected to
mention that the mining communities were united in rejecting the
activities of the criminals.

Things are indeed rather more complicated than some try and make
out.



-- 
 David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
 prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

No,

I am SAID I eat in ALL of the following at least once per month.:

The Patio
The Mussel Inn
Fischers in the City
TGI's
The Filling Station
The Standing Order
Brannagins
The Tickled Trout
Cafe Rouge - one of my faves :)
Cafe St Honore - another fave, reminds me of Paris
Martin Wishart
Bells Diner - a burger to die for

I frequent the fast food establishments far less often, in a pathetic 
attempt to stop my belly growing at an alarming rate.  It aint working, 
excerice has to be the way...it's a pity im a lazy bastard.

Jimbobbery.

Tamzin wrote:

> To be quite honest I don't really believe that there are such things
> as "moral rights" which somehow exist in their little universe quite
> separate from legal rights.


Strictly speaking there are no 'legal rights'. A law tells you what 
you may not do, but leaves open what you may do. And if you think the 
moral universe is smaller than the legal one, then you have an unhappy 
life awaiting you.

People, like libertarians, who believe in legalism (which they will 
call, without irony, 'justice'), usually think that all of morality 
can be subsumed under legality. This is false. Why it is false would 
take a book to explain, but fortunately common sense will tell us when 
morality trumps law. In brief, it does so on most normal occasions.

Cheers,

Phil

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 07:57:39 UTC, "Phil Wilson" 
 wrote:


> Strictly speaking there are no 'legal rights'. A law tells you what 
> you may not do, but leaves open what you may do.


Which was the whole point of incorporating the ECHR into the various 
UK legal systems, since it /does/ specify what we can do. Whether 
that's a good thing, philosophically is open to debate. I like the 
idea of "everything is permitted unless it is explicitly forbidden" 
but since the ECHR seems to be our best defence against authoritarian 
bastards like Straw, Blunkett and Clarke (remember the quiet liberal 
charm of Michael Howard as Home Secretary) I sort-of reluctantly 
accept it.

Ian
--

In article <dahkh7$v7f$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
   Tamzin  wrote:


> Because they think that they should be able to hold these sort of
> illegal protests without following the rules laid down to ensure the
> safety of both protestors and geneal public alike. 


Yeah; I can't help wondering how rapidly these protestors would start
screaming for their rights (eg prompt & efficient medical care from
emergency services) if they happened to get caught up in some other
anarchists/terrorists' atrocity.

-- 
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

Phil Wilson  wrote:


> People, like libertarians, who believe in legalism (which they will 
> call, without irony, 'justice'), usually think that all of morality 
> can be subsumed under legality. This is false. 


Correct: It's false. We don't believe any such thing. Why else would we
call victimless crime laws "Immoral"?

FoFP

M Holmes wrote:

> Phil Wilson  wrote:
>
>> People, like libertarians, who believe in legalism (which they will
>> call, without irony, 'justice'), usually think that all of morality
>> can be subsumed under legality. This is false.
>
> Correct: It's false. We don't believe any such thing. Why else would
> we call victimless crime laws "Immoral"?


Because you're not really calling them 'immoral' - only people can be 
immoral or moral. What you're saying is that they are bad laws (made 
by immoral people). This is (by implication) fully in line with 
legalism, which assumes that there are laws which are perfectly just 
(because made by moral people) - and therefore that such law would be 
essentially, and fully, the home of justice.

Cheers,

Phil.

Phil Wilson  wrote:

> M Holmes wrote:

>>> People, like libertarians, who believe in legalism (which they will
>>> call, without irony, 'justice'), usually think that all of morality
>>> can be subsumed under legality. This is false.

>> Correct: It's false. We don't believe any such thing. Why else would
>> we call victimless crime laws "Immoral"?

> Because you're not really calling them 'immoral' - only people can be 
> immoral or moral.


Fairy Nuff.


> What you're saying is that they are bad laws (made 
> by immoral people).

Possibly.

> This is (by implication) fully in line with 
> legalism, which assumes that there are laws which are perfectly just 
> (because made by moral people)


I don't think it necessarily follows that las would be just merely
because the people who make them are moral. Even moral people might make
mistakes.

There's also the concern that moral systems vary between people. As a
libertarian, for me the basis of the law should be the prevention and
redressing of harm and agression of one towards another (technically
based on initiation of force becuase we do support aggression in
self-defence). The victimless crime laws are "immoral" because they make
illegal behaviour which doesn't casue harm to others.

It's easy to see that other people might think that there are other
moral systems on which laws ought to be based though, and there's quite a
libertarian body of work on addressing that issue in a private justice
system.


> - and therefore that such law would be essentially, and fully, the
> home of justice. 


Let's say that in Libertaria a suburb has been set up with Libertarian
Mark I Constitution, with Optional Muslim Sex Laws. The libertarians
living there are effectively bribed with lower legal subscriptions by
the majority of muslims there to sign up to that local Court.

Clearly as far as such a  libertarian is concerned, the Court is not a full
implementation of what she sees as "justice" but the tradeoff in terms
of cheap subscription is worth it to her because she doesn't break the
Adultery laws anyway.

FoFP

> I don't really believe that there are such things as "moral rights"
> which somehow exist in their little universe quite separate from legal
> rights.


Maybe you don't, but some of us are bit higher on the Kohlberg scale than
a five-year-old playground bully.



>> You are confusing legality with morality.
> I most certainly am not - you are the one who seems to be stating that
> the alleged possession of a "moral right" to march means that you can
> disregard all the legal requirements for holding one.


It means not only that you *can* disregard such legal requirements, it
means that you have a moral obligation to.  When somebody is planning
genocide on an unprecedented scale, as the G8 scum are with their
intention to sacrifice the whole fucking planet to the oil companies,
obeying a law that says you have to go along with them is just plain
evil.



> Even if we are talking in purely moral terms I don't believe that
> anyone has a "right" to hold a protest march without prior warning
> no matter how emotive the issue


Emotion has exactly zero to do with morality.  The G8 scum are planning
to sacrifice whole nations and ecosystems.  It isn't emotion that tells
you that, it's common sense and empirical fact.



> and it frightens me that so many people are apparently demanding it.


Big fucking deal.  Your pathetic fears have nothing to do with morality
either.  Anybody planning mass murder whips up fear first.



> What you want would lead only to disruption, intimidation and violence.   It
> wouldn't just be do-gooder, bleeding heart liberals having a march on every
> street corner you know?  For example would you think it OK for a group of
> people to be able to turn up at the home of someone they disliked and start
> marching and chanting abusive slogans?


There are laws against such harassment.  We had most of the windows in
our house smashed by a mob a couple of years ago; laws against impromptu
political demonstrations were entirely irrelevant to that.



>>> all marches must obtin the permission of the council and the police
>>> to have legal standing.
>> Like in Burma or Indonesia, you mean?  For fucksake, it isn't even that
>> bad in Turkish Kurdistan (I've seen unannounced demos go ahead without
>> police interference myself, in Urfa and Diyarbakir).
> I am afraid I know nothing of the laws relating to marches in any of those
> countries.  I do however think it ironic that once a country reaches the
> stage where unlawful marches are justified the people are usually too afraid
> to do so because they know that the forces will shoot to kill or that they
> are likely to disappear after a visit from the secret police if they
> organise or participate in such a demo.


Your argument here being that of the Baader-Meinhof group - "by the time
resistance is necessary it will be too late to prepare for it", or words
to that effect.

The point of my example is that a ban on unregulated demos (simply for
being demos, not for what takes place at them) is such an extreme form
of repression that even a state like Turkey, which routinely employs
death squads and "disappears" activists, doesn't feel the need for it.
This provision in Scottish law aligns us with the most vicious regimes
in the world.  I think that at present the majority of people in prison
for violating such legislation are Tibetans convicted under the laws of
their Chinese occupiers - Amnesty will probably have the figures.

==============  j-c  ======  @  ======  purr . demon . co . uk  ==============
Jack Campin:  11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/>   for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557

Jack Campin - bogus address  wrote:


> Maybe you don't, but some of us are bit higher on the Kohlberg scale than
> a five-year-old playground bully.


Hold that thought...

[...]


> It means not only that you *can* disregard such legal requirements, it
> means that you have a moral obligation to.

[...]

>> and it frightens me that so many people are apparently demanding it.

> Big fucking deal.  Your pathetic fears have nothing to do with morality
> either.

>> For example would you think it OK for a group of
>> people to be able to turn up at the home of someone they disliked and start
>> marching and chanting abusive slogans?

> There are laws against such harassment.  We had most of the windows in
> our house smashed by a mob a couple of years ago; laws against impromptu
> political demonstrations were entirely irrelevant to that.


Ah, so if they smash *your* windows, the laws should be obeyed. If they
smash *our* park benches, then the laws are just immoral inconveniences
which must be sacrificed for the greater good of the proletariat.

I think I understand now.

FoFP

In article  bogus@purr.demon.co.uk wrote...


> Emotion has exactly zero to do with morality.


I really cannot believe that you are using derivatives of the word
'moral' as often as you do. Or is it that you don't really understand
what the word means and hink it is synonymous with 'ethic'?


> The G8 scum are planning to sacrifice whole nations and ecosystems.
> It isn't emotion that tells you that, it's common sense and empirical
> fact.


So, did they sit round a table and decide who to 'sacrifice' next?


> There are laws against such harassment.  We had most of the windows in
> our house smashed by a mob a couple of years ago; laws against impromptu
> political demonstrations were entirely irrelevant to that.


Oooh. Lawlessness on the streets of Newtongrange? Did that make you
object to their actions? Or does criminal damage against your own
private property weigh differently in the great 'moral' world you
inhabit to damage against public property?

And Jack, do tell -- when was the last time you were charged with a
criminal offence and what was it for?

Mike Dickson, Edinburgh, Scotland

In article  bogus@purr.demon.co.uk wrote...


> The rules were not imposed to ensure safety.  They were imposed
> to suppress miners striking to preserve their livelihoods against
> Thatcherism in the 1980s.  The general public didn't come into it.


Er...wait just one damned minute, Jack. I'd support the miners to the
hilt if they were arguing about pay and conditions, but the 1980s
strikes were *nothing at all* to do with that. The purpose of those
strikes was an overt attempt to overthrow the government. I hated
Thatcher as much as anyone but I didn't like the idea of a bunch of NUM
drones subverting our democratic process.

The 'general public' needs protecting from these people as much as
anyone else.

Mike Dickson, Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <IIfze.97356$Vo6.90531@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk> steve.christie@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk wrote...


> > What, you mean it has *nothing* to do with civil war, corrupt
> > politicians, disease, religious primitivism and gross overpopulation?
>
> Read the whole post.


What makes you think that I didn't? And why can't you lentil-engulfing
bores answer a straight question?

Mike Dickson, Edinburgh, Scotland

In article  SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk wrote...


> Unsurprisingly, given your earlier postings, you neglected to
> mention that the mining communities were united in rejecting the
> activities of the criminals.


Who was it who painted the word 'SCAB' on the walls of houses occupied
by working miners in the 1980s?

Mike Dickson, Edinburgh, Scotland

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 16:12:58 UTC, Jack Campin - bogus address 
 wrote:


> When somebody is planning
> genocide on an unprecedented scale, as the G8 scum are with their
> intention to sacrifice the whole fucking planet to the oil companies


Should China be sold oil? India? 

Ian

--

In article , Mike 
Dickson  writes


>Er...wait just one damned minute, Jack. I'd support the miners to the
>hilt if they were arguing about pay and conditions, but the 1980s
>strikes were *nothing at all* to do with that. The purpose of those
>strikes was an overt attempt to overthrow the government.


  I'm from a mining family (father and brother[1]) and watched the strike 
from that perspective. It was basically Arthur Scargill's strike and he 
was following Maggie's script pretty much line for line. In doing so he 
sacrificed the mining communities of the North of England and the 
Midlands to feed his ego. He was competing against Joe Gormley, the 
previous leader of the NUM who did in fact win two strikes back in the 
70s (about pay and conditions) and he was credited with toppling the 
Heath government. Scargill detested Gormley and wanted to one-up him.

  The proximate cause of the strike, the pit closure program, was going 
to happen as Britain was running on empty as far as deep-mined coal was 
concerned. Subsidies to keep expensive pits open were going to be 
charity pure and simple with no chance of new investment meaning lower 
costs per tonne of coal mined later. All the easy to get coal was dug up 
a century ago or more; it fuelled (literally) the Industrial Revolution 
and the expansion of Empire via steamships and railways.

  In the end the strike caused several marginal pits to be shut down; in 
previous strikes an agreement between the NUM and the National Coal 
Board allowed maintenance work to be done to keep the pits dry and the 
underground roadways in repair. Arthur didn't bother to compromise with 
the Eevill Gummint and a year later when the miners went back to work, 
defeated, several working pits for a few years viability were flooded 
out and the roadways had collapsed, making them uneconomical (and in 
many cases too dangerous) to re-open.

  [1] My brother joined the NCB as an electrical apprentice after my 
father told him not to; he didn't want any of his sons working in the 
coal industry. He was thrown out of the house for it.
-- 
Email me via robert (at) nojay (dot) org  (new email address)
This address no longer accepts HTML posts.

Robert Sneddon

In article  nojay@nospam.demon.co.uk
wrote...


> >Er...wait just one damned minute, Jack. I'd support the miners to the
> >hilt if they were arguing about pay and conditions, but the 1980s
> >strikes were *nothing at all* to do with that. The purpose of those
> >strikes was an overt attempt to overthrow the government.
>
> I'm from a mining family (father and brother[1]) and watched the strike
> from that perspective. It was basically Arthur Scargill's strike and he
> was following Maggie's script pretty much line for line.


That's all fairly much as I remember it. At the time I lived close to a
mining community and was appaled at the cavalier way the Labour Party
treated the matter, as though it were some kind of intellectual
political exercise.


> He was competing against Joe Gormley, the previous leader of the NUM
> who did in fact win two strikes back in the 70s (about pay and
> conditions) and he was credited with toppling the Heath government.


I have mixed feelings about Heath. Primarily I just don't think he was
up to the job of running the country and hence was there to be toppled.
The fact that the strikes then were over pay and conditions at least
gives it credibility - myself, I'd take whatever the miners were asking
for and then double it. It must be one of the worst jobs imaginable.


> The proximate cause of the strike, the pit closure program, was going
> to happen as Britain was running on empty as far as deep-mined coal was
> concerned.


Absolutely. The NCB produced detailed figures showing the costs
associated with getting what scraps were left from Monktonhall out of
the ground, set against the value of the product itself. The disparity
was enormous, but the NUM's retort was to baldly state that the NCB were
liars and therefore the strike was a valid protest. I went to several
public meetings about the strike and do not remember anyone believing a
word of it.

Mike Dickson, Edinburgh, Scotland

"Jim" wrote:

> No,
>
> I am SAID I eat in ALL of the following at least once per month.:
>
> The Patio
> The Mussel Inn
> Fischers in the City
> TGI's
> The Filling Station
> The Standing Order
> Brannagins
> The Tickled Trout
> Cafe Rouge - one of my faves :)
> Cafe St Honore - another fave, reminds me of Paris
> Martin Wishart
> Bells Diner - a burger to die for


Umm that's a lot of eating there Jimbob

"Mike Dickson"  wrote in message 
news:CheetahPRO_v2.18-n3_103392@blackcat.demon.co.uk...

> In article <IIfze.97356$Vo6.90531@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk> 
> steve.christie@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk wrote...
>
>> > What, you mean it has *nothing* to do with civil war, corrupt
>> > politicians, disease, religious primitivism and gross overpopulation?
>>
>> Read the whole post.
>
> What makes you think that I didn't? And why can't you lentil-engulfing
> bores answer a straight question?



If you read the whole post, there would be no reason. Of course it has 
something to do with cw/cp/d/rp/go. Lentil-engulfing....I'm a right-wing 
libertarian Tory!