I will get my pics up ASAP - need a server, and need to get home :) They are 
on laptop.
For the time being though,  Getty Images has a fantastic set of the 
"peaceful protest" at its most heated moments.

David Hansen and Zombywuf, your comments are most welcome.

http://www.shrinkmylink.com/cycjson

Here are the best:

Thug throwing a brick.
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53196177&cdi=0

Winding the police up:
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53196176&cdi=0

Brick and hand, and riot shield stolen:
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193727&cdi=0

Kicking the police:
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193688&cdi=0

Trying to spray something?:
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193635&cdi=0

The aftermath:
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193631&cdi=0

Stopping police from entering the Gardens:
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193312&cdi=0

More clashes:
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193289&cdi=0

Is it a bird?  A plane?  No, its a bin:
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193151&cdi=0

Another scuffle:
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193140&cdi=0

The naked nutter: WARNING - NAKED MAN ON THIS LINK:
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193139&cdi=0

In the gardens:
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193133&cdi=0

More from Princess Street:
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193103&cdi=0

Spiderman:
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193066&cdi=0

Ready to rumble:
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53192977&cdi=0




Jimbobbery.

Once again Jimbob I thank you for the links to the photos that were taken by 
others. I am now more interested in seeing your pics than I was before.

With out getting in to the rights and wrongs of who provoked the most 
violence, in general reading some reports from MSP's, bystanders, innocent 
shoppers etc, some justification for calling some police action overzealous 
exists. Add to that the mistaken identity of some press reports who failed 
to spot the difference between international anarchists and boozed up 
youngsters from right here in auld reekie, the questioned of how big the 
trouble caused by having anti G8 protests in Edinburgh needs long and hard 
consideration rather knee jerk reactions based on political or cultural 
stereotypes.

Some people have told me that the march on Saturday was peaceful only 
because it was so crowded that no elbow room existed to do any thing about:

1. The poor organisation that lead to people standing for hours with out 
enough water or other comfort considerations.

2. The rigid and unimaginative way that people were forced to behave at a 
public show of anti authoritarian power. An example being that people never 
even thought of  raising concerns aver being ordered about, not by the 
police, or even official march stewards, but by members of the Rock steady 
security firm, even though they had no authority let alone a mandate to tell 
people how and where they can or should protest their feelings about world 
poverty.

3. Lastly it seems the focus on the event it's self was diminished by 
focusing on the task. For all the people who were there, no big attempt was 
made to inspire them to prolong their activism, or to channel all the 
collective desire for change in either a political or a grass roots 
movement. This was a grand day out for all but how surprised will we be that 
after the G8 no mass street demo to complain that not enough has been done?

> Once again Jimbob I thank you for the links to the photos that were taken 
> by others. I am now more interested in seeing your pics than I was before.


That's good, I like to keep people interested.


> With out getting in to the rights and wrongs of who provoked the most 
> violence, in general reading some reports from MSP's, bystanders, innocent 
> shoppers etc, some justification for calling some police action 
> overzealous exists.


When anarchist groups decide to stage "surprise protests" across the city, 
the police HAVE to contain them.  Otherwise, all hell could break loose.  I 
think if the wankers had been free to go wherever they wanted to go 
yesterday, several things would have happened:

1:  The police would have been accused of being too soft, and letting things 
go to hell.
2:  The financial district would have suffered immensly, this was the 
masterplan remember, to bring havoc to the lothian road / west end financial 
area.
3:  Innocent people could have got caught up trying to defend themselves, 
people working in the various banks etc.



> Add to that the mistaken identity of some press reports who failed to spot 
> the difference between international anarchists and boozed up youngsters 
> from right here in auld reekie, the questioned of how big the trouble 
> caused by having anti G8 protests in Edinburgh needs long and hard 
> consideration rather knee jerk reactions based on political or cultural 
> stereotypes.



Most of the trouble I seen was inspired by the various "clowns" and "black 
masks" - all of whom had a serious of banners, flags and chanted various 
"lets all hate the government" rhymes.

With regards to Saturday, I was busy doing my Garden, so can't really 
comment - except I maintain, probably a waste of time and likely to achieve 
nothing except increase my council tax next year.

Jimbobbery.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 15:25:23 +0100, Jim wrote:


> When anarchist groups decide to stage "surprise protests" across the city,


So they were known about for weeks in advance and were a surprise?
 

> the police HAVE to contain them.  Otherwise, all hell could break loose.  I 
> think if the wankers had been free to go wherever they wanted to go 
> yesterday, several things would have happened:


You misspelled could.


> 1:  The police would have been accused of being too soft, and letting things 
> go to hell.
> 2:  The financial district would have suffered immensly, this was the 
> masterplan remember, to bring havoc to the lothian road / west end financial 
> area.
> 3:  Innocent people could have got caught up trying to defend themselves, 


The plan was to encourage people to bunk off work, nothing more.


> people working in the various banks etc.
> Most of the trouble I seen was inspired by the various "clowns" and "black 
> masks" - all of whom had a serious of banners, flags and chanted various 
> "lets all hate the government" rhymes.


The clowns that most other observers claimed were trying to calm down the
more violent types?


> With regards to Saturday, I was busy doing my Garden, so can't really 
> comment - except I maintain, probably a waste of time and likely to achieve 
> nothing except increase my council tax next year.


Perhaps you should have been carrying a "Down with Council Tax placard." I
fully agree it probably wouldn't achieve much but it might have made you
feel less tense. You do seem to be so very tense.

Zombywuf wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 15:25:23 +0100, Jim wrote:
> 
> 
>>When anarchist groups decide to stage "surprise protests" across the city,
> 
> 
> So they were known about for weeks in advance and were a surprise?


They were not known about. The Police had no contact from the organisers 
about their plans / intentions or routes to be taken.

All they knew was that on monday something was going to happen in the 
west end. Probably.

Unlike saturdays one which was discussed with the organisers and police 
before hand.

So yes, monday was a surprise protest. If they don't inform the police 
what they plan to be up to how can they complain that the police were 
overly restrictive of their protest and movements within the city?

Police have to err on the side of caution and having bins and bricks 
thrown at them isn't going to help them see it from the protestors point 
of view.

Kev

> Perhaps you should have been carrying a "Down with Council Tax placard."


I dont mind paying it, if only they would do a proper job.


> i fully agree it probably wouldn't achieve much but it might have made you
> feel less tense. You do seem to be so very tense.


I have my moments,

Jimbobbery.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 15:07:27 +0000, Kev wrote:


> Zombywuf wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 15:25:23 +0100, Jim wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>When anarchist groups decide to stage "surprise protests" across the city,
>> 
>> So they were known about for weeks in advance and were a surprise?
> 
> They were not known about. The Police had no contact from the organisers 
> about their plans / intentions or routes to be taken.


And I've seen no evidence the organisers had any plans of routes to be
taken.


> All they knew was that on monday something was going to happen in the 
> west end. Probably.


Which as far as I can tell was all the organisers had to go on. If you're
more well connected with these violent anarchists than I am please correct
me.


> So yes, monday was a surprise protest. If they don't inform the police
> what they plan to be up to how can they complain that the police were
> overly restrictive of their protest and movements within the city?


I don't notify the police every time I go out, should I expect to have my
movements restricted?

Zombywuf wrote:

> I don't notify the police every time I go out, should I expect to
> have my movements restricted?


....and should I expect MY movements to be restricted by placard waving
thugs?

  I call them thugs to differentiate between genuine protestors and
those who seek to hijack any protest to try and get over there own anti
authority stance.
   I have two youngish children and have felt unable to travel into the
centre(?) for fear of getting "caught up" in any nastiness. This will be
were Zombywuf fires back with "you only felt you couldn't travel in,the
"marchers" would have "protected" you and yours".

-- 
yours S

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione

> And I've seen no evidence the organisers had any plans of routes to be
> taken.


Thats hardly the polices fault?

Are you suggesting the protestors themselves were surprised by their own 
surprise protest?

There must clearly have been 'a plan' on some level.

You're not suggestion the sudden convergence of so called anarchists in 
the one place at the one time was purely an act of random chance?


> Which as far as I can tell was all the organisers had to go on. If you're
> more well connected with these violent anarchists than I am please correct
> me.


Your initial post stated :

'So they were known about for weeks in advance and were a surprise?'

Which is it? they were either disorganised and had no idea what routes 
they were taking and it was all one big anarchist-esque accident or it 
was all known about weeks in advance.


> I don't notify the police every time I go out, should I expect to have my
> movements restricted?


Every time you go out it's for a protest along with a few thousand of 
your nearest and dearest?

If that was the case (rather than, say, popping down the supermarket for 
a pint of milk) then yes I think the police would prefer to be notified.

Were you to notify them of your protest route in advance then I doubt 
they would restrict you in that particular movement. In fact they would 
probably ensure, for yours and others safety, that the area was well 
policed, roads were closed if necessary and medical and other assistance 
was on hand.

For the good of the rest of the people in the city you understand.

Top trolling.

Kev

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:44:14 +0000, soup wrote:


> ...and should I expect MY movements to be restricted by placard waving
> thugs?


My movements weren't restricted, I had no placard, nor am I a thug. My
movements were restricted neither by the police or the thugs. Perhaps my
cloak of invisibility is working.


>   I call them thugs to differentiate between genuine protestors and
> those who seek to hijack any protest to try and get over there own anti
> authority stance.


What name shall we give to the police who wanted to cause trouble? I'm not
saying all the police wanted this. The vast majority were very well
behaved and showed a genuine desire to keep the peace. However, it only
takes a few bad apples...


>    I have two youngish children and have felt unable to travel into the
> centre(?) for fear of getting "caught up" in any nastiness. This will be
> were Zombywuf fires back with "you only felt you couldn't travel in,the
> "marchers" would have "protected" you and yours".


Yes it is. A few of the anarchists had their children with them.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:56:22 +0000, Kev wrote:


>> And I've seen no evidence the organisers had any plans of routes to be
>> taken.
> 
> Thats hardly the polices fault?


Nope, however how can you blame the organisers for failing to notify the
police of plans they didn't have?


> Are you suggesting the protestors themselves were surprised by their own
> surprise protest?
>
> There must clearly have been 'a plan' on some level.


The plan was bring instruments to the west end of Princes St. and kick
back and have fun for the afternoon. The Police must have been aware of
this otherwise all the out of town police would have gone home on Sunday.


>> Which as far as I can tell was all the organisers had to go on. If
>> you're more well connected with these violent anarchists than I am
>> please correct me.
> 
> Your initial post stated :
> 
> 'So they were known about for weeks in advance and were a surprise?'
> 
> Which is it? they were either disorganised and had no idea what routes
> they were taking and it was all one big anarchist-esque accident or it
> was all known about weeks in advance.


I was responding to Jim (do you have him plonked?) who had made both of
those claims. Just because there was a plan to all meet up in the same
place doesn't mean there is a plan to march anywhere in particular. Or to
invade an office and trash it.


>> I don't notify the police every time I go out, should I expect to have
>> my movements restricted?
> 
> Every time you go out it's for a protest along with a few thousand of
> your nearest and dearest?
> 
> If that was the case (rather than, say, popping down the supermarket for
> a pint of milk) then yes I think the police would prefer to be notified.


I would prefer to not have to notify the police. I find the idea of having
to do so quite ludicrous. The main point of the 'protest' was that you
aren't allowed to have this kind of gathering without notifying the police.


> Were you to notify them of your protest route in advance then I doubt
> they would restrict you in that particular movement. In fact they would
> probably ensure, for yours and others safety, that the area was well
> policed, roads were closed if necessary and medical and other assistance
> was on hand.


The anarchists had their own medics, for some reason the police were
specifically targeting them for arrest. There are also reports of the
police refusing to call ambulances for those injured at the end of police
batons, on the basis that they were just pretending to be injured to
escape the police cordon.


> For the good of the rest of the people in the city you understand.


I see, perhaps they should have just called batman instead.


> Top trolling.


I do my best.

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 14:02:39 +0100 someone who may be "Jim"
 wrote this:-


>David Hansen and Zombywuf, your comments are most welcome.
>
>http://www.shrinkmylink.com/cycjson


At least some of these have already been discussed.

The first eight appear to show:

1) a masked member of the black bloc pushing someone against a
railing.

2) a youngster taking on sixteen members of the black bloc. These
seem to have been locals looking for a bit of fun. Note how few
blocks have been lifted. In a riot all would have been lifted and
either piled ready for action, or thrown.

3) two lines of masked black bloc, with masked horse riders behind,
advancing towards one man, who does not appear to being aggressive
when the photograph was taken.

4) one man being squashed by at least three members of the black
bloc.

5) at least ten members of the black bloc surrounding one man on the
floor.

6) people sitting down in the road. Note that the windows in the
buildings are intact. Note the car on the left, not turned on its
side/roof and set on fire. Surely "anti-capitalist rioters" would
have had a go at both. Around ten are masked, the rest (perhaps
seventy) are not. Masks don't look good in photographs.

7) someone in a rather fine skirt, which must have taken a bit of
time to make. Black bloc behind.

8) Masked protestor. The mask actually looks like a black bloc mask,
but presumably it is not. 


>Brick and hand, and riot shield stolen:
>http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193727&cdi=0


Stone rather than brick, though stones can still hurt. Black bloc
shield probably picked up. Looks like someone up to no good.


>Kicking the police:
>http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193688&cdi=0


Looks like it.


>Trying to spray something?:
>http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193635&cdi=0


I suspect not.


>The aftermath:
>http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193631&cdi=0


Seven members of black bloc against one youngster who has fallen
over.


>Stopping police from entering the Gardens:
>http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193312&cdi=0


Two groups of people behaving badly.


>More clashes:
>http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193289&cdi=0


Difficult to say what is happening. Several possible explanations.


>Is it a bird?  A plane?  No, its a bin:
>http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193151&cdi=0

10/10.

>Another scuffle:
>http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193140&cdi=0


Certainly.


>The naked nutter: WARNING - NAKED MAN ON THIS LINK:
>http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193139&cdi=0


One can see streakers at Murrayfield. Black bloc have added yellow
clothing on top.


>In the gardens:
>http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193133&cdi=0


Reminds me of some football matches, largely in the past. Anybody
know what is in the flying black bag.


>More from Princess Street:
>http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193103&cdi=0


Police attacking people carrying banner made of old carpet.


>Spiderman:
>http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193066&cdi=0


Doesn't appear to be doing anything wrong, though may be endangering
himself slightly. Likely to be young male judging from physique and
rather stupid activity.


>Ready to rumble:
>http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53192977&cdi=0


Looks like it, but not possible to say why. Note the people in the
background appear not to be ready to rumble.

If that's the best you can do then I think we can be sure this was
not a riot, but rather some hotheads.


-- 
 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:dae82i$2eq$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...

>> Perhaps you should have been carrying a "Down with Council Tax placard."
>
> I dont mind paying it, if only they would do a proper job.
>
>> i fully agree it probably wouldn't achieve much but it might have made 
>> you
>> feel less tense. You do seem to be so very tense.
>
> I have my moments,
>
> Jimbobbery.
>


The guy with the shades in eighth picture bears an uncanny resemblance to 
Bono in U2. Whilst the last picture shows Bruce Willis.

Zombywuf wrote:

> Yes it is. A few of the anarchists had their children with them.


The anarchists may well have had there children with them ,(you have to
wonder at the mentality of parents that take there children to
demonstrations) but would this protective aura extend to people who just
happened to be there.

...and the piece of footage shown on the television (you know the bit I
mean, every staion ever in the history of the world has used it) of the
girl in Princes' street clearly terrified and her father (?) preparing
to have a go at anyone who comes near that doesn' look like a "nice" day
out to take your children on.

ASIDE:- How can anarchists be on an "organised" march?




-- 
yours S

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione

Zombywuf  writes:


> he main point of the 'protest' was that you aren't allowed to have
> this kind of gathering without notifying the police.


What kind of gathering? People with instruments kicking back and
having fun? I took part in a public gathering of about 120 people on
Jesus Green, Cambridge, which lasted most of the afternoon, just a few
weeks back. All openly organised over the internet. We didn't tell the
police about it. Or did you mean a different kind of gathering?


> The anarchists had their own medics, for some reason the police were
> specifically targeting them for arrest.


How did they identify them?

-- 
sniffing drainpipes and reciting the alphabet

On 05 Jul 2005 19:35:17 +0100 someone who may be August West
 wrote this:-


>> The anarchists had their own medics, for some reason the police were
>> specifically targeting them for arrest.
>
>How did they identify them?


By the distinctive armbands they wore.


-- 
 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.

On 05 Jul 2005 19:35:17 +0100 someone who may be August West
 wrote this:-


>> The anarchists had their own medics, for some reason the police were
>> specifically targeting them for arrest.
>
>How did they identify them?


Forgot to add. http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/316049.html is
some people's views of this.


-- 
 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.

David Hansen  writes:


> On 05 Jul 2005 19:35:17 +0100 someone who may be August West
>  wrote this:-
> 
> >> The anarchists had their own medics, for some reason the police were
> >> specifically targeting them for arrest.
> >
> >How did they identify them?
> 
> By the distinctive armbands they wore.


And what did they say? Perhaps the polcie though they were captain's
armbands? Decapitation is a very sensible tactic in a semi-riot
situation.

-- 
a man never got a woman back, not by begging on his knees

David Hansen  writes:


> On 05 Jul 2005 19:35:17 +0100 someone who may be August West
>  wrote this:-
> 
> >> The anarchists had their own medics, for some reason the police were
> >> specifically targeting them for arrest.
> >
> >How did they identify them?
> 
> Forgot to add. http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/316049.html is
> some people's views of this.


"clearly identified by red and black crosses on their arms". Righto.
And did anyone tell the police what the arm bands meant? If not, well,
just reaping their own stupidity, surely?

-- 
things that look like meat

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 18:33:42 +0000, soup wrote:


> ..and the piece of footage shown on the television (you know the bit I
> mean, every staion ever in the history of the world has used it) of the
> girl in Princes' street clearly terrified and her father (?) preparing
> to have a go at anyone who comes near that doesn' look like a "nice" day
> out to take your children on.


Nope, haven't watched TV news recently.


> ASIDE:- How can anarchists be on an "organised" march?


That's what I've been saying!

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:00:00 +0100, August West wrote:


> "clearly identified by red and black crosses on their arms". Righto.
> And did anyone tell the police what the arm bands meant? If not, well,
> just reaping their own stupidity, surely?


A red cross is a fairly universal mark. Quite a few wore badges with the
word Medic on them.

No doubt they've all been charged with running with scissors or something
by now anyway.

Zombywuf  writes:


> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:00:00 +0100, August West wrote:
> 
> > "clearly identified by red and black crosses on their arms". Righto.
> > And did anyone tell the police what the arm bands meant? If not, well,
> > just reaping their own stupidity, surely?
> 
> A red cross is a fairly universal mark. Quite a few wore badges with the
> word Medic on them.


So why the "and black crosses"? Anyway, should the police believe
rioter's own self-syled markings? Were I a police officer, I'd have
taken such marking as likely signs of leaders, and nicked them, too.

And coming with medics in tow rather suggest they fully expected
injuries. I wonder why, since they were just there for a party. Odd,
really. Or perhaps they were telling porkies? Care to explain?

-- 
What was it you wanted?

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:18:00 +0100, August West wrote:


> So why the "and black crosses"? Anyway, should the police believe
> rioter's own self-syled markings? Were I a police officer, I'd have
> taken such marking as likely signs of leaders, and nicked them, too.


The crosses were mostly red on a black background. You seem to be making
the mistake of assuming there was some mastermind organising all of this.
People with first aid training were asked to turn up with someway of
marking themselves out as medics.


> And coming with medics in tow rather suggest they fully expected
> injuries. I wonder why, since they were just there for a party. Odd,
> really. Or perhaps they were telling porkies? Care to explain?


The police have a habit of violently breaking up such parties. Why did the
police bring medics?

Zombywuf  writes:


> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:18:00 +0100, August West wrote:
> 
> > So why the "and black crosses"? Anyway, should the police believe
> > rioter's own self-syled markings? Were I a police officer, I'd have
> > taken such marking as likely signs of leaders, and nicked them, too.
> 
> The crosses were mostly red on a black background.


So, quite distinct from the traditional Red Cross then. Why not use
the red cross on white if you don't want it to be misunderstood?
Again, they brought their problem on themselves.


> You seem to be making the mistake of assuming there was some
> mastermind organising all of this.


Yet you follow this with:


> People with first aid training were asked to turn up with someway of
> marking themselves out as medics.


"Were asked to turn up". By who? The non-organisers? Yeah, right.

-- 
/* you are not expected to understand this */

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:35:30 +0100, August West wrote:


> So, quite distinct from the traditional Red Cross then. Why not use
> the red cross on white if you don't want it to be misunderstood?
> Again, they brought their problem on themselves.


Again, how silly of me for forgetting that it is a crime to wear certain
clothes.


>> You seem to be making the mistake of assuming there was some
>> mastermind organising all of this.
> 
> Yet you follow this with:
> 
>> People with first aid training were asked to turn up with someway of
>> marking themselves out as medics.
> 
> "Were asked to turn up". By who? The non-organisers? Yeah, right.


The point is they weren't issued uniforms.

Zombywuf  writes:


> >> People with first aid training were asked to turn up with someway of
> >> marking themselves out as medics.
> > 
> > "Were asked to turn up". By who? The non-organisers? Yeah, right.
> 
> The point is they weren't issued uniforms.


Uh huh. Backing down on the "no one oranising this" claim, then?

-- 
I hoped it might happen again

> Nope, however how can you blame the organisers for failing to notify the
> police of plans they didn't have?


You say they didn't have plans..but then your next response starts with 
'The plan'. So again, which is it?

You seem confused.


> The plan was bring instruments to the west end of Princes St. and kick
> back and have fun for the afternoon. The Police must have been aware of
> this otherwise all the out of town police would have gone home on Sunday.


Yes they would have all gone home...what with the G8 being finished and 
all. And no big march (organised) on the wednesday with some smallish 
concert thing apparently happening.

So..err...no.


> I was responding to Jim (do you have him plonked?) who had made both of
> those claims. Just because there was a plan to all meet up in the same
> place doesn't mean there is a plan to march anywhere in particular. Or to
> invade an office and trash it.


Not sure what plonked really means. Kids and your newsgroup slang.

I also didn't mention anything about offices?

And again theres that plan that you say doesn't exist.

All I'm saying is they should have had the decency to imform the police. 
Their fauilure to do so was certainly not an accident and signalled 
their intentions from the off.


> I would prefer to not have to notify the police. I find the idea of having
> to do so quite ludicrous. The main point of the 'protest' was that you
> aren't allowed to have this kind of gathering without notifying the police.


You can and they did have a protest without notifying the police.

However if you choose to do so don't whine when the police (rightly) get 
a tad concerned and try to impose limits on where you can go so you 
don't endanger other people.

You can say they didn't want to endanger / would have been peaceful etc 
etc but *the police didn't know that* and thus had to assume the worst.

Regardless theres no need to start launching bricks and other assorted 
pieces of edinburgh mortar at them.


> The anarchists had their own medics, for some reason the police were
> specifically targeting them for arrest. There are also reports of the
> police refusing to call ambulances for those injured at the end of police
> batons, on the basis that they were just pretending to be injured to
> escape the police cordon.


urls?

I havn't heard (which doesn't mean its not true), I'm genuinely interested.

Considering there were <insert large number> of video cameras rolling it 
seems a bit odd.


> I see, perhaps they should have just called batman instead.


So they could have thrown some bricks at him?


> I do my best.


You do it well.


Kev

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:48:13 +0100, August West wrote:


> Zombywuf  writes:
> 
>> >> People with first aid training were asked to turn up with someway of
>> >> marking themselves out as medics.
>> > 
>> > "Were asked to turn up". By who? The non-organisers? Yeah, right.
>> 
>> The point is they weren't issued uniforms.
> 
> Uh huh. Backing down on the "no one oranising this" claim, then?


I never claimed no-one organised this. I said that no-one had total and
absolute control over who was turning up and what they planned to do.
There was one small group that invited people to turn up at a particular
place at a particular time. They also invited people to be medics, just in
case. Various other groups saw the invite and decided to organise
themselves. Some decided to dress as clowns and generally take the piss,
some decided to wear black, cover their faces and wave black flags, some
decided to bring drums and play some music, other just turned up for an
afternoon of partying. You seem to be suggesting there was some grand
master saying "You there, dress as clowns," "You, post these flyers on
that building," "You, graffiti that wall." The police were probably far
more organised for the event than the 'organisers'.

Zombywuf  writes:


> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:48:13 +0100, August West wrote:
> 
> > Uh huh. Backing down on the "no one oranising this" claim, then?
> 
> I never claimed no-one organised this. I said that no-one had total and
> absolute control over who was turning up and what they planned to do.


Now, that's just sophistry.


> There was one small group that invited people to turn up at a particular
> place at a particular time. They also invited people to be medics, just in
> case.


So, they could have told the police all of this, too, no? 
If not, why not?


> Various other groups saw the invite and decided to organise
> themselves.


"Organise themselves"? You mean come along? Or do something different
entirely?


> Some decided to dress as clowns and generally take the piss, some
> decided to wear black, cover their faces and wave black flags, some
> decided to bring drums and play some music, other just turned up for
> an afternoon of partying.


"other[s] just turned up for an afternoon of partying."? So the rest
turned up for good riot? I though other just they all turned up for an
afternoon of partying? Or was than another bit of dissembling?


> You seem to be suggesting there was some grand master saying "You
> there, dress as clowns," "You, post these flyers on that building,"
> "You, graffiti that wall."


No, I'm just sugesting that it didn't "just happen". And you claiming
anything else is disinenuous.


> The police were probably far more organised for the event than the
> 'organisers'.


So? I'm sure they were better organised that the organisers of the MPH
demo on Saturday.

-- 
I'm burning all my bridges

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:55:27 +0000, Kev wrote:


>> Nope, however how can you blame the organisers for failing to notify the
>> police of plans they didn't have?
> 
> You say they didn't have plans..but then your next response starts with 
> 'The plan'. So again, which is it?
>
> You seem confused.


You seem unable to distinguish between the general and the specific.


> Yes they would have all gone home...what with the G8 being finished and
> all. And no big march (organised) on the wednesday with some smallish
> concert thing apparently happening.
> 
> So..err...no.


Of course, it's well worth having a bunch of police hanging around on
double time for no good reason.


>> I was responding to Jim (do you have him plonked?) who had made both of
>> those claims. Just because there was a plan to all meet up in the same
>> place doesn't mean there is a plan to march anywhere in particular. Or
>> to invade an office and trash it.
> 
> Not sure what plonked really means. Kids and your newsgroup slang.


killfiled, ignored, etc...


> I also didn't mention anything about offices?


No, but others did. Are you only reading my posts?


> And again theres that plan that you say doesn't exist.


Actually there are to plans mentioned, one did exist and one didn't. To
the best of my knowledge anyway.


>> I would prefer to not have to notify the police. I find the idea of
>> having to do so quite ludicrous. The main point of the 'protest' was
>> that you aren't allowed to have this kind of gathering without
>> notifying the police.
> 
> You can and they did have a protest without notifying the police.


And got pushed around, imprisoned, searched, photographed and questioned.
That doesn't meet my definition of allowed.


> You can say they didn't want to endanger / would have been peaceful etc
> etc but *the police didn't know that* and thus had to assume the worst.


Of course, like when you go out into the street you don't know that
everyone isn't out to get you so you should kill them all at the first
opportunity.


> Regardless theres no need to start launching bricks and other assorted
> pieces of edinburgh mortar at them.


Was there any need for the police to corral people, push them back with
shields and ride horses into the throng?


>> The anarchists had their own medics, for some reason the police were
>> specifically targeting them for arrest. There are also reports of the
>> police refusing to call ambulances for those injured at the end of
>> police batons, on the basis that they were just pretending to be
>> injured to escape the police cordon.
> 
> urls?
> 
> I havn't heard (which doesn't mean its not true), I'm genuinely
> interested.


http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/316049.html


> Considering there were <insert large number> of video cameras rolling it
> seems a bit odd.


I was in among the large number of cameras, I've seen very few pictures of
what I saw, but what I saw wouldn't sell many newspapers. Oh why did my
camera-phone choose to die that day.


>> I see, perhaps they should have just called batman instead.
> 
> So they could have thrown some bricks at him?


Surely his brick reversal spray would have protected him?

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:08:35 +0100, August West wrote:


> Zombywuf  writes:
> 
>> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:48:13 +0100, August West wrote:
>> 
>> > Uh huh. Backing down on the "no one oranising this" claim, then?
>> 
>> I never claimed no-one organised this. I said that no-one had total and
>> absolute control over who was turning up and what they planned to do.
> 
> Now, that's just sophistry.


No, it isn't. Are you trying to appear ironic?


>> There was one small group that invited people to turn up at a
>> particular place at a particular time. They also invited people to be
>> medics, just in case.
> 
> So, they could have told the police all of this, too, no? If not, why
> not?


This information was all available on publicly accessible channels.


>> Various other groups saw the invite and decided to organise themselves.
> 
> "Organise themselves"? You mean come along? Or do something different
> entirely?


Yes, I mean come along.


>> Some decided to dress as clowns and generally take the piss, some
>> decided to wear black, cover their faces and wave black flags, some
>> decided to bring drums and play some music, other just turned up for an
>> afternoon of partying.
> 
> "other[s] just turned up for an afternoon of partying."? So the rest
> turned up for good riot?


Now that's sophistry.


> I though other just they all turned up for an
> afternoon of partying? Or was than another bit of dissembling?


People turned up for their own reasons then. I bet a fair few turned up
for a fight. By most accounts these were local neds. I certainly didn't
see any of the black bloc types fighting.


>> You seem to be suggesting there was some grand master saying "You
>> there, dress as clowns," "You, post these flyers on that building,"
>> "You, graffiti that wall."
> 
> No, I'm just sugesting that it didn't "just happen". And you claiming
> anything else is disinenuous.


The overall event was organised, the individual parts of the event,
flyering, costumes, music, climbing, etc... were not organised by some
central authority who could have notified the police of what was going to
happen.


>> The police were probably far more organised for the event than the
>> 'organisers'.
> 
> So? I'm sure they were better organised that the organisers of the MPH
> demo on Saturday.


So the argument about the police were right to react as they did because
the organisers didn't tell them where they wanted to march falls flat
on it's face.

Zombywuf  writes:


> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:08:35 +0100, August West wrote:
> 
> > Now, that's just sophistry.
> 
> No, it isn't. Are you trying to appear ironic?


Nope. No-one had "total and absolute control over who was turning up
and what they planned to do" of the NPF demo on Saturday, either.
Short of the military discipline, nothing ever runs under "total and
absolute control", so your point is utterly specious. And amounts to
little more than wriggling to throw the blame of the rioters'
shoulders.


> > So, they could have told the police all of this, too, no? If not, why
> > not?
> 
> This information was all available on publicly accessible channels.


You're seriously suggesting the police should have gone out to look
for that? And then *trusted* it? Get real. They want plans, and people
they can liase with, before hand, and then on the ground, so they can
take action if, or when, things go wrong. In the absence of both, they
have to assume, and plan for, the worst. Or do you really believe they
should have let large gangs of people with, as you yourself say, many
disparate (and unknown) goals, wander round the town at whim?


> > "other[s] just turned up for an afternoon of partying."? So the rest
> > turned up for good riot?
> 
> Now that's sophistry.


No, it's sarcasm. Get a better dictionary. Or maybe even an education
- that might teach you how to behave in public as well.


> > I though other just they all turned up for an
> > afternoon of partying? Or was than another bit of dissembling?
> 
> People turned up for their own reasons then. I bet a fair few turned
> up for a fight. By most accounts these were local neds. I certainly
> didn't see any of the black bloc types fighting.


The photographs say otherwise. And, if it was as you say, it was
stupid to give cover to the local neds. I wonder why they didn't just
distance themselves from the neds, in that case, and leave them
exposed?


> So the argument about the police were right to react as they did because
> the organisers didn't tell them where they wanted to march falls flat
> on it's face.


You've jumped a rail there in your logic, I fear.

-- 
(nil)

On 05 Jul 2005 20:00:00 +0100 someone who may be August West
 wrote this:-


>"clearly identified by red and black crosses on their arms". Righto.
>And did anyone tell the police what the arm bands meant? If not, well,
>just reaping their own stupidity, surely?


We know that the police have grasped this new-fangled Interweb
thingy. After all it is one of the way they will have found out
about arrangements for Monday. Less than a minute on this got me to
http://www.actionmedics.org.uk/index.html

Incidentally we may well see how the police treated these medics in
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193636


-- 
 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.

"Zombywuf"  wrote in message
news:pan.2005.07.05.18.28.26.388039@zombywuf.org...

> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:56:22 +0000, Kev wrote:
>
> >> And I've seen no evidence the organisers had any plans of routes to be
> >> taken.
> >
> > Thats hardly the polices fault?
>
> Nope, however how can you blame the organisers for failing to notify the
> police of plans they didn't have?


If they don't have plans then they have no legal right to march.  The law
states that all protest marches must get clearance from the council and from
the police.  If you do not your protest is illegal.  End of Story.  Stating
that you are an anarchist and so can't be expected to have plans is mere
posturing.  If they want a proper protest march they must go through the
correct channels using rules designed to protect the public from the likely
effects of their march.  If they don't want to go through proper channels
then they must accept that their march is illegal and will be dealt with
accordingly by police.  If they simply don't care about the breaking the
rules and think that they are above them then I strongly believe that they
deserve to have their little protest broken up by the police.


> > Are you suggesting the protestors themselves were surprised by their own
> > surprise protest?
> >
> > There must clearly have been 'a plan' on some level.
>
> The plan was bring instruments to the west end of Princes St. and kick
> back and have fun for the afternoon. The Police must have been aware of
> this otherwise all the out of town police would have gone home on Sunday.


But they didn't get permission to do this as detailed above and were thus
liable to receive whatever treatment the police considered necessary to
break up their illegal march.   Hinting at vague plans on websites and in
the general ether may well have let the police know that something was
planned but that does not constitute getting permission to hold the march
from them or from the council.  The police therefore acted on the
information they had to suppress the action when it began to happen.  Not
very bright of the "organisers" to broadcast their vague plans without
getting the appropriate permission was it?  They should learn to work within
the system that exists if they hope for any success at all.

You also said that their aim is to highlight that you need police permission
to block off streets and prevent people from going about their normal day to
day business.  Well so I shopuld bloody well think.  I don't want a city
where any bunch of people can just flood the city centre and bring roads to
a standstill without warning, whether they pretend their aims are benign or
not.  And I have to say that simply by wanting to fuck up everyone's day
they rather demonstrate that their motives are not benign.  Do they really
think that the people forced to stay at work for hours later than they would
normally do were grateful?  What about the people who had to wait hours to
get a train home that evening.  It's ironic that they claimed to be
demonstrating against work but ended up trapping many workers at their
workplace.  I'm telling you I bet those poor suckers would have killed the
protestors responsible if they could have.

Tamzin

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:11:35 GMT Zombywuf wrote:

> A red cross is a fairly universal mark. Quite a few wore badges with
> the word Medic on them.


What does a peaceful protest/party/whatever-the-fuck-it-was need with
medics anyway?

On 05 Jul 2005 20:18:00 +0100 someone who may be August West
 wrote this:-


>So why the "and black crosses"? Anyway, should the police believe
>rioter's own self-syled markings? Were I a police officer, I'd have
>taken such marking as likely signs of leaders, and nicked them, too.


Those of an optimistic disposition like to believe that police
officers are more intelligent than this. Some are, but sadly not all
are.


>And coming with medics in tow rather suggest they fully expected
>injuries.


The police came with medics in tow. This rather suggests they fully
expected injuries, despite their protestations before and after.


-- 
 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.

David Hansen  writes:


> On 05 Jul 2005 20:00:00 +0100 someone who may be August West
>  wrote this:-
> 
> >"clearly identified by red and black crosses on their arms". Righto.
> >And did anyone tell the police what the arm bands meant? If not, well,
> >just reaping their own stupidity, surely?
> 
> We know that the police have grasped this new-fangled Interweb
> thingy. After all it is one of the way they will have found out
> about arrangements for Monday.


Oh, I'm sure they have. 


> Less than a minute on this got me to
> http://www.actionmedics.org.uk/index.html


What's your point? Had they seriously wanted to help, why didn't the
liaise with the police, rather they "flying with the crows". Or did
they want to demonstrate AND get the benefit of immunity because they
are "medics". Although I note, from that site, that they are not
actually medics, just "activists who have first aid skills".


> Incidentally we may well see how the police treated these medics in
> http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193636


Right-oh. And why should the police believe they're medics? Just
because they have a cross scrawled on their bandanna? Anyway, we're
still back to why they felt the need for specially marked medics?
Because they expected a riot, perhaps?

-- 
in the wasteland of your mind

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:28:29 UTC, Zombywuf  
wrote:


> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:56:22 +0000, Kev wrote:
> 
> >> And I've seen no evidence the organisers had any plans of routes to be
> >> taken.
> > 
> > Thats hardly the polices fault?
> 
> Nope, however how can you blame the organisers for failing to notify the
> police of plans they didn't have?


Eh? I thought you were claiming that the plans were widely publicised 
on websites, so the police didn't need a presence all over the place. 
Now you say there wasn't a plan. Most puzzling.

Ian

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:55:00 UTC, David Hansen 
 wrote:


> On 05 Jul 2005 19:35:17 +0100 someone who may be August West
>  wrote this:-
> 
> >> The anarchists had their own medics, for some reason the police were
> >> specifically targeting them for arrest.
> >
> >How did they identify them?
> 
> Forgot to add. http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/316049.html is
> some people's views of this.


The interesting bit is "We began planning for the G8 nearly a year 
ago. We all trained voluntarily to a high standard, and continued to 
freely train others, we fundraised round the clock for months(and 
raided our own pockets) to get the money together to buy supplies to 
use and give out, and we got loads of support in this from our local 
communities, as well as from professional medical folks."

from which it would appear that the people calling themselves "medics"
were in fact self taught first aiders at best.

Soesn't seem very radical to me, anyway. Shouldn't they have had reiki
"masters" to treat the ill?

Ian

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 20:54:53 UTC, "Tamzin" 
 wrote:


> If they simply don't care about the breaking the
> rules and think that they are above them then I strongly believe that they
> deserve to have their little protest broken up by the police.


I think it's inaccurate and an insult to real protesters to call what 
happened a protest. It was a bunch of well off kids out for a piss up 
and a punch up, with no coherent or sensible message behind it. Oh 
except "an end to wage slavery" which apparently means that the rest 
of us should pay them benefits, and an end to the profit driven 
economy, which means that we should rely on the pixies to bring us the
money to give them.

Ian 


--

> People turned up for their own reasons then. I bet a fair few turned up
> for a fight. By most accounts these were local neds. I certainly didn't
> see any of the black bloc types fighting.



Like I said, go to Specsavers - seeing what YOU WANT to see, and nothing 
else.  Did you not see the photo of the brick throwers from earlier?

Jim.

> The police came with medics in tow. This rather suggests they fully
> expected injuries, despite their protestations before and after.



Thats because they knew of an event which would take place "somewhere" in 
the west end, around 12:30pm, and they knew this event was "organised" by 
KNOWN anarchast groups.  They had no real understanding of the numbers, or 
planned march routes.

jim.

> Of course, it's well worth having a bunch of police hanging around on
> double time for no good reason.



Good reason = Planned anarchast meeting, no cooporation with local council, 
police etc.


> And got pushed around, imprisoned, searched, photographed and questioned.
> That doesn't meet my definition of allowed.


Throwing bricks, benches and bins is?  Which is worse?


> Was there any need for the police to corral people, push them back with
> shields and ride horses into the throng?


Because the group was a danger to themselves and everyone around them, they 
needed to be stopped.



> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/316049.html


Any non heavily biased URL's?


> I was in among the large number of cameras, I've seen very few pictures of
> what I saw, but what I saw wouldn't sell many newspapers. Oh why did my
> camera-phone choose to die that day.


Yes, why oh why - how strange :)

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Zombywuf wrote:


> My movements weren't restricted, I had no placard, nor am I a thug. My
> movements were restricted neither by the police or the thugs. Perhaps my
> cloak of invisibility is working.


Perhaps they should have been.


> What name shall we give to the police who wanted to cause trouble? I'm not
> saying all the police wanted this. The vast majority were very well
> behaved and showed a genuine desire to keep the peace. However, it only
> takes a few bad apples...


Good public servants, I should think.


> Yes it is. A few of the anarchists had their children with them.


Ah, what an upbringing to make them responsible citizens!

-- 
Steven Hill

Support bacteria.  They're the only culture some people have.

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Zombywuf wrote:


> I would prefer to not have to notify the police. I find the idea of having
> to do so quite ludicrous. The main point of the 'protest' was that you
> aren't allowed to have this kind of gathering without notifying the police.


Would you prefer they wheel out a JP and read you the riot act then?


> I do my best.


Oh dear.

-- 
Steven Hill

"Video barbam et pallium; philosophum nondum video"

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Zombywuf wrote:


> No doubt they've all been charged with running with scissors or
> something by now anyway.


As well they should, lest they have someone's eye out.

-- 
Steven Hill

"Hey, I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class,
especially since I rule."
				- Randal Graves, Clerks.

Zombywuf dribbled:


> The police have a habit of violently breaking up such parties. Why did
> the police bring medics?


If this were a football match crowd, this would have been dealt with
swiftly and surely within 30 minutes. I can't believe your whines of "it's
so unfair" and "the police are bad men" are continuing. Wake up and see
the reality of life today. Your crowds were let off lightly, and should
damn well be thankful.

-- 
Steven Hill

Coach: How about a beer, Norm?
Norm:  Hey I'm high on life, Coach.  Of course, beer is my life.
- Cheers, No Help Wanted

On 5 Jul 2005, August West wrote:


> Zombywuf  writes:

> > People with first aid training were asked to turn up with someway of
> > marking themselves out as medics.
>
> "Were asked to turn up". By who? The non-organisers? Yeah, right.


Aye, indeed. If this wasn't an organised event... Oh dear, another hole in
the argument.

-- 
Steven Hill

"Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt."

Zombywuf wrote:

> > ASIDE:- How can anarchists be on an "organised" march?
>
> That's what I've been saying!


So if the march hadn't been "organised" how can those who acted as
"medics" have known a year before hand that this march was going to take
place?  Suggests a GREAT deal of forward planning for an un-organised
event.
Yes I fully realise it will not have been planned down to the at xx:xx
hours you you and you will do this, but I feel it was planned to the
"then we will head to such and such street and see what happens" level.




-- 
yours S

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 22:52:33 +0000, soup wrote:


> So if the march hadn't been "organised" how can those who acted as
> "medics" have known a year before hand that this march was going to take
> place?  Suggests a GREAT deal of forward planning for an un-organised
> event.


I know enough first aid to deal with head injuries, fractures and the loss
of breathing/pulse. I could paint a red cross on my T-shirt and be on
Princes St. in half an hour. Imagine a call goes out for medics and a
whole bunch of others do the same, you could have this level or
organisation in a day. However there are anarchist groups dedicated to
training medics for events like this, and they will tend to show up, but I
bet very few of the other anarchists will be sitting around saying "Damn
we can't enough medics, let's call off the protest."


> Yes I fully realise it will not have been planned down to the at xx:xx
> hours you you and you will do this, but I feel it was planned to the
> "then we will head to such and such street and see what happens" level.


You seem to be assuming there was one group running the show.

> You seem unable to distinguish between the general and the specific.


Right so weve gone from 'no plan' to 'the plan' and now to a 'general 
plan' but definately not a 'specific plan' ?

Training and arranging their own medics to be there suggests a fairly 
specific plan to me.

one that could be shared with the police and have allowed the protest / 
march / shindig / riot or whatever you want to call it to have passed 
off in a hopefully more peaceful manner.


> Of course, it's well worth having a bunch of police hanging around on
> double time for no good reason.


Yep, god forbid you'd want them to look out for the hundreds of 
thousands expected in edinburgh tomorrow (actually today, that late 
already). We should leave them (and all the trouble makers that 
inevitably tow along to all major events like this n.b not talking about 
anarchists just your usual people trying to get in / blag / neds) to it.


> No, but others did. Are you only reading my posts?


Yes they're the most amusing.


> And got pushed around, imprisoned, searched, photographed and questioned.
> That doesn't meet my definition of allowed.


Why? the protest occured. If it wasn't allowed on some level than it 
wouldn't have occured. The police after all did have the man power to 
riot baton the lot of them and nip it in the bud straight away.

A PR nightmare perhaps but they *could* have done that. Given as it was 
(I think) an illegal march as there was no prior notification.

Instead they did actually allow them to continue but in a (as best they 
could and in their opinion) controlled manner. They got frisky when 
people started throwing bricks at them for 'not letting them march'

They were clearly confused why people were complaining and slinging 
projectile weapons at them when, in fact, the basis of their complaint 
was wrong.

They might not have liked that but they didn't give the police any option.


> Of course, like when you go out into the street you don't know that
> everyone isn't out to get you so you should kill them all at the first
> opportunity.


Who got killed? sorry..analogy malfunction.

Fairly ridiculous.


> Was there any need for the police to corral people, push them back with
> shields and ride horses into the throng?


Yes: they were having bricks thrown at them.

And being kicked / punched.

And worst of all having naked anarchists parading their bits in front of 
them.

On any normal given day, grab a brick and go throw it at a police 
officer (note to kids, not actually seriously condoning doing this) and 
see what happens.

I guarantee they will do a teeny bit more than corral you and push you 
back with a shield.

So why should that be any different? especially when they have an angry 
mob doing it en masse?


> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/316049.html


indymedia.

A more non-bias news source you could not find.

And from the sound of it they were self trained medics. Hardly any kind 
of legitimate aid. We don't have the whole story thanks to indymedias 
high standard of journalism.

'Five medics have been detained and the vehicle impounded with all 
supplies.'

This could be spun either way. As it is on Indymedia to 'supplies' or 
what also could have been the case - a bunch of non licensed 'medics' 
with controlled drugs (prescription style) in tow. Or the medics may 
have thrown a few bricks at the police which would earn them a 
detainment entirely unrelated to their medic status. We don't have the 
whole story thanks to indymedias high standard of journalism.

'The police have also refused to call ambulances. '

Again indymedia spin it either way. In what context? generically refused 
  to call them because someone asked them? They'd probably refuse to 
call me an ambulance if I just randomly asked them. We don't have the 
whole story thanks to indymedias high standard of journalism.


> I was in among the large number of cameras, I've seen very few pictures of
> what I saw, but what I saw wouldn't sell many newspapers. Oh why did my
> camera-phone choose to die that day.


 From the sound of it, oh yes it would. It would be quite a scandal. And 
would have flipped the tone of the news coverage completely on its head.


> Surely his brick reversal spray would have protected him?


He was otherwise blinded by the site of a naked protestors bumpy bits.

Kev

"Kev"  wrote in message 
news:bsFye.26444$d75.13980@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> 'The police have also refused to call ambulances. '
>
> Again indymedia spin it either way. In what context? generically refused 
> to call them because someone asked them? They'd probably refuse to call me 
> an ambulance if I just randomly asked them. We don't have the whole story 
> thanks to indymedias high standard of journalism.


http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~fzero/G8/Img_3539.jpg

This photo was taken the day of the Anarchists march.  I saw a lot of medics 
on that day (04/07) and ambulance too.

In article  spamtrap@zombywuf.org wrote...


> However there are anarchist groups dedicated to training medics for
> events like this, and they will tend to show up


The medics 'tend to show up'?

I'd really like to see a bunch of 'anarchist medics'. By the time they
agree on who is collectively in non-charge of the bandages the patient
will have died.

Go join Hansen over in Wanker's Corner, will you?

Mike Dickson, Edinburgh, Scotland

Ian Johnston  writes
[]

> Oh 
>except "an end to wage slavery" which apparently means that the rest 
>of us should pay them benefits, and an end to the profit driven 
>economy, which means that we should rely on the pixies to bring us the
>money to give them.
>

It baffles me that they want to destroy our way of life but then seem
surprised that we don't have hell of a much sympathy when the Police
won't let them.
-- 
Bob Scott

Zombywuf wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:18:00 +0100, August West wrote:
>
> > So why the "and black crosses"? Anyway, should the police believe
> > rioter's own self-syled markings? Were I a police officer, I'd have
> > taken such marking as likely signs of leaders, and nicked them, too.
>
> The crosses were mostly red on a black background. You seem to be making
> the mistake of assuming there was some mastermind organising all of this.
> People with first aid training were asked to turn up with someway of
> marking themselves out as medics.


Maybe if the protestors had been peaceful, nobody would have got hurt.


> > And coming with medics in tow rather suggest they fully expected
> > injuries. I wonder why, since they were just there for a party. Odd,
> > really. Or perhaps they were telling porkies? Care to explain?
>
> The police have a habit of violently breaking up such parties. Why did the
> police bring medics?


They knew they'd get hurt? Seems like they were right from the benches
and bricks those brave protestors were throwing.

TTH

Zombywuf wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 22:52:33 +0000, soup wrote:
> > Yes I fully realise it will not have been planned down to the at
> > xx:xx hours you you and you will do this, but I feel it was planned
> > to the "then we will head to such and such street and see what
> > happens" level.
>
> You seem to be assuming there was one group running the show.


That one group being the Wombles aided and abeted by Dissent (yes I know
that is two groups but poetic license and all that).

This article talks of a meeting in Nottingham, e-mail invitations being
sent and a final meeting at the Communication Workers' Union club at
Brunswick street

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=613102005

Most telling quote is :-
"Anarchists were due to finalise plans this morning."

  Finalising a plan that YOU insist didn't exist
-- 
yours S

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:50:24 +0100, August West wrote:


> Nope. No-one had "total and absolute control over who was turning up
> and what they planned to do" of the NPF demo on Saturday, either.
> Short of the military discipline, nothing ever runs under "total and
> absolute control", so your point is utterly specious. And amounts to
> little more than wriggling to throw the blame of the rioters'
> shoulders.


You are having a very hard time grasping the concept of a loose
association of individuals aren't you? A bunch of people with loosely
similar goals turned up at the same place, each with their own idea of
what they were doing there. How on earth could anyone have told the police
what each and every group planned to do? 


> You're seriously suggesting the police should have gone out to look for
> that? And then *trusted* it? Get real. They want plans, and people they
> can liase with, before hand, and then on the ground, so they can take
> action if, or when, things go wrong. In the absence of both, they have
> to assume, and plan for, the worst. Or do you really believe they should
> have let large gangs of people with, as you yourself say, many disparate
> (and unknown) goals, wander round the town at whim?


Yes, this happens all the time. Mostly the disparate groups of people have
the vague goal of shopping.


> No, it's sarcasm. Get a better dictionary. Or maybe even an education -
> that might teach you how to behave in public as well.


You're stalking me now?


>> People turned up for their own reasons then. I bet a fair few turned up
>> for a fight. By most accounts these were local neds. I certainly didn't
>> see any of the black bloc types fighting.
> 
> The photographs say otherwise.


You have photographs of me seeing black bloc fighting?


> And, if it was as you say, it was stupid
> to give cover to the local neds. I wonder why they didn't just distance
> themselves from the neds, in that case, and leave them exposed?


Great, now your suggesting the group turns to infighting.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 23:19:13 +0100, Jim wrote:


>> The police came with medics in tow. This rather suggests they fully
>> expected injuries, despite their protestations before and after.
> 
> 
> Thats because they knew of an event which would take place "somewhere" in 
> the west end, around 12:30pm, and they knew this event was "organised" by 
> KNOWN anarchast groups.  They had no real understanding of the numbers, or 
> planned march routes.



The organisers of the event had no or very little idea of these things
either. Apply the idea of non hierarchical decision making to the idea of
telling the police where the group wanted to go, see if you end up in
cloud cuckoo land.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 23:41:39 +0100, Steven Hill wrote:


> If this were a football match crowd, this would have been dealt with
> swiftly and surely within 30 minutes. I can't believe your whines of "it's
> so unfair" and "the police are bad men" are continuing.


I can't believe people are whining they couldn't get to the shops.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:54:21 +0000, Tim Angus wrote:


> What does a peaceful protest/party/whatever-the-fuck-it-was need with
> medics anyway?


Why do keepers of the peace need medics?

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Zombywuf wrote:


> > If this were a football match crowd, this would have been dealt with
> > swiftly and surely within 30 minutes. I can't believe your whines of "it's
> > so unfair" and "the police are bad men" are continuing.
>
> I can't believe people are whining they couldn't get to the shops.


Why not?

Shopping and capitalism feed this nation. Capitalism feeds other nations.

Or has that point managed to fly over your head like the many others you
are trying so hard to avoid?

-- 
Steven Hill

"There must be something on this thing for that thing!"
                                - Homer Simpson, The Simpsons

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 23:25:29 +0100, Jim wrote:


>> Of course, it's well worth having a bunch of police hanging around on
>> double time for no good reason.
> 
> Good reason = Planned anarchast meeting, no cooporation with local council, 
> police etc.


You seem to be loosing the thread. If the police did not know about the
anarchist meeting what were they doing there?


>> And got pushed around, imprisoned, searched, photographed and
>> questioned. That doesn't meet my definition of allowed.
> 
> Throwing bricks, benches and bins is?  Which is worse?


Good question actually. When the police can arbitrarily impose this kind
of rule of law is that greater misdeed than that of throwing a bin at
police imposing this kind of rule?


>> Was there any need for the police to corral people, push them back with
>> shields and ride horses into the throng?
> 
> Because the group was a danger to themselves and everyone around them,
> they needed to be stopped.


Prove it. You said yourself the when the police left the atmosphere was
calm and people just mingled.


>> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/316049.html
> 
> Any non heavily biased URL's?


You find me one non heavily biased url on the Internet with more than say
3 paragraphs, just one.

Everything's biased, get over it.

"Zombywuf"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.07.06.09.40.53.472895@zombywuf.org...

> Why do keepers of the peace need medics?


To help them, and innocent bystanders, when brick-throwing mindless thugs 
start attacking people.  Seems pretty bloody obvious to me.

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:24:48 +0000, Ian Johnston wrote:


>> Nope, however how can you blame the organisers for failing to notify the
>> police of plans they didn't have?
> 
> Eh? I thought you were claiming that the plans were widely publicised 
> on websites, so the police didn't need a presence all over the place. 
> Now you say there wasn't a plan. Most puzzling.


How confusing it is also that there may be a multitude of plans, some
which actually existed in a real and tangible sense, and others which
existed only as platonic ideas and as such did not exist in a real sense.
It certainly seems to be confusing you.

> http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~fzero/G8/Img_3539.jpg
> 
> This photo was taken the day of the Anarchists march.  I saw a lot of medics 
> on that day (04/07) and ambulance too. 


I work on the western general campus and on monday there were a fair few 
ambulances flying about and talk that they were planning on re opening 
the old A&E for the day.

I didn't want to feed Zombywuf's trolling by assuming that said 
ambulances were going to the protest scene.

Thanks for the piccy, as they say its worth a thousand words.

Kev

Zombywuf wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:54:21 +0000, Tim Angus wrote:
>
> > What does a peaceful protest/party/whatever-the-fuck-it-was need
> > with medics anyway?
>
> Why do keepers of the peace need medics?




Because sometimes to keep "the peace" they are keeping "placard waving
thugs" (who won't/don't respond to "I say do stop that" ) from
destroying property, belonging (rightly or wrongly) to other members of
society.
Of course this could be taken to silly lengths such as assault weapons
and armoured personnel carriers a la UN peace keepers.


Oh Zombywuf take of those rose tinted spectacles, the police have to
deal with the less savoury members of society, hence them having minimum
height requirements (which in itself is no guarantee but is an indicator
of them having "physical presence").


-- 
yours S

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:54:53 +0100, Tamzin wrote:


> If they don't have plans then they have no legal right to march.  The law
> states that all protest marches must get clearance from the council and from
> the police.  If you do not your protest is illegal.  End of Story.


Ever walked down the street in a group of more than three people, because
you need clearance for that as well.

soup wrote:

<snip>

> 
> Oh Zombywuf take of those rose tinted spectacles, 

please

>the police have to
> deal with the less savoury members of society, hence them having minimum
> height requirements (which in itself is no guarantee but is an indicator
> of them having "physical presence").
> 
> 

Haven't they removed the height restriction now?  An titchy friend of 
mine is in the police.  She's not far off 5'0" I don't think

David Hansen wrote:

> On 05 Jul 2005 20:00:00 +0100 someone who may be August West
>  wrote this:-
>
> >"clearly identified by red and black crosses on their arms". Righto.
> >And did anyone tell the police what the arm bands meant? If not, well,
> >just reaping their own stupidity, surely?
>
> We know that the police have grasped this new-fangled Interweb
> thingy. After all it is one of the way they will have found out
> about arrangements for Monday.

> Less than a minute on this got me to
> http://www.actionmedics.org.uk/index.html


Nowhere (that I could find) does it mention clothing.


> Incidentally we may well see how the police treated these medics in
> http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=53193636


Looks like some Swiss lass/bloke fell over and the Police are helping
him/her up to me.

But seriously, why wear something that is the colour negative of what
you aim to be? Also, we don't know what happened in the minutes before
this picture was taken. 

TTH

Steven Hill wrote:

> Zombywuf dribbled:
>
> > The police have a habit of violently breaking up such parties. Why did
> > the police bring medics?
>
> If this were a football match crowd, this would have been dealt with
> swiftly and surely within 30 minutes. I can't believe your whines of "it's
> so unfair" and "the police are bad men" are continuing. Wake up and see
> the reality of life today. Your crowds were let off lightly, and should
> damn well be thankful.


And as I said previously, these these political hooligans are no
different from the football equivalent. They should be policed in the
same way (including bans from attending or travelling to political
demos etc. when found guilty of hooliganism). 

TTH

Zombywuf wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 23:41:39 +0100, Steven Hill wrote:
>
> > If this were a football match crowd, this would have been dealt with
> > swiftly and surely within 30 minutes. I can't believe your whines of "it's
> > so unfair" and "the police are bad men" are continuing.
>
> I can't believe people are whining they couldn't get to the shops.


Why doe your (hooligans) idea of fun take precidence over some people's
desire to shop? Even if you claim the capitalists are hurting people,
the hooligans are no better.

TTH

Zombywuf  writes:


>On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 17:44:14 +0000, soup wrote:

>Yes it is. A few of the anarchists had their children with them.


Well you can step up to the top of the podium marked "Making others feel
guilty" with smokers, excessive drinkers and druggies.

This "Innocent as the driven snow" drivel just doesn't wash with everybody.

Graham

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:19:19 +0000, Kev wrote:


>> You seem unable to distinguish between the general and the specific.
> 
> Right so weve gone from 'no plan' to 'the plan' and now to a 'general 
> plan' but definately not a 'specific plan' ?


A number of plans from different groups of people with different aims.
It's quite simple really.


> Training and arranging their own medics to be there suggests a fairly 
> specific plan to me.


Why? Please lead me through your logical deductions.


>> And got pushed around, imprisoned, searched, photographed and
>> questioned. That doesn't meet my definition of allowed.
> 
> Why? the protest occured. If it wasn't allowed on some level than it
> wouldn't have occured. The police after all did have the man power to
> riot baton the lot of them and nip it in the bud straight away.


I see, the police charge the and they all just go away? It doesn't really
work like that.


> Instead they did actually allow them to continue but in a (as best they
> could and in their opinion) controlled manner. They got frisky when
> people started throwing bricks at them for 'not letting them march'


I see, hemming them in and charging cavalry at them /is/ your definition
of allowed.


> They were clearly confused why people were complaining and slinging
> projectile weapons at them when, in fact, the basis of their complaint
> was wrong.
> 
> They might not have liked that but they didn't give the police any
> option.


You seem to have already decided the brick throwing happened first. The
police were just quietly milling about in the street minding their own
business when a bunch of anarchists started throwing bricks?


>> Of course, like when you go out into the street you don't know that
>> everyone isn't out to get you so you should kill them all at the first
>> opportunity.
> 
> Who got killed? sorry..analogy malfunction.
> 
> Fairly ridiculous.


Hyperbole, the point is that claiming that the protesters had violent
intent and therefore should have been restricted is fairly paranoid.


> On any normal given day, grab a brick and go throw it at a police
> officer (note to kids, not actually seriously condoning doing this) and
> see what happens.


On any normal day grab a shield and steel club and go box people into a
corner.


>> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/316049.html
> 
> indymedia.
> 
> A more non-bias news source you could not find.
> 
> And from the sound of it they were self trained medics. Hardly any kind
> of legitimate aid. We don't have the whole story thanks to indymedias
> high standard of journalism.


Oh yes, they were only pretend medics. We can only have medics who are
officially sanctioned in our streets.


> 'Five medics have been detained and the vehicle impounded with all
> supplies.'
> 
> This could be spun either way. As it is on Indymedia to 'supplies' or
> what also could have been the case - a bunch of non licensed 'medics'
> with controlled drugs (prescription style) in tow. Or the medics may
> have thrown a few bricks at the police which would earn them a
> detainment entirely unrelated to their medic status. We don't have the
> whole story thanks to indymedias high standard of journalism.


Well again my eyes saw plenty of medics standing at the backs of the crowd
looking out for injured. Obviously your magic eyes that can see the entire
event through a few pictures in the newspapers saw differently.


> 'The police have also refused to call ambulances. '
> 
> Again indymedia spin it either way. In what context? generically refused
>   to call them because someone asked them? They'd probably refuse to
> call me an ambulance if I just randomly asked them. We don't have the
> whole story thanks to indymedias high standard of journalism.


Again my eyes (not some camera lens) saw a guy with blood streaming from
his face staggering past police medics and ambulance men ignoring him.


>> I was in among the large number of cameras, I've seen very few pictures
>> of what I saw, but what I saw wouldn't sell many newspapers. Oh why did
>> my camera-phone choose to die that day.
> 
>  From the sound of it, oh yes it would. It would be quite a scandal. And
> would have flipped the tone of the news coverage completely on its head.


There were plenty of others around taking pictures of what I saw, but none
of them seem to have surfaced anywhere.


>> Surely his brick reversal spray would have protected him?
> 
> He was otherwise blinded by the site of a naked protestors bumpy bits.


Oh no! Nudity!

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 09:59:28 +0000, soup wrote:


> Zombywuf wrote:
>> Why do keepers of the peace need medics?
> 
> Because sometimes to keep "the peace" they are keeping "placard waving
> thugs" (who won't/don't respond to "I say do stop that" ) from
> destroying property, belonging (rightly or wrongly) to other members of
> society.


And sometimes placard waving protesters get busted by the police for
waving placards. It works both ways. Or do /your/ rose tinted spectacles
not allow you to see that.


> Oh Zombywuf take of those rose tinted spectacles, the police have to
> deal with the less savoury members of society, hence them having minimum
> height requirements (which in itself is no guarantee but is an indicator
> of them having "physical presence").


I saw one member of the riot line who can't have been more than 4'6".

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 02:19:44 -0700, the_tattie_howker wrote:


> Maybe if the protestors had been peaceful, nobody would have got hurt.


Maybe if the police had been peaceful nobody would have got hurt.


> They knew they'd get hurt? Seems like they were right from the benches
> and bricks those brave protestors were throwing.


Maybe the protesters knew they'd get hurt from all the cavalry and steel
clubs.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 09:26:06 +0000, soup wrote:


> Most telling quote is :-
> "Anarchists were due to finalise plans this morning."
> 
>   Finalising a plan that YOU insist didn't exist


'Plans' is a plural. 'Plan' is singular. Consider the difference.

soup wrote:

> Zombywuf wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 22:52:33 +0000, soup wrote:
>>
>>>Yes I fully realise it will not have been planned down to the at
>>>xx:xx hours you you and you will do this, but I feel it was planned
>>>to the "then we will head to such and such street and see what
>>>happens" level.


As to the planning and considerations see this ..
www.  A c t i v i s t S e c u r i t y  .org::..
A Practical Security Handbook for Activists and Campaigns (v.2)

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 10:39:14 GMT Zombywuf wrote:

> A number of plans from different groups of people with different aims.
> It's quite simple really.


And yet all in the same place...

I don't really understand what you're arguing about anymore to be
honest. You claim there are a bunch of different groups with different
aims. This may well be the case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not
denying the presence of an anarchist, LAW BREAKING contingent who
intended to be violent from the outset? Assuming this is the case, why
do you blame the police? Surely it is said anarchists' fault for any
unrest.

You may be upset that the peaceful contingent of the protest group
(let's be honest here, it wasn't a "party" under any kind of sensible
definition) were treated in a similar fashion to the anarchists, and
i'll admit perhaps this is moderately unfair. However, approach this
from a law enforcers point of view. You have what outwardly appears to
be a single group of people with some causing significant disruption.
You're NOT going to take the chance and let the apparently peaceful
people on their way. Take a second to think how risky that is.

Here's a simple question: do you or do you not condemn the anarchist
group(s) involved on Monday? I don't care who started the violence, it's
not important. I want to know whether or not you think anarchic/violent
protest is wrong?

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 10:45:01 GMT Zombywuf wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 09:26:06 +0000, soup wrote:
> 
> > Most telling quote is :-
> > "Anarchists were due to finalise plans this morning."
> > 
> >   Finalising a plan that YOU insist didn't exist
> 
> 'Plans' is a plural. 'Plan' is singular. Consider the difference.


There is none, it's like 'fish' and 'fishes'.

> A number of plans from different groups of people with different aims.
> It's quite simple really.


And we've now completed the circle from no plans to a number of plans.


>>Training and arranging their own medics to be there suggests a fairly 
>>specific plan to me.
> 
> 
> Why? Please lead me through your logical deductions.


Training and arranging people to provide a specific function at an event 
clearly alludes that said event has been planned in enough details to 
take into consideration the the attendance of these people.

Thats fairly specific.


> I see, the police charge the and they all just go away? It doesn't really
> work like that.


I didn't say charge, I said slap them over the head with their riot batons.

The police had enough man power and vehicles about to shove them all 
into the back of vans and cart them off.

Nothing to do with just charging them.



> I see, hemming them in and charging cavalry at them /is/ your definition
> of allowed.


v. allowed, allowing, allows
v. tr.

#  To let do or happen; permit: We allow smoking only in restricted areas.
# To permit the presence of: No pets are allowed inside.
# To permit to have: allow oneself a little treat.
# To make provision for; assign: The schedule allows time for a coffee 
break.

point 1 - the protest / march happened regardless of route or greivences 
from both sides it occured. Therefore definition for allowed satisified.

point 2 - In my eyes the police could have at any time pretty much 
carted the vast majority if not all of the troublemakers off (although 
this would have required alot of force). The fact they didn't implies 
permission at some level. Therefore definition for allowed satisified.

pont 3 - see point one

point 4 - provisions were made for the march or protest to happen on the 
polices terms...which took into consideration the well being of other 
people and property in the area not to mention the law. You might not 
have liked said provisions but as no one bothered to discuss with the 
police before hand tough luck. Therefore definition for allowed satisified.


> You seem to have already decided the brick throwing happened first. The
> police were just quietly milling about in the street minding their own
> business when a bunch of anarchists started throwing bricks?


The police were trying to get a handle on a dangerous situation that had 
sprung up. I'm not sure what they would do that would provoke the 
throwing of a brick?

The police certainly didn't seem to be equipped with any projectile 
weapons so the hurling of a brick could be construed as an escalation of 
violence regardless of who started it.


> Hyperbole, the point is that claiming that the protesters had violent
> intent and therefore should have been restricted is fairly paranoid.


They were throwing bricks about, shouting abuse and trying to grind 
edinburgh city centre to a halt (even if it was a peaceful protest they 
would have still closed roads etc). In what way should we not see that 
as violent intent?


> On any normal day grab a shield and steel club and go box people into a
> corner.


But *I* wasn't using a shield and steel club to box people in. The 
police were. So again your analogy is broken. (analogy 101 won't take 
you long to complete).

I have never seen an individual member of the police randomly walk up to 
anyone and box them into a corner with a shield and a steel club outside 
a crowd control situation.

If an individual member of the police did randomly do that to someone 
then it would not be tolerated. In the same fashion someone throwing a 
brick at a police officer (or anyone else for that matter) would not be 
tolerated.


> Oh yes, they were only pretend medics. We can only have medics who are
> officially sanctioned in our streets.


Yes, thats why we have doctors and official channels. You'd want to be 
medically treated by one of these ad hoc medics? or one of the 
ambulances that were about?


> Well again my eyes saw plenty of medics standing at the backs of the crowd
> looking out for injured. Obviously your magic eyes that can see the entire
> event through a few pictures in the newspapers saw differently.


And indymedia only report 'some' medics not all. Could your eyes have 
missed some medics throwing bricks and being carted off by the police?


> Again my eyes (not some camera lens) saw a guy with blood streaming from
> his face staggering past police medics and ambulance men ignoring him.


Fair enough...but we're only getting a snapshot in time. Perhaps he had 
been offered assistance but declined? Perhaps the ambulance people 
wanted him to come to them (so they didn't have to step into the middle 
of any potential conflict) to treat him and he wouldn't?

Perhaps when you looked away he recieved attention further down the line?

Maybe it was someone elses blood?

Maybe it was ketchup?

Your report sounds fairly damning but its very vague.


> There were plenty of others around taking pictures of what I saw, but none
> of them seem to have surfaced anywhere.


Funny that..doesn't that tell you something?

The media would *love* to make this about police nastyness. Just to 
boost up the story. They already made a mountain out of the coverage.

So if they had these photos they would use them for sure. The fact they 
havn't suggests perhaps that what you saw you mis interpreted?

Kev

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Zombywuf wrote:


> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 02:19:44 -0700, the_tattie_howker wrote:
>
> > Maybe if the protestors had been peaceful, nobody would have got hurt.
>
> Maybe if the police had been peaceful nobody would have got hurt.


Waaah waaaah waaah, that bad man is hitting me.

Well try doing what you're told you whinging waster.


> > They knew they'd get hurt? Seems like they were right from the benches
> > and bricks those brave protestors were throwing.
>
> Maybe the protesters knew they'd get hurt from all the cavalry and steel
> clubs.


Also interesting how they bring their own folks to the protest, and don't
rely on those fascist capitalist bastards the Red Cross, or St Johns
Ambulance...

-- 
Steven Hill

It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion,
It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning,
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:00:00 +0000, Tim Angus wrote:


> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 10:39:14 GMT Zombywuf wrote:
>> A number of plans from different groups of people with different aims.
>> It's quite simple really.
> 
> And yet all in the same place...
> 
> I don't really understand what you're arguing about anymore to be
> honest.


That's because everyone is accusing me of different things. I'm arguing
that there was no plan for everyone attending to march to a particular
place, or to march along particular routes. As such there was no way they
could liaise with the police to identify a route. Being confined to a
particular route would have gone against the grain of what everyone was
there for.


> You claim there are a bunch of different groups with different
> aims. This may well be the case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not
> denying the presence of an anarchist, LAW BREAKING contingent who
> intended to be violent from the outset?


I am not denying that there may have been such a contingent among the
group. I am denying that the whole group were there with the sole intent
of rioting.


> Assuming this is the case, why
> do you blame the police? Surely it is said anarchists' fault for any
> unrest.


All the reports I read said the violence started when the police rode
horses into the crowd.


> You may be upset that the peaceful contingent of the protest group
> (let's be honest here, it wasn't a "party" under any kind of sensible
> definition) were treated in a similar fashion to the anarchists, and
> i'll admit perhaps this is moderately unfair. However, approach this
> from a law enforcers point of view. You have what outwardly appears to
> be a single group of people with some causing significant disruption.


Was there more disruption caused by blocking off the street than would
have been caused by allowing them to move?


> Here's a simple question: do you or do you not condemn the anarchist
> group(s) involved on Monday? I don't care who started the violence, it's
> not important. I want to know whether or not you think anarchic/violent
> protest is wrong?


I do condone anarchist protest. I do not condone violent protest. I do
condone violent response to repression of peaceful protest with the threat
of violence. The police did move in and contain people long before any
violence occurred.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:02:50 +0000, Tim Angus wrote:


> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 10:45:01 GMT Zombywuf wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 09:26:06 +0000, soup wrote:
>> 
>> > Most telling quote is :-
>> > "Anarchists were due to finalise plans this morning."
>> > 
>> >   Finalising a plan that YOU insist didn't exist
>> 
>> 'Plans' is a plural. 'Plan' is singular. Consider the difference.
> 
> There is none, it's like 'fish' and 'fishes'.


There is. How do you change this sentence so it makes sense:
Alice decided to go to London, Bob decided to eat a burger, their plan
included travel.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 12:11:13 +0100, Steven Hill wrote:


> Well try doing what you're told you whinging waster.


Sir, yes, sir!

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:03:18 +0000, Kev wrote:


>>>Training and arranging their own medics to be there suggests a fairly 
>>>specific plan to me.
>> 
>> Why? Please lead me through your logical deductions.
> 
> Training and arranging people to provide a specific function at an event 
> clearly alludes that said event has been planned in enough details to 
> take into consideration the the attendance of these people.


How does that lead to their being a master plan to march to particular
places along particular routes?


>> I see, the police charge the and they all just go away? It doesn't
>> really work like that.
> 
> I didn't say charge, I said slap them over the head with their riot
> batons.
> 
> The police had enough man power and vehicles about to shove them all
> into the back of vans and cart them off.


Not convinced. I saw plenty of opportunity for the 'rioters' to break the
single file police lines but they didn't.


> point 1 - the protest / march happened regardless of route or greivences
> from both sides it occured. Therefore definition for allowed satisified.


So If I murder someone, the fact that I did it means I was allowed to do
it?


> point 2 - In my eyes the police could have at any time pretty much
> carted the vast majority if not all of the troublemakers off (although
> this would have required alot of force). The fact they didn't implies
> permission at some level. Therefore definition for allowed satisified.


My eyes, which were actually there saw different.


>> You seem to have already decided the brick throwing happened first. The
>> police were just quietly milling about in the street minding their own
>> business when a bunch of anarchists started throwing bricks?
> 
> The police were trying to get a handle on a dangerous situation that had
> sprung up. I'm not sure what they would do that would provoke the
> throwing of a brick?


Cavalry riding into a crowd perhaps?


> The police certainly didn't seem to be equipped with any projectile
> weapons so the hurling of a brick could be construed as an escalation of
> violence regardless of who started it.


True it's an unnecessary escalation. Had the rioters been organised for
this kind of thing they could have scattered the police lines with a
concerted charge. 


>> Hyperbole, the point is that claiming that the protesters had violent
>> intent and therefore should have been restricted is fairly paranoid.
> 
> They were throwing bricks about, shouting abuse and trying to grind
> edinburgh city centre to a halt (even if it was a peaceful protest they
> would have still closed roads etc). In what way should we not see that
> as violent intent?


If someone tries to prevent your movements and you use violence to prevent
them, would that classify as violent intent?


>> On any normal day grab a shield and steel club and go box people into a
>> corner.
> 
> But *I* wasn't using a shield and steel club to box people in. The
> police were. So again your analogy is broken. (analogy 101 won't take
> you long to complete).


*I* wasn't throwing bricks. What's your point?


> If an individual member of the police did randomly do that to someone
> then it would not be tolerated. In the same fashion someone throwing a
> brick at a police officer (or anyone else for that matter) would not be
> tolerated.


But if the police box people in then they're just expected to tolerate it
and not respond in any way?


>> Oh yes, they were only pretend medics. We can only have medics who are
>> officially sanctioned in our streets.
> 
> Yes, thats why we have doctors and official channels. You'd want to be
> medically treated by one of these ad hoc medics? or one of the
> ambulances that were about?


If it was them or nothing, them. They were not intending to replace the
existing emergency services, just act as a supplement.


>> Well again my eyes saw plenty of medics standing at the backs of the
>> crowd looking out for injured. Obviously your magic eyes that can see
>> the entire event through a few pictures in the newspapers saw
>> differently.
> 
> And indymedia only report 'some' medics not all. Could your eyes have
> missed some medics throwing bricks and being carted off by the police?


Yes they could. However, do you have any evidence that they were throwing
bricks.


>> Again my eyes (not some camera lens) saw a guy with blood streaming
>> from his face staggering past police medics and ambulance men ignoring
>> him.
> 
> Fair enough...but we're only getting a snapshot in time. Perhaps he had
> been offered assistance but declined? Perhaps the ambulance people
> wanted him to come to them (so they didn't have to step into the middle
> of any potential conflict) to treat him and he wouldn't?


At this point the police were freely mingling with the crowd without
harassment. Yet another image not considered newsworthy.


> Maybe it was someone elses blood?


It was definitely his blood. 


>> There were plenty of others around taking pictures of what I saw, but
>> none of them seem to have surfaced anywhere.
> 
> Funny that..doesn't that tell you something?
>
> The media would *love* to make this about police nastyness. Just to
> boost up the story. They already made a mountain out of the coverage.


Why? Do you have some telepathic link up with the newspaper editors?


> So if they had these photos they would use them for sure. The fact they
> havn't suggests perhaps that what you saw you mis interpreted?


What I saw is what I saw. If you don't believe I saw what I saw that's
your problem.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:15:27 GMT Zombywuf wrote:

> I do condone violent response to repression of peaceful protest with
> the threat of violence.


So violence against the police is OK as long as you are being
/threatened/ with violent repression? That seems a bit pre-emptive to
me.

This reminded me of an IRC argument about war before Iraq kicked off:

Feb 17 23:18:53 <Zombywuf> All war is bad
Feb 17 23:21:12 <Zombywuf> To be honest my main method of dealing with
anyone wanting a fight with me is to let them hit me, and grin at them

I guess you changed your opinions? :o

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:20:10 GMT Zombywuf wrote:

> There is. How do you change this sentence so it makes sense:
> Alice decided to go to London, Bob decided to eat a burger, their plan
> included travel.


Alice decided to go to London, Bob decided to eat a burger, their plans
included travel.

Either is fine.

On 5 Jul 2005 21:27:33 GMT someone who may be "Ian Johnston"
 wrote this:-


>from which it would appear that the people calling themselves "medics"
>were in fact self taught first aiders at best.


From the site I have already mentioned:

========================================================================

The minimum standards are: 

One of 

First Aid at Work Certificate (HSE Approved) 
OR 2 and a 1/2 day Street Medic Training PLUS CPR 
OR equivalent (eg EF! Wilderness Medical Training 2004) 
And 
CS gas competence 
AND street training / experience 
AND experience or training in working non-hierarchically/with
consensus 

========================================================================

I used to hold one of the first, when I worked in the civil service
and it was a three day course.

Do you think the people with "POLICE MEDIC" written on their clothes
are doctors?



-- 
 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.

Zombywuf's reply hasn't appeared in Google so I'll reply to Steven's
reply.


> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Zombywuf wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 02:19:44 -0700, the_tattie_howker wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe if the protestors had been peaceful, nobody would have got hurt.
> >
> > Maybe if the police had been peaceful nobody would have got hurt.


Where's the evidence they weren't (until provoked)?


> > > They knew they'd get hurt? Seems like they were right from the benches
> > > and bricks those brave protestors were throwing.
> >
> > Maybe the protesters knew they'd get hurt from all the cavalry and steel
> > clubs.


What cavalry charges? Surely you'd have some pics by now?

And the steel clubs were used in response to the 4 by 2s, the benches
and the bricks, from what I can see.

TTH

In article
, Tim
Angus  wrote:


> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:20:10 GMT Zombywuf wrote:
> > There is. How do you change this sentence so it makes sense:
> > Alice decided to go to London, Bob decided to eat a burger, their plan
> > included travel.
> 
> Alice decided to go to London, Bob decided to eat a burger, their plans
> included travel.
> 
> Either is fine.


But may have different meanings.  The first unambiguously means that a
single plan covers all activities; the second may mean that Alice and
Bob had separate, independent plans.

Sam

Sam Wilson wrote:

> In article
> , Tim
> Angus  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:20:10 GMT Zombywuf wrote:
> > > There is. How do you change this sentence so it makes sense:
> > > Alice decided to go to London, Bob decided to eat a burger, their plan
> > > included travel.
> >
> > Alice decided to go to London, Bob decided to eat a burger, their plans
> > included travel.
> >
> > Either is fine.
>
> But may have different meanings.  The first unambiguously means that a
> single plan covers all activities; the second may mean that Alice and
> Bob had separate, independent plans.


Both have different meaning. However, if there is a relationship or
co-ordination between the plans then it would be justifiable to say
there is one plan.

It seems as if the various 'anarchists' mutually picked the same day to
protest  on. Is this claimed to be spontaneous or one group following
another?

Either way, there is no reason for any of the groups not to have
contacted the authorities. 

TTH

> Sam

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:49:21 +0100 Sam wrote:

> But may have different meanings.  The first unambiguously means that a
> single plan covers all activities; the second may mean that Alice and
> Bob had separate, independent plans.


Depends on the context really. In any case it's a minor point designed
to swerve the issue.

In article
, Tim
Angus  wrote:


> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:49:21 +0100 Sam wrote:
> > But may have different meanings.  The first unambiguously means that a
> > single plan covers all activities; the second may mean that Alice and
> > Bob had separate, independent plans.
> 
> Depends on the context really. In any case it's a minor point designed
> to swerve the issue.


Dunno - I'm not following the main debate here, part of it just seemed
to be depending on the difference between "plan" and "plans", and that
difference could be significant.

Sam

"Zombywuf"  wrote in message
news:pan.2005.07.05.18.28.26.388039@zombywuf.org...


> The plan was bring instruments to the west end of Princes St. and kick
> back and have fun for the afternoon. The Police must have been aware of
> this otherwise all the out of town police would have gone home on Sunday.


What sor of 'fun' was this to be? As far as can be seen, their idea of fun
is running riot.

AF

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 05:04:46 -0700, the_tattie_howker wrote:


> Zombywuf's reply hasn't appeared in Google so I'll reply to Steven's
> reply.
> 
>> > Maybe if the police had been peaceful nobody would have got hurt.
> 
> Where's the evidence they weren't (until provoked)?


Where's the evidence the anarchists weren't until provoked?


>> > Maybe the protesters knew they'd get hurt from all the cavalry and
>> > steel clubs.
> 
> What cavalry charges? Surely you'd have some pics by now?
> 
> And the steel clubs were used in response to the 4 by 2s, the benches
> and the bricks, from what I can see.


You were there? Or are you deducing an entire sequence of events from some
static photos?

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:41:46 +0000, Tim Angus wrote:


> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:15:27 GMT Zombywuf wrote:
>> I do condone violent response to repression of peaceful protest with
>> the threat of violence.
> 
> So violence against the police is OK as long as you are being
> /threatened/ with violent repression? That seems a bit pre-emptive to
> me.


Repressed with the threat of violence is different to threatened with
violent repression. If I pointed a gun at you I'd be repressing you with
the threat of violence. If I said I'd beat you if you pissed me off I'd be
threatening to violently repress you.


> This reminded me of an IRC argument about war before Iraq kicked off:
> 
> Feb 17 23:18:53 <Zombywuf> All war is bad
> Feb 17 23:21:12 <Zombywuf> To be honest my main method of dealing with
> anyone wanting a fight with me is to let them hit me, and grin at them
> 
> I guess you changed your opinions? :o


There's a bit of a difference between being attacked by people who are
armed and people who are not armed. Obviously if I obsessively saved all
my IRC logs I could quote you out of context to make you look like a
warmongering zealot. Hell, there are probably a lot of things I could make
you look like.

"Zombywuf"  wrote in message
news:pan.2005.07.06.14.39.55.757871@zombywuf.org...


> Where's the evidence the anarchists weren't until provoked?
>
> You were there? Or are you deducing an entire sequence of events from some
> static photos?


Here's a relevant question: what age are you?

AF

Zombywuf wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 05:04:46 -0700, the_tattie_howker wrote:
>
> > Zombywuf's reply hasn't appeared in Google so I'll reply to Steven's
> > reply.
> >
> >> > Maybe if the police had been peaceful nobody would have got hurt.
> >
> > Where's the evidence they weren't (until provoked)?
>
> Where's the evidence the anarchists weren't until provoked?


Well I hardly think that the police started demolishing public property
(often quite sentimental property in the cases of those benches some
folk have invested in emotionally and financially) and lobbing it in
the first place. Are you really defending that behaviour and saying
that a police charge would have justified such behaviour?

I'm sorry but in my book, when the police turn on you, you get out of
the way and let the cameras inform folk what happened. You don't put
the boot back in. If that's what happened.


> >> > Maybe the protesters knew they'd get hurt from all the cavalry and
> >> > steel clubs.
> >
> > What cavalry charges? Surely you'd have some pics by now?
> >
> > And the steel clubs were used in response to the 4 by 2s, the benches
> > and the bricks, from what I can see.
>
> You were there? Or are you deducing an entire sequence of events from some
> static photos?


Not static photos, dynamic ones, the sort they show in newsreels and
newscasts.

There were no cavalry charges shown. Over to you to show there were.

TTH

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:34:47 +0000, Tim Angus wrote:


> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:49:21 +0100 Sam wrote:
>> But may have different meanings.  The first unambiguously means that a
>> single plan covers all activities; the second may mean that Alice and
>> Bob had separate, independent plans.
> 
> Depends on the context really. In any case it's a minor point designed
> to swerve the issue.


Well it seems that everyone seems to be assuming there was a grand master
plan that could be presented to the police.

Zombywuf  writes:


> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:34:47 +0000, Tim Angus wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:49:21 +0100 Sam wrote:
> >> But may have different meanings.  The first unambiguously means that a
> >> single plan covers all activities; the second may mean that Alice and
> >> Bob had separate, independent plans.
> > 
> > Depends on the context really. In any case it's a minor point designed
> > to swerve the issue.
> 
> Well it seems that everyone seems to be assuming there was a grand
> master plan that could be presented to the police.


No, you made that idea up all by yourself, so you could deny it.

-- 
leaving me to dangle like a yo-yo in your hand

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:00:14 +0000, Andrew Feldham wrote:


> "Zombywuf"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.07.06.14.39.55.757871@zombywuf.org...
> 
>> Where's the evidence the anarchists weren't until provoked?
>>
>> You were there? Or are you deducing an entire sequence of events from some
>> static photos?
> 
> Here's a relevant question: what age are you?


23, you?

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 14:47:36 GMT Zombywuf wrote:

> Repressed with the threat of violence is different to threatened with
> violent repression. If I pointed a gun at you I'd be repressing you
> with the threat of violence. If I said I'd beat you if you pissed me
> off I'd be threatening to violently repress you.


I don't know why you do this. It's so pointless. You're just twisting
words instead of addressing the question. I'll rephrase:

So violence against the police is OK as long as you are being repressed
with the /threat/ of violence? That seems a bit pre-emptive to me.


> There's a bit of a difference between being attacked by people who are
> armed and people who are not armed. Obviously if I obsessively saved
> all my IRC logs I could quote you out of context to make you look like
> a warmongering zealot. Hell, there are probably a lot of things I
> could make you look like.


Sorry, I just found your apparent sanctioning of violence a bit strange
as I believed, evidently wrongly, that you were a pacifist. I could have
just said "I remember you saying on IRC that you don't approve of
violence", but then you would have said "When, show me the evidence?"
etc. etc. You're a very frustrating person to discuss things with since
you don't seem to take on board anybody else's opinions or views at all.
It's as if you see usenet/mailing list/irc discussions as a game that
you have to win rather than what they are... just discussions. Perhaps
your unconscious mind forces you to troll, but without you consciously
believing you're doing so.

It's just advice, but I think people would take you somewhat more
seriously if you weren't perpetually defensive about... everything.
Having the humility to admit you're wrong[*] from time to time goes a
long way to inforcing your credibility.

[*] Disclaimer: Not implying you're wrong on anything specific

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 08:01:44 -0700, the_tattie_howker wrote:


> I'm sorry but in my book, when the police turn on you, you get out of
> the way and let the cameras inform folk what happened. You don't put
> the boot back in. If that's what happened.


If the police charge and you're trapped on three sides by iron railings
and a steep slope on the forth, then what do you do?


>> You were there? Or are you deducing an entire sequence of events from
>> some static photos?
> 
> Not static photos, dynamic ones, the sort they show in newsreels and
> newscasts.
> 
> There were no cavalry charges shown. Over to you to show there were.


There are no pictures of my being there but I was. What's your point?
There are photos of police horses among protesters that have been posted
here several times, make of them what you will. I've already made my
opinions clear on what I think of the photographic evidence presented
(i.e. that any mind reading the camera is doing is purely in the viewers
imagination) and presenting any on my part would be quite hypocritical.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:07:45 +0100, August West wrote:


> No, you made that idea up all by yourself, so you could deny it.


So the anarchists should not have been expected to show their plan to the
police?

Zombywuf wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 08:01:44 -0700, the_tattie_howker wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry but in my book, when the police turn on you, you get out of
> > the way and let the cameras inform folk what happened. You don't put
> > the boot back in. If that's what happened.
>
> If the police charge and you're trapped on three sides by iron railings
> and a steep slope on the forth, then what do you do?


Why were you protesting in the gardens again? Are you sure you weren't
chased there?


> >> You were there? Or are you deducing an entire sequence of events from
> >> some static photos?
> >
> > Not static photos, dynamic ones, the sort they show in newsreels and
> > newscasts.
> >
> > There were no cavalry charges shown. Over to you to show there were.
>
> There are no pictures of my being there but I was. What's your point?
> There are photos of police horses among protesters that have been posted
> here several times, make of them what you will.


And that constitutes a charge does it?


> I've already made my
> opinions clear on what I think of the photographic evidence presented
> (i.e. that any mind reading the camera is doing is purely in the viewers
> imagination) and presenting any on my part would be quite hypocritical.


Sorry but the film shows a different story. It may be that its been
selectively edited, in which case you protestors need to have someone
filming live footage. But that aside, it certainly looks like the
'protestors' were the aggressive ones in this sorry affair. If you want
to convince me otherwise, you will have to produce the evidence.

TTH

Zombywuf  writes:


> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:07:45 +0100, August West wrote:
> 
> > No, you made that idea up all by yourself, so you could deny it.
> 
> So the anarchists should not have been expected to show their plan
> to the police?


I absolutely have no idea where that question comes from. But anyway,
if they wanted to have a demonstration, their whacko ideas do not
absolve them of the same responisiblities that all other demonstration
organisers have. And that is to liase with, and show their plans to,
the police, and local authorities.

-- 
I don't want to drown in someone else's wine

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:15:29 +0000, Tim Angus wrote:


> So violence against the police is OK as long as you are being repressed
> with the /threat/ of violence?


Yes, I think it is, assuming of course the police are the ones doing the
threatening.


> That seems a bit pre-emptive to me.


If you want twist the logic all out of context.


>> There's a bit of a difference between being attacked by people who are
>> armed and people who are not armed. Obviously if I obsessively saved
>> all my IRC logs I could quote you out of context to make you look like
>> a warmongering zealot. Hell, there are probably a lot of things I could
>> make you look like.
> 
> Sorry, I just found your apparent sanctioning of violence a bit strange
> as I believed, evidently wrongly, that you were a pacifist. I could have
> just said "I remember you saying on IRC that you don't approve of
> violence", but then you would have said "When, show me the evidence?"
> etc. etc.


All I can say is that in this case I wouldn't. I would simply refer to the
incident in question, I was pretty sure you'd bring it up.


> You're a very frustrating person to discuss things with since
> you don't seem to take on board anybody else's opinions or views at all.
> It's as if you see usenet/mailing list/irc discussions as a game that
> you have to win rather than what they are... just discussions. Perhaps
> your unconscious mind forces you to troll, but without you consciously
> believing you're doing so.


I just find it very hard to stand by and watch vast numbers of people --
some of them friends of mine - and myself, insulted for acts for the most
part they didn't commit. If that offends you I'm sorry.

soup  wrote:


> ASIDE:- How can anarchists be on an "organised" march?


Anarchists are against government, not necessarily against organisation.

FoFP

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:38:44 GMT Zombywuf wrote:

> Yes, I think it is, assuming of course the police are the ones doing
> the threatening.


So to put it in more general terms, in some circumstances, you feel that
violence is justified?


> > That seems a bit pre-emptive to me.
> 
> If you want twist the logic all out of context.


I'm not sure what you mean.

1. Police repress protest with the threat of violence.
2. Protestors respond by violently assaulting the police pre-emptively.
3. Police repress protest violently.

What's illogical/out of context about that?

It's my opinion that in a physical conflict (of any scale) he who casts
the first (non-metaphoric) stone is wrong.


> > Sorry, I just found your apparent sanctioning of violence a bit
> > strange as I believed, evidently wrongly, that you were a pacifist.
> > I could have just said "I remember you saying on IRC that you don't
> > approve of violence", but then you would have said "When, show me
> > the evidence?" etc. etc.
> 
> All I can say is that in this case I wouldn't. I would simply refer to
> the incident in question, I was pretty sure you'd bring it up.


So you're not a pacifist then?


> I just find it very hard to stand by and watch vast numbers of people
> -- some of them friends of mine - and myself, insulted for acts for
> the most part they didn't commit. If that offends you I'm sorry.


This is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not for a second suggesting
you had anything personally to do with the violence, yet you defensively
assume I am condemning you all. The only people I have trouble with is
those that went there to cause a shit storm. What I don't get is on the
one hand you're saying "it wasn't a single group, why are you lumping
everybody together?", then on the other hand you don't seem to be
castigating the group/people that did cause trouble.

"Zombywuf"  wrote in message
news:pan.2005.07.06.15.12.33.95640@zombywuf.org...


> > Here's a relevant question: what age are you?
>
> 23, you?


I'm askingthe questions for the meantime. I'll answer yours in due course

What do you do for a living?

AF

"Zombywuf"  wrote in message
news:pan.2005.07.06.15.17.11.136059@zombywuf.org...


> If the police charge and you're trapped on three sides by iron railings
> and a steep slope on the forth, then what do you do?


Accept that you're fucked, I should imagine. Maybe you should also do a bit
of reflecting as to the stupidity of your actions. That and some regret.


> There are photos of police horses among protesters that have been posted
> here several times, make of them what you will.


What would you suggest the police should do with their horses if noit pout
them into crowds? Train them to talk and get them to use harsh language?


> I've already made my opinions clear on what I think of the photographic

evidence presented

No, I think you made up your mind a long time ago.

Besides...do I detect a sneaky little untruth creeping in here? Why do you
need the 'photographic evidence presented' if you claim to have been there?

AF

"Zombywuf"  wrote in message
news:pan.2005.07.06.15.38.41.883057@zombywuf.org...


> > So violence against the police is OK as long as you are being repressed
> > with the /threat/ of violence?
>
> Yes, I think it is, assuming of course the police are the ones doing the
> threatening.


And do the police threaten you for no reason *at all*?

AF

"M Holmes"  wrote in message
news:daguso$933$3@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...


> Anarchists are against government, not necessarily against organisation.


Anarchists appear to be against just about anything you care to mention,
just as long as it gets them noticed.

AF

"Andrew Feldham"  writes:


> "M Holmes"  wrote in message
> news:daguso$933$3@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> 
> > Anarchists are against government, not necessarily against organisation.
> 
> Anarchists appear to be against just about anything you care to mention,
> just as long as it gets them noticed.


The so-called "anarchists" in black seem to be little more than
political todlers throwing their toys out of the pram in a tantrum
against horid mummy.

-- 
don't wanna be treated this way

Andrew Feldham  wrote:

> "M Holmes"  wrote in message
> news:daguso$933$3@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...

>> Anarchists are against government, not necessarily against organisation.

> Anarchists appear to be against just about anything you care to mention,
> just as long as it gets them noticed.


As I've pointed out several times, the word "anarchist" is almost
certainly being widely misused.

FoFP

Zombywuf wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:03:18 +0000, Kev wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>Training and arranging their own medics to be there suggests a fairly 
>>>>specific plan to me.
>>>
>>>Why? Please lead me through your logical deductions.
>>
>>Training and arranging people to provide a specific function at an event 
>>clearly alludes that said event has been planned in enough details to 
>>take into consideration the the attendance of these people.
> 
> 
> How does that lead to their being a master plan to march to particular
> places along particular routes?
> 


who said the plan was about particular routes and places?
perhaps the plan was to spread out and cause as much disruption as possible


>>>I see, the police charge the and they all just go away? It doesn't
>>>really work like that.
>>
>>I didn't say charge, I said slap them over the head with their riot
>>batons.
>>
>>The police had enough man power and vehicles about to shove them all
>>into the back of vans and cart them off.
> 
> 
> Not convinced. I saw plenty of opportunity for the 'rioters' to break the
> single file police lines but they didn't.
> 
> 
>>point 1 - the protest / march happened regardless of route or greivences
>>from both sides it occured. Therefore definition for allowed satisified.
> 
> 
> So If I murder someone, the fact that I did it means I was allowed to do
> it?
> 
> 
>>point 2 - In my eyes the police could have at any time pretty much
>>carted the vast majority if not all of the troublemakers off (although
>>this would have required alot of force). The fact they didn't implies
>>permission at some level. Therefore definition for allowed satisified.
> 
> 
> My eyes, which were actually there saw different.
> 
> 
>>>You seem to have already decided the brick throwing happened first. The
>>>police were just quietly milling about in the street minding their own
>>>business when a bunch of anarchists started throwing bricks?
>>
>>The police were trying to get a handle on a dangerous situation that had
>>sprung up. I'm not sure what they would do that would provoke the
>>throwing of a brick?
> 
> 
> Cavalry riding into a crowd perhaps?
> 
> 
>>The police certainly didn't seem to be equipped with any projectile
>>weapons so the hurling of a brick could be construed as an escalation of
>>violence regardless of who started it.
> 
> 
> True it's an unnecessary escalation. Had the rioters been organised for
> this kind of thing they could have scattered the police lines with a
> concerted charge. 
> 
> 
>>>Hyperbole, the point is that claiming that the protesters had violent
>>>intent and therefore should have been restricted is fairly paranoid.
>>
>>They were throwing bricks about, shouting abuse and trying to grind
>>edinburgh city centre to a halt (even if it was a peaceful protest they
>>would have still closed roads etc). In what way should we not see that
>>as violent intent?
> 
> 
> If someone tries to prevent your movements and you use violence to prevent
> them, would that classify as violent intent?
> 
> 
>>>On any normal day grab a shield and steel club and go box people into a
>>>corner.
>>
>>But *I* wasn't using a shield and steel club to box people in. The
>>police were. So again your analogy is broken. (analogy 101 won't take
>>you long to complete).
> 
> 
> *I* wasn't throwing bricks. What's your point?
> 
> 
>>If an individual member of the police did randomly do that to someone
>>then it would not be tolerated. In the same fashion someone throwing a
>>brick at a police officer (or anyone else for that matter) would not be
>>tolerated.
> 
> 
> But if the police box people in then they're just expected to tolerate it
> and not respond in any way?
> 
> 
>>>Oh yes, they were only pretend medics. We can only have medics who are
>>>officially sanctioned in our streets.
>>
>>Yes, thats why we have doctors and official channels. You'd want to be
>>medically treated by one of these ad hoc medics? or one of the
>>ambulances that were about?
> 
> 
> If it was them or nothing, them. They were not intending to replace the
> existing emergency services, just act as a supplement.
> 
> 
>>>Well again my eyes saw plenty of medics standing at the backs of the
>>>crowd looking out for injured. Obviously your magic eyes that can see
>>>the entire event through a few pictures in the newspapers saw
>>>differently.
>>
>>And indymedia only report 'some' medics not all. Could your eyes have
>>missed some medics throwing bricks and being carted off by the police?
> 
> 
> Yes they could. However, do you have any evidence that they were throwing
> bricks.
> 
> 
>>>Again my eyes (not some camera lens) saw a guy with blood streaming
>>>from his face staggering past police medics and ambulance men ignoring
>>>him.
>>
>>Fair enough...but we're only getting a snapshot in time. Perhaps he had
>>been offered assistance but declined? Perhaps the ambulance people
>>wanted him to come to them (so they didn't have to step into the middle
>>of any potential conflict) to treat him and he wouldn't?
> 
> 
> At this point the police were freely mingling with the crowd without
> harassment. Yet another image not considered newsworthy.
> 
> 
>>Maybe it was someone elses blood?
> 
> 
> It was definitely his blood. 
> 
> 
>>>There were plenty of others around taking pictures of what I saw, but
>>>none of them seem to have surfaced anywhere.
>>
>>Funny that..doesn't that tell you something?
>>
>>The media would *love* to make this about police nastyness. Just to
>>boost up the story. They already made a mountain out of the coverage.
> 
> 
> Why? Do you have some telepathic link up with the newspaper editors?
> 
> 
>>So if they had these photos they would use them for sure. The fact they
>>havn't suggests perhaps that what you saw you mis interpreted?
> 
> 
> What I saw is what I saw. If you don't believe I saw what I saw that's
> your problem.

"M Holmes"  wrote@

> As I've pointed out several times, the word "anarchist" is almost
> certainly being widely misused.


Definitely. Some so-called anarchists are actually nihilists. Most of them, 
though, are happy with the prosperity they and the country has achieved 
thanks to capitalism and are satsifying their desires for violence and 
anti-authority thrills.

In article <CRVye.121691$Vj3.28344@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk> steve.christie@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk wrote...


> > As I've pointed out several times, the word "anarchist" is almost
> > certainly being widely misused.
>
> Definitely. Some so-called anarchists are actually nihilists.


And some are proto-crypto-nihilists.

However, they're all arseholes.

Mike Dickson, Edinburgh, Scotland

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:04:05 UTC, David Hansen 
 wrote:


> AND street training / experience 
> AND experience or training in working non-hierarchically/with
> consensus 


Are those bits supposed to mean anything, do you suppose?

Ian

--

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 09:47:40 UTC, Zombywuf  
wrote:


> Prove it. You said yourself the when the police left the atmosphere was
> calm and people just mingled.


And when the fire brigade aren't around, houses don't burn down. 
Proving that the fire brigade cause fires.

Ian

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 09:40:24 UTC, Zombywuf  
wrote:


> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 23:41:39 +0100, Steven Hill wrote:
> 
> > If this were a football match crowd, this would have been dealt with
> > swiftly and surely within 30 minutes. I can't believe your whines of "it's
> > so unfair" and "the police are bad men" are continuing.
> 
> I can't believe people are whining they couldn't get to the shops.


I thought you were against arbitrary restriction of movement?

Ian
--

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 15:25:03 UTC, Zombywuf  
wrote:


> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 16:07:45 +0100, August West wrote:
> 
> > No, you made that idea up all by yourself, so you could deny it.
> 
> So the anarchists should not have been expected to show their plan to the
> police?


What anarchists?

Ian

"Zombywuf"  wrote in message
news:pan.2005.07.06.11.20.08.672225@zombywuf.org...

> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:02:50 +0000, Tim Angus wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 10:45:01 GMT Zombywuf wrote:
> >> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 09:26:06 +0000, soup wrote:
> >>
> >> > Most telling quote is :-
> >> > "Anarchists were due to finalise plans this morning."
> >> >
> >> >   Finalising a plan that YOU insist didn't exist
> >>
> >> 'Plans' is a plural. 'Plan' is singular. Consider the difference.
> >
> > There is none, it's like 'fish' and 'fishes'.
>
> There is. How do you change this sentence so it makes sense:
> Alice decided to go to London, Bob decided to eat a burger, their plan
> included travel.


Alice decided to go to London.  Bob decided to eat a burger. Their plans
included travel.

Easy!

Tamzin

"Sam Wilson"  wrote in message
news:060720051449111254%Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk...

> In article
> , Tim
> Angus  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:49:21 +0100 Sam wrote:
> > > But may have different meanings.  The first unambiguously means that a
> > > single plan covers all activities; the second may mean that Alice and
> > > Bob had separate, independent plans.
> >
> > Depends on the context really. In any case it's a minor point designed
> > to swerve the issue.
>
> Dunno - I'm not following the main debate here, part of it just seemed
> to be depending on the difference between "plan" and "plans", and that
> difference could be significant.


Whether Alice and Bob planned in conjunction or separately is ambiguous
whichever of "plan" or "plans" is used in the sentence.

Tamzin

"Zombywuf"  wrote in message
news:pan.2005.07.06.09.36.29.81158@zombywuf.org...

> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:50:24 +0100, August West wrote:
>
> > Nope. No-one had "total and absolute control over who was turning up
> > and what they planned to do" of the NPF demo on Saturday, either.
> > Short of the military discipline, nothing ever runs under "total and
> > absolute control", so your point is utterly specious. And amounts to
> > little more than wriggling to throw the blame of the rioters'
> > shoulders.
>
> You are having a very hard time grasping the concept of a loose
> association of individuals aren't you? A bunch of people with loosely
> similar goals turned up at the same place, each with their own idea of
> what they were doing there. How on earth could anyone have told the police
> what each and every group planned to do?


If they really were so bloody vague then they had no business holding their
meeting and they merited the full force of the law to disperse them.  If
they had all just wandered around in a big group without trying to
intimidate workers and block off roads then no-one would have had any right
to detain them  However their "loose" goals appeared to include loud music
and noise (anyone doing this may be stopped by police if causing a
disturbance), blockading the buildings of "evil capitalist"companies and
imprisoning the workforce inside, harassing people trying to get to and from
work and blockading roads in and out of the city.  As no-one is allowed to
do such things without prior consent from the appropriate authorities (or
ever in the case of imprisonment and harassment of fellow human beings) I
feel that these groups were clearly breaking the law and deserved the
treatment meted out by police in an attempt to stop them.  If you want to
hold a protest that disrupts a city to that extent then you need plans
robust enough to be considered and passed by the appropraite authorities.
If not then you are utterly irresponsible to even be thinking about such a
mass meeting.  Almost as irresponsible, in fact, as Bob Geldof when he
called for a million to come to Edinburgh with no clear plan of action.


> > You're seriously suggesting the police should have gone out to look for
> > that? And then *trusted* it? Get real. They want plans, and people they
> > can liase with, before hand, and then on the ground, so they can take
> > action if, or when, things go wrong. In the absence of both, they have
> > to assume, and plan for, the worst. Or do you really believe they should
> > have let large gangs of people with, as you yourself say, many disparate
> > (and unknown) goals, wander round the town at whim?
>
> Yes, this happens all the time. Mostly the disparate groups of people have
> the vague goal of shopping.


As I stated above if this was all the groups concerned had tried to do on
Monday then no-one would have bothered them.  Have you never heard of the
idea (aka basic consideration of others) that you may do as you wish so long
as it doesn't have a disproportionate ill effect on other people.

Tamzin

"the_tattie_howker"  wrote in message
news:1120645935.854555.237110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

>
>
> Zombywuf wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 23:41:39 +0100, Steven Hill wrote:
> >
> > > If this were a football match crowd, this would have been dealt with
> > > swiftly and surely within 30 minutes. I can't believe your whines of
"it's
> > > so unfair" and "the police are bad men" are continuing.
> >
> > I can't believe people are whining they couldn't get to the shops.
>
> Why doe your (hooligans) idea of fun take precidence over some people's
> desire to shop? Even if you claim the capitalists are hurting people,
> the hooligans are no better.


And what if the "peaceful protestors" had succeeded in blockading roads in
and out of the city?  Would you find it hard to understand why someone was
"whining" because they couldn't get to the hospital in Fife where their
father was dying of a stroke?  I know someone who was almost put in this
position - in fact he had no difficulty with getting there but the strain of
worrying about whether he might not added considerably to the stress of his
father dying.

If you think such individual circumstances are trivial in the face of the
global problems we face may I remind you that these global problems are all
made up of individual people, each with their own "trivial" tragedies.
Looking for solutions that take no account of these individual concerns
leads to failure because people will not co-operate with plans and programs
that ignore their emotional needs and "trival" attachments to other people,
animals, land, beliefs and property.  At the most basic level that is why
attempts at communism have failed so far.  The instigators wanted a fairer
system but they tried to make people conform to an ideal of behavious rather
than as human nature dictated.  it is impossible to legislate away the human
desire to form attachments, to acquire security and possessions and to
question what they are taught.

Tamzin

"Ian Johnston"  wrote in message
news:dzZo7CxomoOm-pn2-1XVvE8TDl8dp@localhost...

> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:04:05 UTC, David Hansen
>  wrote:
>
> > AND street training / experience
> > AND experience or training in working non-hierarchically/with
> > consensus
>
> Are those bits supposed to mean anything, do you suppose?
>


Just the sort of sel-inportant claptrap with which these groups are rife.
They mean absolutely nothing at all.

Tamzin

"Zombywuf"  wrote in message
news:pan.2005.07.06.11.15.26.432058@zombywuf.org...

> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:00:00 +0000, Tim Angus wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 10:39:14 GMT Zombywuf wrote:
> >> A number of plans from different groups of people with different aims.
> >> It's quite simple really.
> >
> > And yet all in the same place...
> >
> > I don't really understand what you're arguing about anymore to be
> > honest.
>
> That's because everyone is accusing me of different things. I'm arguing
> that there was no plan for everyone attending to march to a particular
> place, or to march along particular routes. As such there was no way they
> could liaise with the police to identify a route. Being confined to a
> particular route would have gone against the grain of what everyone was
> there for.


So you believe that any group should be able to evade the need to plan and
get permission for a march (or whatever other name they wish to call it) on
the ground that this goes against the ethos of the group.  And that because
of this self-proclaimed immunity to the normal rules governing marches, said
group should thus be allowed to hold spontaneous protest events on a whim
whenever and wherever they like?  Well I guess that every group in the
country would suddenly declare that its ethos doen't allow it to make
concrete plans and we shall then be inundated with their spontaneous marches
at extremely short notice.  Imagine how disruptive that would be.  Luckily
the law applies to everyone whether it goes against their ethos or not.  As
far as I am concerned all of those participating on Monday, peaceful
protestor and anarchists alike, were engaged on an illegal activity and thus
deserved to have it dispersed.  that a minority amongst the protestors took
violent issue at this is unfortunate because the peaceful ones were caught
up in the crossfire.  However those peaceful ones were knowingly
participating in al illegal march so they really should have realised the
implications instead of acting injured about it.


>
> I do condone anarchist protest. I do not condone violent protest. I do
> condone violent response to repression of peaceful protest with the threat
> of violence. The police did move in and contain people long before any
> violence occurred.


So even if the police had only threatened violence in suppressing this
illegal march you would condone the protestors taking violent action?  This
is why most people feel that the protestors are to blame.  From my point of
view the protestors were participating in an illegal march and they were
caught in the act by police.  They therefore should expect at the very least
to be detained and dispersed if not arrested.  Substitute any other crime
into that scenario.  Would you still feel it appropriate for a thief or an
embezzler run to earth by the police to react violently when they moved in
to contain and arrest him?  Why, in your opinion, are those on illegal
marches to be treated differently from ordinary crimnals caught in the act?

Tamzin

"Zombywuf"  wrote in message
news:pan.2005.07.06.15.38.41.883057@zombywuf.org...

> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:15:29 +0000, Tim Angus wrote:
>
> > So violence against the police is OK as long as you are being repressed
> > with the /threat/ of violence?
>
> Yes, I think it is, assuming of course the police are the ones doing the
> threatening.


So if the protestors are threatening violence to the police, the police are
not allowed to react but if the police are threatening violence then it's OK
for the protestors to react violently.  That's hardly an equitable way of
dealing with the situation is it.  How bloody biased can you get?

Tamzin

"Zombywuf"  wrote in message
news:pan.2005.07.06.09.59.29.65657@zombywuf.org...

> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:54:53 +0100, Tamzin wrote:
>
> > If they don't have plans then they have no legal right to march.  The
law
> > states that all protest marches must get clearance from the council and
from
> > the police.  If you do not your protest is illegal.  End of Story.
>
> Ever walked down the street in a group of more than three people, because
> you need clearance for that as well.


Where does the legislation state this?   As I have already mentioned
elsewhere if the protestors had simply walked down the street in groups of
three or more without causing disruption to others then no-one would have
tried to stop them.  The fact is that this was not their aim.

Tamzin

Tamzin wrote:


> And what if the "peaceful protestors" had succeeded in blockading
> roads in and out of the city?  Would you find it hard to understand
> why someone was "whining" because they couldn't get to the hospital
> in Fife where their father was dying of a stroke?  I know someone who
> was almost put in this position - in fact he had no difficulty with
> getting there but the strain of worrying about whether he might not
> added considerably to the stress of his father dying.
>
> If you think such individual circumstances are trivial in the face of
> the global problems we face may I remind you that these global
> problems are all made up of individual people, each with their own
> "trivial" tragedies. Looking for solutions that take no account of
> these individual concerns leads to failure because people will not
> co-operate with plans and programs that ignore their emotional needs
> and "trival" attachments to other people, animals, land, beliefs and
> property.  At the most basic level that is why attempts at communism
> have failed so far.  The instigators wanted a fairer system but they
> tried to make people conform to an ideal of behavious rather than as
> human nature dictated.  it is impossible to legislate away the human
> desire to form attachments, to acquire security and possessions and
> to question what they are taught.
>
> Tamzin


Tamzin a lot of the (lurking) time I find my self not agreeing with you
or rather some of the sentiments you post but that statement seems to
sum up my feelings in a oneer, well done.

-- 
yours S

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 22:43:15 UTC, "Tamzin" 
 wrote:


> As I stated above if this was all the groups concerned had tried to do on
> Monday then no-one would have bothered them.  Have you never heard of the
> idea (aka basic consideration of others) that you may do as you wish so long
> as it doesn't have a disproportionate ill effect on other people.


I saw a group of about a hundred or so walking down South Clerk Street
yesterday. The police were escorting tham at a discreet distance, the 
disruption caused was minimal and nobody really seemed to care. Or 
offer any support, either, but then how many people would trust a 
bunch of grubby young losers to solve the world's problems?

Ian 


--

Ian Johnston wrote:
  Or offer any support, either, but then how many people would trust a

> bunch of grubby young losers to solve the world's problems?
> 
> Ian 


Not just gyl. Given that world solutions have to come from a world 
forum, there is little that will be achieved given the hidden agenda, 
prejudices and selfishness of the members of the EU. This is what causes 
frustration to the young and those who see simplistic answers who cannot 
understand why nothing changes or, if it does, at a very slow pace and 
in a limited manner. Whatever is decided at G8 isn't worth a hill of 
beans until it has - maybe - worked its way through EU.

Norma wrote:

> Ian Johnston wrote:
>  Or offer any support, either, but then how many people would trust a
> 
>> bunch of grubby young losers to solve the world's problems?
>>
>> Ian 
> 
> 
> Not just gyl. Given that world solutions have to come from a world 
> forum, there is little that will be achieved given the hidden agenda, 
> prejudices and selfishness of the members of the EU. This is what causes 
> frustration to the young and those who see simplistic answers who cannot 
> understand why nothing changes or, if it does, at a very slow pace and 
> in a limited manner. Whatever is decided at G8 isn't worth a hill of 
> beans until it has - maybe - worked its way through EU.
> 
> 

OOPS - for 'EU', please read 'UN' - sorry guys

On 6 Jul 2005 21:42:03 GMT someone who may be "Ian Johnston"
 wrote this:-


>> AND street training / experience 
>> AND experience or training in working non-hierarchically/with
>> consensus 
>
>Are those bits supposed to mean anything, do you suppose?


I have no precise idea, not having discussed it with them. I can
vaguely see what they are getting at with regard to the former. The
latter is fairly obvious.


-- 
 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 <dzZo7CxomoOm-pn2-1XVvE8TDl8dp@localhost>, Ian Johnston
 wrote:


> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:04:05 UTC, David Hansen 
>  wrote:
> 
> > AND street training / experience 
> > AND experience or training in working non-hierarchically/with
> > consensus 
> 
> Are those bits supposed to mean anything, do you suppose?


I can't speak for the author(s) of those bits, but I've been in one
organisation and had contact with at least one other[1] which worked
non-hierarchically and consensually.   At their best they work well;
over divisive issues they can approach stalemate fairly quickly.  To
work they require members to be committed to the consensual approach.

Sam


[1] The Woodcraft Folk and the Bruderhof respectively.  In theory the
IETF tries to work consensually, though it's definitely hierarchical -
its unofficial motto is "rough consensus and running code".

In article <dahlth$ia0$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Tamzin
 wrote:


> "Sam Wilson"  wrote in message
> news:060720051449111254%Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk...
> > In article
> > , Tim
> > Angus  wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:49:21 +0100 Sam wrote:
> > > > But may have different meanings.  The first unambiguously means that a
> > > > single plan covers all activities; the second may mean that Alice and
> > > > Bob had separate, independent plans.
> > >
> > > Depends on the context really. In any case it's a minor point designed
> > > to swerve the issue.
> >
> > Dunno - I'm not following the main debate here, part of it just seemed
> > to be depending on the difference between "plan" and "plans", and that
> > difference could be significant.
> 
> Whether Alice and Bob planned in conjunction or separately is ambiguous
> whichever of "plan" or "plans" is used in the sentence.


So you're saying that your next arrangement to go horse riding and mine
to play at a ceilidh in Leith in September are a single plan?

Sam

> > Whether Alice and Bob planned in conjunction or separately is ambiguous
> > whichever of "plan" or "plans" is used in the sentence.
>
> So you're saying that your next arrangement to go horse riding and mine
> to play at a ceilidh in Leith in September are a single plan?


It's all part of the TOP SECRET master plan.

Wooooooooooo!

-- 
Steven Hill

"There must be something on this thing for that thing!"
                                - Homer Simpson, The Simpsons

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 11:15:59 +0100 someone who may be Steven Hill
 wrote this:-


>It's all part of the TOP SECRET master plan.


Co-ordinated from the mind-control transmitter on Braid Hills:-)


-- 
 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.

"Sam Wilson"  wrote in message
news:070720051109437422%Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk...

> In article <dahlth$ia0$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Tamzin
>  wrote:
>
> > "Sam Wilson"  wrote in message
> > news:060720051449111254%Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk...
> > > In article
> > > , Tim
> > > Angus  wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:49:21 +0100 Sam wrote:
> > > > > But may have different meanings.  The first unambiguously means
that a
> > > > > single plan covers all activities; the second may mean that Alice
and
> > > > > Bob had separate, independent plans.
> > > >
> > > > Depends on the context really. In any case it's a minor point
designed
> > > > to swerve the issue.
> > >
> > > Dunno - I'm not following the main debate here, part of it just seemed
> > > to be depending on the difference between "plan" and "plans", and that
> > > difference could be significant.
> >
> > Whether Alice and Bob planned in conjunction or separately is ambiguous
> > whichever of "plan" or "plans" is used in the sentence.
>
> So you're saying that your next arrangement to go horse riding and mine
> to play at a ceilidh in Leith in September are a single plan?


No - I'm talking about the sentence relating to Alice and Bob.  What's your
point??????

Tamzin

"soup"  wrote in message
news:PX4ze.64674$G8.14970@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

> Tamzin wrote:
>
> Tamzin a lot of the (lurking) time I find my self not agreeing with you
> or rather some of the sentiments you post but that statement seems to
> sum up my feelings in a oneer, well done.
>


Thank you - I'd like to say it flowed out of my pen in just a few moments
but it took me ages to write so I'm glad someone appreciates it :o)

Tamzin

On 05 Jul 2005 20:18:00 +0100 someone who may be August West
 wrote this:-


>So why the "and black crosses"? Anyway, should the police believe
>rioter's own self-syled markings? Were I a police officer, I'd have
>taken such marking as likely signs of leaders, and nicked them, too.


Any "leaders" are not likely to be wearing "markings". It is a
simple matter of understanding.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/317259.html is an account of
what happened to one of the medics.


-- 
 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.

David Hansen  writes:


> On 05 Jul 2005 20:18:00 +0100 someone who may be August West
>  wrote this:-
> 
> >So why the "and black crosses"? Anyway, should the police believe
> >rioter's own self-syled markings? Were I a police officer, I'd have
> >taken such marking as likely signs of leaders, and nicked them, too.
> 
> Any "leaders" are not likely to be wearing "markings". It is a
> simple matter of understanding.


Why not? Why should any one else know that?

-- 
colourless green ideas sleep furiously

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 06:18:53 UTC, David Hansen 
 wrote:


> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/317259.html is an account of
> what happened to one of the medics.


That's hilarious. I loved the bit about the vegan food. The bastards 
didn't give her a shiatsu massage either.

Ian

In article <dak872$n8l$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, Tamzin
 wrote:


> "Sam Wilson"  wrote in message
> news:070720051109437422%Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk...
> > In article <dahlth$ia0$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Tamzin
> >  wrote:
> >
> > > Whether Alice and Bob planned in conjunction or separately is ambiguous
> > > whichever of "plan" or "plans" is used in the sentence.
> >
> > So you're saying that your next arrangement to go horse riding and mine
> > to play at a ceilidh in Leith in September are a single plan?
> 
> No - I'm talking about the sentence relating to Alice and Bob.  What's your
> point??????


The original sentence coined by Zombywuf to illustrate that "plan" and
"plans" can have different meanings was:

   Alice decided to go to London, Bob decided to eat a burger, their 
   plan included travel.

You said above:


> > > Whether Alice and Bob planned in conjunction or separately is ambiguous
> > > whichever of "plan" or "plans" is used in the sentence.


I disagree.  Using "plans" is ambiguous; using "plan" implies that
there is a single plan made by both of them in conjunction.  My
example:


> > So you're saying that your next arrangement to go horse riding and mine
> > to play at a ceilidh in Leith in September are a single plan?


is supposed to demonstrate the absurdity of assuming that the word
"plan" can be used to cover independently arranged activities.  I think
it's unlikely that you believe there's a single cosmic plan that we're
all unwittingly part of.

Sam

On 08 Jul 2005 08:46:22 +0100 someone who may be August West
 wrote this:-


>> Any "leaders" are not likely to be wearing "markings". It is a
>> simple matter of understanding.
>
>Why not?


Because that is the sort of thing hierarchical uniformed
organisations do.


>Why should any one else know that?


It is a fairly easy thing to work 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.

David Hansen  writes:


> On 08 Jul 2005 08:46:22 +0100 someone who may be August West
>  wrote this:-
> 
> >> Any "leaders" are not likely to be wearing "markings". It is a
> >> simple matter of understanding.
> >
> >Why not?
> 
> Because that is the sort of thing hierarchical uniformed
> organisations do.


So, it's just the sort of thing that a heirarchical uniformed
organisation, vis, the polis, would expect.


> >Why should any one else know that?
> 
> It is a fairly easy thing to work out.


Aye, right. What colour is the sky in your world?

-- 
goodie goodie!

Tamzin wrote:


> Thank you - I'd like to say it flowed out of my pen in just a few moments
> but it took me ages to write so I'm glad someone appreciates it :o)


You write your postings down on paper before you type them in?

On 08 Jul 2005 11:17:43 +0100 someone who may be August West
 wrote this:-


>> >> Any "leaders" are not likely to be wearing "markings". It is a
>> >> simple matter of understanding.
>> >
>> >Why not?
>> 
>> Because that is the sort of thing hierarchical uniformed
>> organisations do.
>
>So, it's just the sort of thing that a heirarchical uniformed
>organisation, vis, the polis, would expect.


As I said, it is a simple matter of understanding. If the police
want to stop making themselves look like fools then they need to
understand the world they live in.


-- 
 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.

David Hansen  writes:


> On 08 Jul 2005 11:17:43 +0100 someone who may be August West
>  wrote this:-
> 
> >> >> Any "leaders" are not likely to be wearing "markings". It is a
> >> >> simple matter of understanding.
> >> >
> >> >Why not?
> >> 
> >> Because that is the sort of thing hierarchical uniformed
> >> organisations do.
> >
> >So, it's just the sort of thing that a heirarchical uniformed
> >organisation, vis, the polis, would expect.
> 
> As I said, it is a simple matter of understanding. If the police
> want to stop making themselves look like fools then they need to
> understand the world they live in.


And that includes understanding the crack-pot ideas of every bunch of
utopian rag-tag idiots out there? 

Like I said before: get real.

-- 
seems like a long time

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:01:42 UTC, David Hansen 
 wrote:


> On 08 Jul 2005 08:46:22 +0100 someone who may be August West
>  wrote this:-
> 
> >> Any "leaders" are not likely to be wearing "markings". It is a
> >> simple matter of understanding.
> >
> >Why not?
> 
> Because that is the sort of thing hierarchical uniformed
> organisations do.


What, like the "clowns" who were "attempting to calm people down". 
That's not very non-hierarchical, is it?

Ian

Ian Johnston wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:01:42 UTC, David Hansen 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>On 08 Jul 2005 08:46:22 +0100 someone who may be August West
>> wrote this:-
>>
>>
>>>>Any "leaders" are not likely to be wearing "markings". It is a
>>>>simple matter of understanding.


Leaders are identified by what they do and not what they wear. If a guy 
were stark bol*k nekkid but waving others into confrontation, he would 
be taken out of play.

Sam Wilson wrote:>

>>>So you're saying that your next arrangement to go horse riding and mine
>>>to play at a ceilidh in Leith in September are a single plan?
> 
> 
> is supposed to demonstrate the absurdity of assuming that the word
> "plan" can be used to cover independently arranged activities.  I think
> it's unlikely that you believe there's a single cosmic plan that we're
> all unwittingly part of.
> 
> Sam
> 

If you were both family, it could be said that the plan for the Sam 
family was for you to etc and her to etc

Norma wrote:


> Sam Wilson wrote:>
>>>>So you're saying that your next arrangement to go horse riding and mine
>>>>to play at a ceilidh in Leith in September are a single plan?
>> 
>> 
>> is supposed to demonstrate the absurdity of assuming that the word
>> "plan" can be used to cover independently arranged activities.  I think
>> it's unlikely that you believe there's a single cosmic plan that we're
>> all unwittingly part of.
> 
> If you were both family,


They *are* both family.  Just not the *same* family.


> it could be said that the plan for the Sam
> family was for you to etc and her to etc


No, that could only be said if there did in fact exist a single coherent
plan, agreed together, which included those sub-plans.

If wifie plans to get her hair done and hubby plans to go down the pub,
then in the absence of prior conferring, those are two plans, not one.

Ronald Raygun wrote:

> 
> If wifie plans to get her hair done and hubby plans to go down the pub,
> then in the absence of prior conferring, those are two plans, not one.


Not implicit in your situation as posed that discussion was involved. 
I'm right if they had. you are right if they had not. If anything, the 
conditional on plan/plans indicates whether discussion had taken place.

> 
> 

Norma wrote:


> Ronald Raygun wrote:
>> 
>> If wifie plans to get her hair done and hubby plans to go down the pub,
>> then in the absence of prior conferring, those are two plans, not one.
> 
> Not implicit in your situation as posed that discussion was involved.


Or not, as the case may be.  If anything "in the absence of" would suggest
I was assuming there had been no conferring.


> I'm right if they had. you are right if they had not.


No, I'm right in either case, I think.  Either they have put their heads
together and made a joint plan, in which case the singular should be used,
or each made their own plan, in which case there are two plans and the
plural should be used.


> If anything, the
> conditional on plan/plans indicates whether discussion had taken place.


Precisely, well almost.  Unless there has been a grammatical error, use of
the singular would imply there was a single joint plan, which arose from
discussion, which must therefore have taken place, while the plural would
indicate there are two individual plans, but that doesn't mean there had
been no discussion, simply that if there had been, then it did not
achieve the result of producing a joint plan.

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


> As I said, it is a simple matter of understanding. If the police
> want to stop making themselves look like fools then they need to
> understand the world they live in.


And if you want to stop looking like a fool I suggest you throw your
computer away.

Mike Dickson, Edinburgh, Scotland