What do the protesters make of this Story?

A few quotes:

"The groups involved are the same ones behind much of the May Day violence 
in London in recent years, prompting fears that shops in Edinburgh could 
face a repair bill running into tens of thousands of pounds. "

"An insider who attended the meeting said: "It was chaired by members of the 
South East Assembly, an umbrella organisation that includes the hardcore 
Wombles. A group representing the Carnival for Full Enjoyment asked 
activists to join them on July 4 in launching revenge attacks on jobcentres, 
sheriff's offices and call centres. They plan to storm the offices of the 
Royal Bank and then Standard Life over what they consider 'sweat-shop' 
conditions."
Anarchists were due to finalise plans this morning at the Communication 
Workers' Union club on Brunswick Street.  "

"The anti-globalisation group Dissent - which calls for "direct action" to 
overthrow capitalism - said on its website: "Meet central Edinburgh July 4. 
Bring noise, music, yourselves and friends for action against the G8 that 
highlights our resistance in work, out of work and wherever we live." "

"A police spokesman said the force was aware of the Carnival for Full 
Enjoyment. He added: "We will have a number of contingency plans in place to 
deal with any challenges, but we hope that Edinburgh will have peaceful 
protests." "

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


It's going to be anarchy

ALAN RODEN


ANARCHISTS plan to attack city centre financial institutions and businesses 
during a third day of G8 chaos.

Notorious anti-capitalist groups such as the Wombles and Dissent want to 
cause widespread disruption at some of the Capital's largest companies on 
July 4.


It will be the third consecutive day of marches in Edinburgh, following a 
massive Make Poverty History protest on Saturday July 2, and a Stop the War 
Coalition march on the Sunday.

The groups involved are the same ones behind much of the May Day violence in 
London in recent years, prompting fears that shops in Edinburgh could face a 
repair bill running into tens of thousands of pounds.

The Carnival for Full Enjoyment is set to attract hundreds of anarchists 
from around the UK, who want to launch "revenge" attacks on large financial 
businesses such as the Royal Bank of Scotland and Standard Life.

Jobcentres, the sheriff clerk's office and global giants such as McDonald's 
and Starbucks are also likely to be targeted as part of the anti-G8 
demonstration.

One insider said the group would try to stage a sit-down protest in the RBS 
St Andrew Square headquarters, before taking their protest along Princes 
Street and up Lothian Road.

Plans for the July 4 protest were drawn up at a meeting in Nottingham two 
weeks ago, attended by around 100 anarchists.

An insider who attended the meeting said: "It was chaired by members of the 
South East Assembly, an umbrella organisation that includes the hardcore 
Wombles. A group representing the Carnival for Full Enjoyment asked 
activists to join them on July 4 in launching revenge attacks on jobcentres, 
sheriff's offices and call centres. They plan to storm the offices of the 
Royal Bank and then Standard Life over what they consider 'sweat-shop' 
conditions."

Anarchists were due to finalise plans this morning at the Communication 
Workers' Union club on Brunswick Street.

Dissent and the Wombles have already issued an e-mail appeal to 
anti-capitalists to bring drums and musical instruments on July 4 to create 
a "carnival atmosphere" on city streets.

Groups who have been invited include the Cardiff Anarchist Network, South 
East Assembly, Cambridge Anarchist Network, Critical Mass, Wimmin Against 
the G8 and Edinburgh Re-shape.

It is believed many of the groups will try to hijack the peaceful Make 
Poverty History march on July 2, or Sir Bob Geldof's Long Walk to Justice 
rally on Wednesday July 6.

The anti-globalisation group Dissent - which calls for "direct action" to 
overthrow capitalism - said on its website: "Meet central Edinburgh July 4. 
Bring noise, music, yourselves and friends for action against the G8 that 
highlights our resistance in work, out of work and wherever we live."

A police spokesman said the force was aware of the Carnival for Full 
Enjoyment. He added: "We will have a number of contingency plans in place to 
deal with any challenges, but we hope that Edinburgh will have peaceful 
protests."

Council leader Donald Anderson added: "We are aware of the group but have 
not had an official approach from them to hold an event. For health and 
safety reasons, marches or large-scale events have to be organised in 
conjunction with councils.

"A spokesman for RBS said the company had not been aware of the Carnival for 
Full Enjoyment, but would take action against any protesters.

He added: "We have robust procedures in place to deal with events like 
this."

In article <daf3te$ktb$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk> jimjam2020online@gmail.com wrote...


> What do the protesters make of this Story?


Dunno - you'll not find any here. You *may* find a few of their slavish
fanboys and a couple of weekend webels...but no 'protestors'.

Mike Dickson, Edinburgh, Scotland

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:08:54 +0100, Jim wrote:


> What do the protesters make of this Story?


An impressive collection of wild speculation. Based around a couple of
allegations from a lone 'insider'. A police 'insider' told me that the
London Met were going there with the intention of cracking skulls. From
this I conclude that it is possible that the police are all a bunch of
right wing facists. And they may intend to round up all the gypsies and
gas them.

Zombywuf wrote:


> I conclude that it is possible that the police are all a bunch of
> right wing facists.


Facists?  I thought they wore masks to conceal their faces.

Zombywuf wrote:


> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:08:54 +0100, Jim wrote:
> 

  A police 'insider' told me that the London Met were going there with 
the intention of cracking skulls. From

> this I conclude that it is possible that the police are all a bunch of
> right wing facists. And they may intend to round up all the gypsies and
> gas them.
> 

Met have learned the hard way (Poll Tax riots.gatherings/peaceful demos 
etc) that where there is a gross disparity between civilians and police, 
it is necessary to dominate any violence right from the start. It is too 
late to ratchet up the level of control when you have officers on the 
ground amongst 20/30 civilians wearing Doc Martens. You will doubtless 
remember the lone PC hacked to bits by a smallish crowd. Unless you are 
one of those who believe he did it himself.
Once a rioting crowd realises it is in charge, it gets totally out of 
control. Some have used the football match as example - riots are more 
like the sort of football match where many people died trampled 
underfoot in the general excitement.
Demonstrators are one thing - people willing to use violence are another 
thing entirely. The thug kicks off, police - yes I'll use the word - 
attack back. The nice guys in the crowd see this, dislike it as applied 
to the whole crowd rather than the hard men and they then become violent 
in turn at what they think is unlawful and unjustified.
Don't forget - there is only a thin blue or black line. If that goes - 
there is nothing left to protect persons and property. That is when the 
powers that be call on the Army. Soldiers really only know one thing 
which is to kill those who do not comply with their orders.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:08:11 +0000, Norma wrote:


> Met have learned the hard way (Poll Tax riots.gatherings/peaceful demos 
> etc) that where there is a gross disparity between civilians and police, 
> it is necessary to dominate any violence right from the start. It is too 
> late to ratchet up the level of control when you have officers on the 
> ground amongst 20/30 civilians wearing Doc Martens. You will doubtless 
> remember the lone PC hacked to bits by a smallish crowd. Unless you are 
> one of those who believe he did it himself.


Even Jim's report stated that there was no violence when the police left
the area.

Norma wrote:

> Zombywuf wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:08:54 +0100, Jim wrote:
> >
>   A police 'insider' told me that the London Met were going there with
> the intention of cracking skulls. From
> > this I conclude that it is possible that the police are all a bunch of
> > right wing facists. And they may intend to round up all the gypsies and
> > gas them.
> >
> Met have learned the hard way (Poll Tax riots.gatherings/peaceful demos
> etc) that where there is a gross disparity between civilians and police,
> it is necessary to dominate any violence right from the start. It is too
> late to ratchet up the level of control when you have officers on the
> ground amongst 20/30 civilians wearing Doc Martens.


What's aggressive about DMs?

[munch]

> Demonstrators are one thing - people willing to use violence are another
> thing entirely. The thug kicks off, police - yes I'll use the word -
> attack back. The nice guys in the crowd see this, dislike it as applied
> to the whole crowd rather than the hard men and they then become violent
> in turn at what they think is unlawful and unjustified.
> Don't forget - there is only a thin blue or black line. If that goes -
> there is nothing left to protect persons and property. That is when the
> powers that be call on the Army. Soldiers really only know one thing
> which is to kill those who do not comply with their orders.


That's not true. Soldiers are trained to try to diffuse a situation
rather than act agressively. Their success in places like Iraq,
Aghanistan etc. show that. 

TTH

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 11:08:11 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Norma
 wrote this:-


>where there is a gross disparity between civilians and police, 


Police officers are civilians. It is partly because they forget this
that the police make fools of themselves rather too often.


-- 
 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.

the_tattie_howker wrote:


> That's not true. Soldiers are trained to try to diffuse a situation
> rather than act agressively. Their success in places like Iraq,
> Aghanistan etc. show that. 
> 
> TTH


And when the situation does not diffuse? You apparently accept this does 
not always work by quote try to diffuse unquote.
Their success at controlling hostile crowds in Iraq is not universal - 
ask the parents of the 6 RMP lads who died.
Afghanistan was not a bowl of cherries - coalition forces killed during 
prison riot
Soldiers sometimes lose it - Bloody Sunday
I can give you so many from personal experience going back to Canal Zone 
through Mau Mau, Cyprus, Aden and Northern Ireland. Soldiers are trained 
to open fire when circumstances demand. Their training is to shoot to 
kill and not just to wound or otherwise disarm.

> 
> 

Norma wrote:

> the_tattie_howker wrote:
>
> > That's not true. Soldiers are trained to try to diffuse a situation
> > rather than act agressively. Their success in places like Iraq,
> > Aghanistan etc. show that.
> >
> > TTH
>
> And when the situation does not diffuse? You apparently accept this does
> not always work by quote try to diffuse unquote.
> Their success at controlling hostile crowds in Iraq is not universal -
> ask the parents of the 6 RMP lads who died.
> Afghanistan was not a bowl of cherries - coalition forces killed during
> prison riot
> Soldiers sometimes lose it - Bloody Sunday
> I can give you so many from personal experience going back to Canal Zone
> through Mau Mau, Cyprus, Aden and Northern Ireland. Soldiers are trained
> to open fire when circumstances demand. Their training is to shoot to
> kill and not just to wound or otherwise disarm.


Sure it doesn't always work.

But you said "Soldiers really only know one thing
which is to kill those who do not comply with their orders".

It is part of their training that they do not open fire immediately but
attempt to diffuse things. If that doesn't work and they are attacked
(or think they are attacked) they will defend themselves. They are
trained not to fire first. Some may not learn or practice that, of
course, but that's different from saying that they don't know any such
tactic.

TTH

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:41:21 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Norma
 wrote this:-


>Afghanistan was not a bowl of cherries - coalition forces killed during 
>prison riot


Still going on, despite the limited amount of mass media coverage.


-- 
 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 ,
the_tattie_howker  wrote:


> Norma wrote:
> >
> > Met have learned the hard way (Poll Tax riots.gatherings/peaceful demos
> > etc) that where there is a gross disparity between civilians and police,
> > it is necessary to dominate any violence right from the start. It is too
> > late to ratchet up the level of control when you have officers on the
> > ground amongst 20/30 civilians wearing Doc Martens.
> 
> What's aggressive about DMs?


Do the police wear DMs these days?  They certainly used to be standard
issue.


> > [escalation of demonstration until the army are called in]
> > ... Soldiers really only know one thing
> > which is to kill those who do not comply with their orders.
> 
> That's not true. Soldiers are trained to try to diffuse a situation
> rather than act agressively. Their success in places like Iraq,
> Aghanistan etc. show that. 


Some units of the British army are trained that way.  It may now be all
of them, but it certainly didn't use to be that way.  There was trouble
when the Paras were sent to N.Ireland and it looks as though the US
troops in Iraq have the same lack of training and experience.

Sam

In article  spamtrap@zombywuf.org wrote...


> From this I conclude that it is possible that the police are all a
> bunch of right wing facists.


Who do you run to when you get beaten up, robbed or gang raped of a
weekend?

Mike Dickson, Edinburgh, Scotland

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


> Police officers are civilians. It is partly because they forget this
> that the police make fools of themselves rather too often.


Like when?

Mike Dickson, Edinburgh, Scotland

the_tattie_howker wrote:

>  > Sure it doesn't always work.
> 
> But you said "Soldiers really only know one thing
> which is to kill those who do not comply with their orders".
> 
> It is part of their training that they do not open fire immediately but
> attempt to diffuse things. If that doesn't work and they are attacked
> (or think they are attacked) they will defend themselves. They are
> trained not to fire first. Some may not learn or practice that, of
> course, but that's different from saying that they don't know any such
> tactic.
> 
> TTH


There are a number of situations in various yellow/red etc. cards where 
soldiers will fire in the absence of any fire at them.
They are not trained in diffusion. Some officers etc. may try this but 
the basic squaddy will not. Snatch squads will operate with maximum 
aggression. If the situation justifies it, the soldier will open fire - 
possibly after a warning but not always. If he does shoot, he aims for 
the central portion of the body. High velocity rounds do the rest even 
if no major organ is damaged by the actual projectile. There are riots 
and riots. They vary from minor (in what is happening and how many 
rioters) to major where things have already developed such that 
opportunity for any diffusion approach has passed by.

Norma wrote:

> the_tattie_howker wrote:

> > But you said "Soldiers really only know one thing
> > which is to kill those who do not comply with their orders".
> >
> > It is part of their training that they do not open fire immediately but
> > attempt to diffuse things. If that doesn't work and they are attacked
> > (or think they are attacked) they will defend themselves. They are
> > trained not to fire first. Some may not learn or practice that, of
> > course, but that's different from saying that they don't know any such
> > tactic.
> >
> > TTH
>
> There are a number of situations in various yellow/red etc. cards where
> soldiers will fire in the absence of any fire at them.
> They are not trained in diffusion. Some officers etc. may try this but
> the basic squaddy will not.



This is not what I have been told. What is your source? My source may
be wrong, or I may have misunderstood the width to which his training
is extended to other units but he definitely said that he is trained
not to fire unless fired upon.


> Snatch squads will operate with maximum
> aggression.


That's different. There's a purpose.


> If the situation justifies it, the soldier will open fire -
> possibly after a warning but not always.


And that's different again. My source tells me the same except that the
justification must be high.

TTH

the_tattie_howker wrote:

> 
> Norma wrote:
> 
>>the_tattie_howker wrote:
> 
> 
>>>But you said "Soldiers really only know one thing
>>>which is to kill those who do not comply with their orders".
>>>
>>>It is part of their training that they do not open fire immediately but
>>>attempt to diffuse things. If that doesn't work and they are attacked
>>>(or think they are attacked) they will defend themselves. They are
>>>trained not to fire first. Some may not learn or practice that, of
>>>course, but that's different from saying that they don't know any such
>>>tactic.
>>>
>>>TTH
>>
>>There are a number of situations in various yellow/red etc. cards where
>>soldiers will fire in the absence of any fire at them.
>>They are not trained in diffusion. Some officers etc. may try this but
>>the basic squaddy will not.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not what I have been told. What is your source? My source may
> be wrong, or I may have misunderstood the width to which his training
> is extended to other units but he definitely said that he is trained
> not to fire unless fired upon.
> 
> 
>>Snatch squads will operate with maximum
>>aggression.
> 
> 
> That's different. There's a purpose.
> 
> 
>>If the situation justifies it, the soldier will open fire -
>>possibly after a warning but not always.
> 
> 
> And that's different again. My source tells me the same except that the
> justification must be high.
> 
> TTH
> 
> 

My justification is that I did it for 22 years plus and saw how it 
developed from a square of soldiers with a banner saying disperse or we 
fire through to the techniques used in NI in 1974. Someone else on here 
has already mentioned the attitude of Para Regt. Regiments who adopted a 
softly softly approach generally had to have the Para come to their aid 
when things got nasty. Fired upon or not is a feature but not the 
determining one. A soldier may open fire if he considers that his life, 
or the life of a comrade, is endangered. This can be petrol bombs, blast 
bombs, someone with a weapon which they appear to be about to bring into 
action. If fored upon, they will certainly seek to fire back. Soldiers' 
general basic thought is that it is better to be tried by twelve (ie a 
jury) than carried by six (a bearer party for coffin). Think back to 
riot scenes you may have seen from NI - these show what a demonstration 
can develop into.

Norma wrote:

> the_tattie_howker wrote:
> >
> > Norma wrote:

> > And that's different again. My source tells me the same except that the
> > justification must be high.
> >
> > TTH
> >
> >
> My justification is that I did it for 22 years plus and saw how it
> developed from a square of soldiers with a banner saying disperse or we
> fire through to the techniques used in NI in 1974.



You were in the army recently? If so then I bow to your greater
experience (at least until I see my friend, the marine, again, to
confirm his story).

Of course what happened in 1974 was a mistake and we should not relive
that. But there will always be mistakes. What I took issue with was the
statement that soldiers only know one thing.

Where was the assembled crowd told to disperse or be fired upon and
what was going to be fired at them?


> Someone else on here
> has already mentioned the attitude of Para Regt. Regiments who adopted a
> softly softly approach generally had to have the Para come to their aid
> when things got nasty. Fired upon or not is a feature but not the
> determining one. A soldier may open fire if he considers that his life,
> or the life of a comrade, is endangered. This can be petrol bombs, blast
> bombs, someone with a weapon which they appear to be about to bring into
> action. If fored upon, they will certainly seek to fire back. Soldiers'
> general basic thought is that it is better to be tried by twelve (ie a
> jury) than carried by six (a bearer party for coffin). Think back to
> riot scenes you may have seen from NI - these show what a demonstration
> can develop into.


Yes I've seen when things can go wrong. But I am simply telling you
what a friend in the marines has told me. He is now training to be an
officer, which he could have started as.

TTH

the_tattie_howker wrote:

> 
> Yes I've seen when things can go wrong. But I am simply telling you
> what a friend in the marines has told me. He is now training to be an
> officer, which he could have started as.
> 
> TTH


Respect to your Marine informant but the number of recent instances of 
their being involved in riot control must be limited? I agree that I 
have now been 'out' longer than I was 'in' but I am in close touch with 
modern thinking and training. Also, there is sometimes a gap between 
what soldiers (incl RM) like to think is the situation or procedure and 
what actually happens on the street when things go southwards.

> 
> 

Norma wrote:

> the_tattie_howker wrote:
> 
>>
>> Yes I've seen when things can go wrong. But I am simply telling you
>> what a friend in the marines has told me. He is now training to be an
>> officer, which he could have started as.
>>
>> TTH
> 
> 
> Respect to your Marine informant but the number of recent instances of 
> their being involved in riot control must be limited? 


Why? the three Commandos cycle round tours of Northern Ireland as do 
army units and AFAIK they get the same riot training that the army get.

http://www.photoforum.ru/rate/photo.php?photo_id=2034

I'd have thought they're also slightly more likely to be involved in a 
crowd control role in getting UK citizens out of countries that are in 
the process of falling to bits, though I have head that on such 
occasions the Navy is sometimes forced to fall back on the most 
dangerous weapon at their disposal (even more dangerous that an officer 
with a map).

Norma wrote:

> the_tattie_howker wrote:
> >
> > Yes I've seen when things can go wrong. But I am simply telling you
> > what a friend in the marines has told me. He is now training to be an
> > officer, which he could have started as.
> >
> > TTH
>
> Respect to your Marine informant but the number of recent instances of
> their being involved in riot control must be limited?


Well he did a tour of Afghanistan but I didn't ask him about anything
he didn't volunteer. He indicated that he'd been in some situations but
not whether they were riots.

But again, I wasn't referring to just riots, merely taking issue with
the broad statement (IMO) you made.


> I agree that I
> have now been 'out' longer than I was 'in' but I am in close touch with
> modern thinking and training. Also, there is sometimes a gap between
> what soldiers (incl RM) like to think is the situation or procedure and
> what actually happens on the street when things go southwards.


So where were they asked to clear a crowd by threatening to fire?

TTH