Topic: protests in london

[beo]

i don't know if any of you have access to our news channels, or if yours are showing this - but the protests around the g20 summit in london are getting violent. violence may not be the answer, but we've had quite a few peaceful protests over the last few years and they've done jack shit. maybe if they'd listened then it wouldn't of come to this.

this small slice of anarchism makes me feel all fuzzy inside.

[scottws]

What is the protest about?

[Cobra951]

Listen to what?  And how can violence make that more likely instead of less?

[Quemaqua]

I've read about 5 articles now and I can't seem to find a straight answer.  It seems to be about money, but I can't really understand what changes people are wanting.  There are a bunch of personalities and musicians apparently involved too, and most of them seem to be braindead commie types who probably grew up on welfare.  I can understand being furious with the financial sector.  Most of us over here are too.  I'm just not really seeing what their proposed solutions are.  The protest organizer seems to want to "laugh the bankers out of town" by having a carnival, but she looks to be alone in that since everyone else just wants to start throwing punches.

Enlighten us, beo?

[beo]

scott, open pretty much any thread on this board, and there will be somebody protesting about that particular issue. the violence (which ended up being very short lived), was directed at the financial sector - the terrible handling of our economies and the fact that the big wigs are still getting their bonuses at the taxpayers expense.

i think overall, the spirit of the protests is just that we don't feel the government is listening to our concerns, is not acting in the public's best interests - they're basically doing whatever the fuck they want. we've had countless cases of massive parliamentary corruption involving expense accounts, second homes, etc, and at a time when youth unemployment, debt, hospital overcrowding and all that other bad shit is at a high. it's making voices heard as loudly as possible, in a, "we're really fucking pissed off, and we're not going to take it anymore" kind of way.

cobra - you're obviously not familiar with the french revolution. when you ask the government "please", and they keep telling you to fuck off, sometimes you have to show that you are still a democracy and that the government HAS to listen to the people. if they won't listen to words, sometimes other methods are needed.

edit - there's also the issue of the wars in the middle east, which were overwhelmingly unpopular from day one here. they've cost our country so much money at a time when we really can't afford it. we said "no", government did it anyway, we protested, government didn't care. we haven't had an election for such a long time and our current prime minister wasn't even elected. i think a lot of the protests are geared at embarrassing our country's leader as the international spotlight is pointed his way.

[Cobra951]

Some wars have to be fought.  Iraq isn't one of them.

There's a difference between a revolution and a small group of troublemakers, beo.  Sorry.  Most protests are not representative of people's feelings.  When they are, they flood the town as far as the eye can see.  While I'm steaming about the shit still going on with the power and money elite, I hardly think starting a shooting war all around is going to make things better.

Shortly before the French revolution, the people were on the verge of starvation while the royals frolicked in the greatest splendor ever known.  Some scandal, perhaps involving the queen, became the catalyst for the inevitable.  We are nowhere near that inequity now, not here, not in England, not in France.  There have been more than enough scandals flying around, and they have not galvanized a true public uprising.  Most of us still eat and have a good place to live.  We are too comfortable to run into a hail of bullets.

[scottws]

Obviously Western governments are becoming exceedingly corrupt.  The U.S. government was supposed to be "by the people, for the people."  That may have been true at one time, but now it's more like "by the corporation, for the corporation."

The government and its agents should be held responsible for this corruption but the people with any power to really do anything are corrupt themselves.  All the average person can do is vote people out of office, just trade one slimeball for another.  The only other recourse is open revolt.

Cobra went into this.  Most Westerners live lives too comfortable to do anything.  Anyone knows that an overthrow of the government would plunge the country, if not the world, into economic meltdown.  Things, at least in the short term, would be a whole lot worse for a whole lot more people than they are now.  And that goes without saying that ordinary citizens would be confronted by and have to fight through the military.

People aren't willing to give up the niceties they have to make such a change.

[beo]

cobra, i'm no way saying this is an equivalent to the french revolution! i'm just using it as an example of violence being justified when your leaders fuck up. the violence was very minimal, and very just. only one building was smashed up, and it happened to be a branch of RBS (a bank), whose former CEO just took a massive pension which the british public had to pay for. and you say most protests are not representative of people's feelings - well london is at a virtual standstill. there are currently around 4,000 people protesting there.

[Quemaqua]

I'm with beo.  Throwing some bricks at bankers doesn't seem at all unjust to me.

Unfortunately, I think the complacency of the American people is going to be their downfall.  We see corruption in every sector, crowding us at every angle, but we're too comfy to get up and do anything about it.  And the government's counting on it.

[Cobra951]

cobra, i'm no way saying this is an equivalent to the french revolution! i'm just using it as an example of violence being justified when your leaders fuck up. the violence was very minimal, and very just. only one building was smashed up, and it happened to be a branch of RBS (a bank), whose former CEO just took a massive pension which the british public had to pay for. and you say most protests are not representative of people's feelings - well london is at a virtual standstill. there are currently around 4,000 people protesting there.

That's more impressive than I thought.  Still, it's way smaller than what I would consider a true popular uprising, which would be in the hundreds of thousands at least.

I don't understand how vandalizing a building and terrifying other regular people is just in any way.  You know your real targets are nowhere near harm's way.  I'm looking at the pictures now, and they show a familiar scene.  Most protesters are peaceful, and a much smaller thuggish group is up front trying to stir up shit.

[beo]

...terrifying other regular people...

who? the bank was empty because they knew this could happen. the only people on the streets in this area were police and protesters.

it sends a message - it lets the government and the banks know just how fucking livid the british populace is at their recent and ongoing actions. if they don't start thinking of the people who are paying for their mistakes it will be a lot worse next time. you could think of today as a warning from the people to the powers that be.

if you don't think that that's fair, then we'll just have to disagree.

[Cobra951]

I am with you in terms of feelings.  I agree with you wholeheartedly.  I disagree about methods.  Now, if you took all that energy you were using for chaos against your own town and organized it instead into finding, then tar-and-feathering some real big-scale swindler, then I would be with you there too.

[beo]

I am with you in terms of feelings.  I agree with you wholeheartedly.  I disagree about methods.  Now, if you took all that energy you were using for chaos against your own town and organized it instead into finding, then tar-and-feathering some real big-scale swindler, then I would be with you there too.

define tar and feather. their names have been published, everybody who cares knows who they are. what can we do? we can't do shit. the men in charge should be forced to work at a minimum living wage until retirement age and then live on a state pension - that's the only thing that seems remotely fair. never going to happen and direct violence against individuals is too extreme. they got away with it, so sending reminders of our discontent is all we can do.

[Cobra951]

Tarring and feathering defined.  The object is humiliation, not death or dismemberment.

I'm sure it would be a lot more difficult to direct your rightful anger at the people who really deserve it.  Nothing worthwhile doing is ever easy.

[beo]

just for clarification, i know what tarring and feathering means! i just meant define the humiliation to be exacted. they've already been named and shamed, doesn't seem enough.

[shock]

Maybe Cobra means to literally tar and feather the guy?

[Cobra951]

Yes!  Literally.  Even some more benign sticky fluid would be good.  I mean the old physical humiliation, so well known in that part of the world.  A branding of sorts.  The significance would not escape anyone.  If it can be completed with the traditional ride out town on a rail (or set of rails) so much the better.

[gpw11]

G20/Apec conventions have pretty much always had some form of protest go one along side of them which has gone out of hand.  It's not really surprising because there are some very legitimate reasons to protest, but it's never accomplished anything and it won't now.   Beyond that, the downside of fucking up a bank during a protest like this is that it's kind of counterproductive. The bank doesn't actually get hurt, insurance covers it.  At worst their insurance rates go up and they just pass that on to the people using the bank, and it's not unheard of for property owners and/or insurance companies to demand and get compensation from governments for not providing proper security/whatever.  The only person that loses is the tax payer.

You could argue that it's good in that it raises awareness, but I don't buy it.  It alienates far more than peaceful protesting.  Yet, in this case it's kind of funny.  It's just a giant excuse - the aim of the summit is to discuss the best route to reform and regulate the international finance industry, as well as better regulate it on a national level within the 19 g-20 nations and the EU.  It's kind of like when the Aborgines riot - they always do it in their own slums.