Perhaps I did, to be fair, the protest was taking place over a pretty wide area by that point, with 2 or 3 breakaway marches, I can only give an account of what I saw. By the time the police lines stopped letting people through I'd seen a lot of pushing and shoving down near parliament and a couple of skirmishes on the Victoria exit. Batons occassionally swung, missiles occassionally thrown, but like I say nothing to get excited about and nothing that threatened to escalate. In fact, in every circumstance it seemed to die down as quickly as it started. But you're right, I might well have missed stuff, I wasn't everywhere at once.
Well sorry, but don't comment on things if you don't know what really happened
I'm not necessarily saying I agree, I'm merely citing the moment most I spoke to seemed to take as justification. I'm not going to sit here and argue that there's any sense in smashing up a phone box, for example, it's fecking nonsensical and I said as much to one of the bints doing it, who then attempted to argue that a phone box was a "tool of capitalist oppression". I genuinely don't think she realised how retarded she sounded. That said, when a bunch of people are contained against their will without explanation or means of communication with those who are keeping them there I think resorting to violence to break free is thoroughly understandable and, as yesterday proved, often very effective. It was those who were willing to fight their way out who got out earliest for the most part. There's still a case pending in the ECHR on the legality of kettling, is there not?
Ahh the old kettling debate. The case is pending for a reason. It will remain legal until someone comes up with a better solution. Containing an area where within is large scale violence and disorder is the most logical thing to do. Not everyone in London wants to be caught up in it and these people should be protected by the Police. The majority that find themselves within the containment, have turned down the opportunity to leave earlier and decided to deviate from the agreed route. Anyway, as said, the containment came late on in the day, after hours of mindless violence,
What annoyed me wasn't the operation of FIT teams (that annoys on me on a much more basic level) but the fact that cooperation with those teams was being demanded as a condition of release. If I'm not under arrest then I shouldn't have to have my photograph taken, even where a section 60 is in place. I was essentially given a choice between leaving or remaining anonymous.
You are not under arrest, but during a Section 60 you are detained. If you then decide you are not being detained, you will be arrested for obstruct police. In relation to the photographs, the Police have to put up with it themselves every single day. There is no law against photographing people and as said, I would be more than happy to justify why its been done at court.
No, where I'll lose credibility is when I say that if I saw any Royal, in any situation, I'd be hard pressed not to attack the cnuts!
I agree with you on many of the points you make here, like I say I see no valid protest in smashing a phone box, setting fire to a Christmas tree or scrawling "ACAB" on a restaurant (though to see the same painted on several police cars did at least bring a giggle to many thousands of us!). But I also believe that direct action is a valid form of protest. I have no problem witnessing the trashing of the treasury, or the smashing of windows at Milbank, for example, as to me it represents a clear and targetted form of action that holds a justifiable political message and causes no physical harm to anyone. It's an effective form of protest and one in line with a long tradition that includes the greatest social movement of the last 100 years, the Suffragettes, who people like you would be doubtless calling "violent, irrational criminals" on the caf if the internet existed back then!
