Sweet Square
ˈkämyənəst
ELGAR?!
Oh, Elgar? Why do you always find me at my lowest points, Elgar? is a very underrated peep show quote.
ELGAR?!
This, sums it well.
Brilliant article.This, sums it well.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It is a good start. Meanwhile, the narcissist strikes again...Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Absolutely disgraceful scenes in Bristol.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Yeah, it seems the police are using old tricks to turn protests violent again. More disgraceful because the protests are against a bill which comes close to police state territory.Absolutely disgraceful scenes in Bristol.
Yes that's what's disgracefulYeah, it seems the police are using old tricks to turn protests violent again. More disgraceful because the protests are against a bill which comes close to police state territory.
...and the 80s and early 90s are fully back.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It’s a minority of dickheads but that will be the headline now. So dumb. Undermines the whole point of the protest.Absolutely disgraceful scenes in Bristol.
Very stupid indeed and you are exactly right. The rest of the crowds would be better placed turning on these "activists" mind and totally disassociating themselves by handing them to the police.It’s a minority of dickheads but that will be the headline now. So dumb. Undermines the whole point of the protest.
That's never going to happen for a whole variety of reasons.Very stupid indeed and you are exactly right. The rest of the crowds would be better placed turning on these "activists" mind and totally disassociating themselves by handing them to the police.
You don't have to weigh one against the other. You can still say you're against the bill.I'm against the bill but I'm more against the rioters. The worst of it is they're playing right into the Tories' hands. Boris will be counting the votes coming in by the bucketload.
Read it again please, I did say I'm against the bill.You don't have to weigh one against the other. You can still say you're against the bill.
regardless of what they were protesting about and how these protests ended up where they did ... there is a global pandemic FFS... people shouldn't be congregating in large groups risking the spread of a deadly disease ... ultimately any reasons behind the protests will get lost in that fact and they will have ultimately done a lot more harm to their cause from that than anything else I thinkAbsolutely disgraceful scenes in Bristol.
The problem has arisen because the government have been trying to pass legislation to make all peaceful protest illegal if it causes an annoyance. Permanently. Even after the pandemic.regardless of what they were protesting about and how these protests ended up where they did ... there is a global pandemic FFS... people shouldn't be congregating in large groups risking the spread of a deadly disease ... ultimately any reasons behind the protests will get lost in that fact and they will have ultimately done a lot more harm to their cause from that than anything else I think
Yes... but perhaps smashing things up isn't the best way of preserving the rights of peaceful protests as they currently standThe problem has arisen because the government have been trying to pass legislation to make all peaceful protest illegal if it causes an annoyance. Permanently. Even after the pandemic.
If you understand history, you can imagine the urgency.
Sadly that says alot about you.After all the shit the police get up to I’m finding it hard to care.
I'm of this mind as well but at the same time you know who these folk are and they're not the politically motivated lot they're just wannabe anarchists.I've long resigned to the idea that, generally, Britain and British people are destined to continue to suffer due to this continued preference of peace over progress, and the misconception that topics of discussion or changes to law can only be done as part of a 'civil' debate or actions that don't disrupt society, without realising that the idea of 'peace' is a key pillar in upholding inequality.
Violent and/or inconvenient political dissent will shock, upset and bother you only if you truly believe we live in a fair democracy, trimmings of meritocracy and non existence of miscarriages of justice included.
And if we're going to discuss violence, then let's discuss all the violence that the state gets up to.
I don't really care if they're politically motivated or not, and it's not for me to judge - and honestly a protest needs a mix of people because the whole point is to educate and bring awareness.I'm of this mind as well but at the same time you know who these folk are and they're not the politically motivated lot they're just wannabe anarchists.
I'd go further than your post though, any kind of disruption is too much for the British mindset as we've seen with climate protests. Keep Apathetic and Carry On is more appropriate.
I think it's more decades of conditioning to believe that only protests that are massively ineffectual are morally defensible. The government know peaceful protest acts as a pressure valve, so (unless they're really thick like Patel) are largely happy to allow it out of fear that if they don't more effective methods might be adopted. I can name several large scale, peaceful demos which attracted upwards of a million people; I can't name you a single thing any of them achieved.I don't really care if they're politically motivated or not, and it's not for me to judge - and honestly a protest needs a mix of people because the whole point is to educate and bring awareness.
I don't even think it's apathy - it's either ignorance or delusion at this point, and we're destined to continue on this cycle.
Exactly this, like I said earlier 'peace is a pillar in upholding inequality' - you are unlikely to achieve anything with a polite demonstration. But British people gasp at the sight of any type of violence they can see, but are so normalised to violence when it comes to economics, race, gender etc due to institutions like the media upholding the status quo (as well as their own delusions about everything being equal), that we are just going to continue in this cycle.I think it's more decades of conditioning to believe that only protests that are massively ineffectual are morally defensible. The government know peaceful protest acts as a pressure valve, so (unless they're really thick like Patel) are largely happy to allow it out of fear that if they don't more effective methods might be adopted. I can name several large scale, peaceful demos which attracted upwards of a million people; I can't name you a single thing any of them achieved.
Well, for a start, I'm not sure XR have achieved any tangible success. Secondly, what success XR have achieved has largely been a result of adopting much more disruptive methods than is normally considered defensible - in fact it's largely them that has caused this bill. They generated a plethora of headlines along the lines of 'XR are right, but how dare they sit on a bridge or stand on a train' and as a result achieved massively disproportionate coverage and attention than if they'd peacefully marched towards Westminster and shouted some witty slogans for a bit.I think it's very narrow minded to suggest that that only way of achieving anything is to try and seriously injure/kill people.
For all the criticism of XR by the wider public by using tactics to cause maximum disruption they have had much more of an impact on climate change than anticipated. Both amongst the public and internationally.
Whether XR have or haven't achieved a meaningful impact or not, it is precisely the sort of action taken by XR that the recent bill will target with significant punitive sentences. Violence is, I fully agree, never a good thing but if the right to legitimate protest is taken away then this will inevitably lead to violent confrontation between the people and the state. The coppers are, unfortunately, the state's frontline in this situation.I think it's very narrow minded to suggest that that only way of achieving anything is to try and seriously injure/kill people.
For all the criticism of XR by the wider public by using tactics to cause maximum disruption they have had much more of an impact on climate change than anticipated. Both amongst the public and internationally.
You're jumping from one extreme to the next with no in-between. What happened last night is totally different to the tactics used by XR. They aim to cause maximum disruption in many different ways but none of them result in violence and serious assault.Well, for a start, I'm not sure XR have achieved any tangible success. Secondly, what success XR have achieved has largely been a result of adopting much more disruptive methods than is normally considered defensible - in fact it's largely them that has caused this bill. They generated a plethora of headlines along the lines of 'XR are right, but how dare they sit on a bridge or stand on a train' and as a result achieved massively disproportionate coverage and attention than if they'd peacefully marched towards Westminster and shouted some witty slogans for a bit.
I'm also not making any moral judgement here or endorsing violent protest; I just think it's an indisputable fact when you look at the history of protest that violent movements are significantly more likely to achieve their aims.
Whilst I get your point, surely a wannabe anarchist is by definition politically motivated?I'm of this mind as well but at the same time you know who these folk are and they're not the politically motivated lot they're just wannabe anarchists.
I'd go further than your post though, any kind of disruption is too much for the British mindset as we've seen with climate protests. Keep Apathetic and Carry On is more appropriate.