I’m glad you’re calling it vandalism rather than “violence”

But i disagree, dividing the anti-cuts groups by condemning the same kind of direct action that the suffragettes took part in will do more damage to the movement.

Stuart – the Sufragettes were fighting for the right to vote, not for a change in fiscal policy. The latter is not a civil right.

So, as an Anarchist, what is your view on the role of the state?

I think you’ll find that the smashed windows of “Conservative HQ” were in fact the smashed windows of an office building which contains a number of tenants, just one of which is Conservative HQ.

Another super own goal. Carry on.

The conundrums in this posting sum up for me some of the most significant problems of the left. With no single party or group that we can all agree as a focus the movement is fragmented. We know we should all stand together but there’s a lot of stupid factionalism that gets in the way. What’s most reflected here is the confusion between being strong and being violent.

Perhaps, ironically, this leaderless mess demonstrates the uselessness of anarchism.

If we want to gain influence we need to win hearts and minds. That is done by having a resonant message and being strong and principled, not skulking around in masks playing out V for Vendetta fantasies.

The right to protest is a fundamental element of a functioning democracy, only tyrants seek to prevent the people from taking to the streets.

To succeed, in a democracy at least, any protest movement has to operate within the law and the parliamentary system. It needs to advance a reasoned argument that people can support at the ballot box, in this case that a fairer tax system would benefit everyone.

Breaking the windows of expensive shops and rioting in the streets with the world’s media looking on might satisfy the fantasies of a few immature young people, what it doesn’t do though is make the case for distributing wealth more fairly or building a society where meeting the needs of the many matters more than turning a profit. In fact it provides ammunition for a mostly right wing media and goads the authorities into reacting violently.

Thankfully most of the people who protest against the spending cuts and the rise in tuition fees are committed to protesting by peaceful means alone, it is their voice not that of the violent minority that must be heard.

i disagree, dividing the anti-cuts groups by condemning the same kind of direct action that the suffragettes took part in will do more damage to the movement.

Oh, are the vandals on hunger strike as well?

But i disagree, dividing the anti-cuts groups by condemning the same kind of direct action that the suffragettes took part in will do more damage to the movement.

Firstly, they’re not the suffragettes and its ludicrous to compare the two.

Secondly, anti-cuts groups are already ‘divided’ over the ‘direct action’. There is no way the unions would associate themselves with such activity.

When Len McCluckey was asked about the action over the weekend he said the police may have infiltrated the BlackBloc groups.

This idea that ‘condemning’ (which the article doesn’t call for) would divide people further is based on the assumption there there are lots of people (other than a few random tweeters) who are ok with this vandalism.
The vast majority of lefties and the union movement? No.

@1/2

There were splits in the Suffragette movement regarding tactics as well.

(not that the Suffragettes and UKUncut are really comparable, but if analogies are going to be made may as well be accurate).

Cherub – thanks for your comment. I agree that anarchist ways of organising throw up some new problems, but I think they also solve at least as many problems involved in more traditional ways of organising. So I don’t think that ‘uselessness’ is fair, I’ve seen some very empowering and effective anarchist-organised events this year. Maybe as more people learn both ways of doing things we’ll end up with more happening somewhere in the middle.

Stuart – I get the ‘condemning’ and division thing, it is an issue. But I don’t think it’s the only issue, and in this case I don’t think it’s the most important one. It shouldn’t stop us from being able to reflect publicly and critically on the tactics available to the whole movement.

The problem for UKUncut is that being a leftie movement it inevitably attracts members of the far-left whose notions of the acceptability of damaging private property are frankly completely out of whack with mainstream public opinion. Their view is that private property is illegitimate and that it is therefore OK to damage it (although not their own property I suspect). That the majority of the country are against them does not concern them – we are all brainwashed by false consciousness induced by the capitalist system.

Or, to put it shortly, you need to ditch the Trots. You wouldn’t find the TPA tolerating BNP members.

@9: “There were splits in the Suffragette movement regarding tactics as well.”

The vote was extended to all adult citizens – other than peers, lunatics and criminals, naturally – in 1928 in time for the 1929 general election. That left the suffragettes without a political cause to espouse.

Sylvia Pankhurst went one way and became a founding member of the Communist Party.

Others took another course:

“Julie Gottlieb’s Feminine Fascism would disabuse them. Its brilliant analysis of the place of women in Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists does much to change our preconceptions. Where women played comparatively little part in the fascist movements of other European countries, more than 25 per cent of the BUF members were women, many of whom were prominent in the movement’s activities. All this, despite the macho image, so similar to that of continental fascism, displayed by the leader and by so many of his acolytes.”
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=157840&sectioncode=6

Bethan, interesting post. Its not UK Uncuts failure to condemn. They are just not responsible for what black bloc do.

I was initially angry when I heard about a “failure to condemn” on Newsnight, but when I watched on the iPlayer it wasn’t what the girl did.

She just said that UKUncut is a leaderless group of people who are all individually responsible for what they choose to do and nothing else. The tactics they do as UKUncut are non-violent, happy and fun but she does not presume to speak for everyones opinion about violence/non violence.I thought she put this really well under fire from that sexy blonde chick with the big eyes.

The media are always looking for figure heads and leaders but that isn’t the way progress is being made in the new politics. They will take their time getting used to this, just like you are taking opportunities to learn about non-hierarchical organisation. Everyone will. Its the way forward.

@1 Stuart Neyton: “I’m glad you’re calling it vandalism rather than “violence””

I regret Bethan Tichborne’s denial of violence (assuming that she wrote the headline). And the headline can only be described as denial.

Bethan notes: “But there were many other people, including kids, who had no idea what was going on, who just saw an army of people masked and with sticks. That’s terrifying stuff, I’m sure it gave a number of children nightmares.”

Bethan observes that the Black Bloc intimidate people by their presence but cannot admit that intimidation is a form of violence.

Peace protesters have spray painted stealth military aircraft. Their acts were evidently vandalism, but the protesters were peaceful and non-violent. And their acts cost a load of money to put right.

That’s one difference between peaceful vandalism and violence.

Joe Public reckons that the Black Bloc are violent. The Black Bloc erects a defence argument that their actions are justified or are based on a definition of anarchist philosophy unrecognisable to people who read books. Defenders of the Back Bloc twist logic in further knots; defenders are never those who perpetrate acts, of course, but they understand the “motivations”. Defenders, who never get their hands dirty, are experts about violent protests but have somewhat less understanding about what the majority of people actually do: protest, sign petitions, debate with their friends, change stuff.

Defenders of the Black Bloc imagine that street thugs can change political dynamics. Bad examples of this belief are too numerous to mention.

I have to further disagree with the statement: “Let’s as a movement leave scaring people to the police…” for obvious reasons.

@15

Can we drop all this leaderless group nonsense? If it’s leaderless, then who plans the targets, runs the media feeds etc etc?

It’s a stance adopted in an attempt to shield the leadership from any legal fall out by leaving followers to their own devices and claiming no knowledge should things go Pete Tong.

Somewhat coincidental we have yet another article on this subject the Day the 1st of the Fortnums protesters is in court.

I think many people are missing the point regarding ‘vandalism’ of this sort. When you look at the targets of this type of vandalism, more often than not, it is aimed at the political/economic structures that we have no control over, not ‘real’ control over at any rate.

The vandalism aimed at local branches of ‘multinationals’ is perhaps the only real tangible response to the violence they carry out on our communities. Whether or not people feel able to ‘condone’ or ‘condemn’ such actions doesn’t matter, because for some people, that act of violence is perhaps the only way they can register their sense of frustration towards some of the most malevolent forces in this Country.

These actions are normally (though not always) carried out with people who have no political voice and no recourse to the decision making process. Don’t bother pointing out they have a vote, because, frankly they have no one to vote for. Sure, we know that such actions as smashing in a bank’s window is completely futile and more than likely counterproductive, but what is the real, viable alternative for many of them? A letter written to the local MP is going to end up in a waste paper bin, unread. No newspaper will take up the cudgels on their behalf, nor will the mainstream political grouping stand shoulder to shoulder with them.

We have seen here on more than one occasion, people openly talking about how we ‘cannot oppose every cut’, well that is fine, but the cuts that are most likely to slip through the net are the ones where the political classes cannot, or will not hear the pleas of those suffering, because they are not ‘sexy’ enough.

Sure, we all use the NHS and opposing ‘cuts’ to that is easy. The Nations forests have the full support of the middle class ramblers and a U turn is always on the cards. What if you have an autistic child? Well most of us have not and many of us cannot imagine what it is like to struggle with such a child. A cut here and there will not really affect too many of us and nor will closing down an OAP centre or two either. What if you are suffering from a real debilitating illness that actually stops you working, no matter what ATOS tell you? Not really ‘our pigeon’ is it?

So where do such people go? Not to the Labour Party or the ‘Left’ to be honest, because they have bigger fish to fry. They have mobilised for the students and interns, the sick hobbling down the road? Well sorry, but have you considered shop work?

That bank’s smashed window signifies something and the political establishment should be pleased because it means that those who suffer most at the hands of multinationals do not have political power. The CEOs of HBOS,RBS and BP should be happy that the have to board up a few windows now and then, because, when the broken windows stop appearing it will signal that the underclass have legitimate means to express their anger and that will be far more worrying for them.

You don’t see the Tories petrol bombing the local swiming pool, not because they do not hate everything that swiming pool stands for, but because they have direct access to the people who can and will raze it to the ground.

@16 Charlieman: Having reconsidered Bethan’s post, I retract any suggestion that she was in denial of violence.

The rest stands.

@18 Jim: “…but the cuts that are most likely to slip through the net are the ones where the political classes cannot, or will not hear the pleas of those suffering, because they are not ‘sexy’ enough.”

Your comments about unsexy causes are fair. But why do you assume that the Black Bloc care either? Do you really believe that they are chucking bricks through windows in defence of care workers? Can’t you see that they are a bunch of people who want to control others, whatever their political label?

You maybe need to shed those last vestiges of bourgeois respectability or something…

“How is it consistent to feel sickened by the sight of police or soldiers with guns, but uplifted by masked-up people with sticks?”

For the same reason that people watching Braveheart root for Scottish peasants over the comically evil English overlords. Justifying violence is exceptionally easy; you just have to pick a side and a narrative.

We’ve been doing it for thousands of years, after all – why else would people sign up in their millions to die in imperialist wars of aggression? Because *they’re the bad guys* right?

I don’t agree RE anarchy. I just don’t think it can work in a group larger than, say, a small but self-sufficient village. However, good post. Smashing stuff up is self-indulgent, no matter how right it may seem at the time, when you’re angry and feeling empowered by the possible support of those around you. And it alienates people who, on the whole, are against the idea of homes and offices being smashed up. Not only does it let your opponents make you look bad, but it makes them right when they do.

Charlieman @ 20

They are throwing bricks for different reasons, Charlie, that is the point. I agree that some of tem are throwing bricks just because they like throwing bricks, but some of them (in my view) are throwing bricks because they have a real anger towards those banks.

Irrespective of whether or not they are correct in that anger, if you give people just one option to display that anger (justified or not) then don’t be suprised to find that they use it.

“Irrespective of whether or not they are correct in that anger, if you give people just one option to display that anger (justified or not) then don’t be suprised to find that they use it.”

Voting. Literature. YouTube. Facebook campaigns. Flyers. Peaceful protest. There are loads of ways to express your anger without resorting to violence. We don’t live in a bizarre state where you’re only allowed to express yourself by hitting things. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Just over a year ago, a smart anarchist died: Colin Ward.

His politics should inspire all who are liberal.

The Telegraph has an obituary: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/politics-obituaries/7535946/Colin-Ward.html. The Telegraph cannot find a nasty word about the man.

22. Jim no they are throwing bricks cos they like throwing bricks I’m afraid..

@15. Charlieman – people’s definitions of violence are subjective, we dont have a shared definition of violence to work with here, so it’s just arguing semantics

@19 Charlieman (hello again ) – the people I know who joined the black bloc do definitely care, and in my experience most black bloccers have a narrative of political motivation, rather than just the fun of smashing things up.

“a bunch of people who want to control others” is pretty much the anti-thesis to anarchist philosophy(which I think alot of people who use the black bloc tactic share), and that they would feel like they were acting on no-one’s behalf but their own.

@16 – concensus deary, just because you dont have leaders doesn’t mean you cant pick targets and run media feeds; you just do these things non-hierarchically… there are still informal hierarchies of privelige, information etc..(as maybe there always will be) but the good leaderless groups make genuine efforts to recognise and reduce these as far as possible..

I wonder how many of you would dare call for cuts to overseas aid that sees UK taxpayers (some of you may appreciate them) funding the building of schools in India while India itself buys a new fleet of aircraft carriers and new tanks instead?

Of course you would never call for such a thing to stop as lefties could never contemplate cutting aid to anyone under any circumstances who isn’t white.

We’re still talking about black bloc tactics now, but the pleasant hummus picnic in Hyde park is forgotten. When the government refuses to listen to peaceful demonstrations then it is no surprise to see attacks on private property, and hitting the capitalist class where it hits them – in the coffers – is far more useful. The media will twist and distort any democratic gesture that doesn’t fit into it’s narrow view of what is acceptable (ie shit that change anything) and decry it. Anarchists using damage of property are hooligans, while policemen who actually use violence against peacefully demonstrating humans are ignored.

Hey Dan…The anti-capitalist man…

I see that just like Islamists who shout abuse at British soldiers while said British soldier’s taxes are used by them to feed and house themselves and their families…why is it that people so set against ‘THE EVIL WEST’ don’t all fuck off to their idiological homes?

You hate the Capitalist Western set-up (like the infidel hating Muslim mobs) so much you think violence is okay…and yet you still live here. Benefiting from all it offers and gives you.
You can always piss off to Russia, China, Cuba and live in your supposed personal Lefty heaven.

But you don’t….because like all fanatics you’re at heart a hypocrite.

2@ richard ,well said
8@sunny, you could be onto something, is Laurie Penny really an undercover P.C

@16 pip

you’re trying to claim the group is leaderless, and its consensus. So is this true for China, Cuba, North Korea….? There is a reason Marxism doesnt work, and that’s because someone always has to be in charge wrecking the ideal that everyone is equal

As i say the leaderless idea comes from the false idea that its leaders can hide from any legal issues. It won’t.

Just out of interest, on what basis do anarchists oppose moves to cut state-provided services? Don’t anarchists want to see the state ‘wither away’, leaving responsibility in the hands of communities?

In other words: why are we supposed to think that anarchism is a left-wing position akin to socialism rather than a right-wing position akin to libertarianism? Because on the face of it anarchism looks like the logical extreme of a ‘small state, big society’ position. (Is the difference just that anarchists want to get rid of powerful markets as well as powerful states?)

(These are genuine questions: I’m not trying to patronise anyone here and I don’t know much about the different flavours of anarchism.)

@28 Dan

Anti-capitalists are hypocritical. If you buy anything, or use money for goods or services of any kind then you’re part if the system you despise so much. Your wages probably come from firms you despise of their practices as well.

It’s akin to being pro-life, then working at an abortion clinic.

Dan

“hitting the capitalist class where it hits them – in the coffers – is far more useful”

Oh, for goodness’ sake. Who do you imagine gets put out when a shop or bank is trashed? Probably some of the staff at that branch. Probably some agency cleaners. Probably some local people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time and feel scared and intimidated. Probably someone at an insurance firm. But ‘the capitalist class’? The people in boardrooms and on yachts who own these businesses? If anything they probably benefit from the chance to paint their opponents as thugs and extremists.

@ 33 @UKCuts

“Anti-capitalists are hypocritical. If you buy anything, or use money for goods or services of any kind then you’re part if the system you despise so much. ”

I think anarchists are, well, silly. But you’re off the mark here. They want a different (they would say better) system, but they can’t just bring that system into being with a hand wave. It’s not hyprocritical to exist within a system you dislike when you don’t have any other options.

@ 32 G.O.

“In other words: why are we supposed to think that anarchism is a left-wing position akin to socialism rather than a right-wing position akin to libertarianism?”

The word is used to describe (at least) two separate and very different ideologies:

1) The idea that the state is inherently destructive or illiberal and should be eliminated. This is basically the same as taking libertarianism to its logical extreme and is, as you say, right-wing (not to mention stupid).

2) The promotion of societies where no money changes hands, but instead everyone works together for the good of the co-operative. A real-world example might be an isolated tribal community where some people hunt, some people farm, some people build, and some people raise the children (or everyone pitches in with all of these activities). This is far more lefty and might be considered a benign form of communism. However, I reckon it’s unworkable on a scale larger than a small village.

@31 Ukcuts – I dont really follow your arguement; I dont see any relationship between UKuncut and China, Cuba and North Korea, who all clearly have lots of leaders. And I didn’t say anything about Marxism… I’m sad you cant imagine a situation where no-one is in charge – are you never in situations in your day to day where you are equal to your peers?

And I completely disagree that the ‘point’ is to avoid legal action, just cos you state it as fact doesn’t make it true.

@32 G.O. – thanks for the genuine questions. The label ‘anarchism’ covers a pretty broad church – without having read it all I think the wikipedia article gives a pretty good overview inc. different flavours (which I dont know alot about either). I started identifying as an anarchist when I found out that anarchy literally means ‘without rulers’ as I think hierarchies are generally a bad thing. I find it hard to imagine a future system without some kind of centralised state (or agreement between people)….

@34 G.O.

Exactly why I have issue with closing stores as a form of protest. I doesn’t hurt the corp, andc makes no odds to the government who should be targeted as its their policies people have issue with.

@37 pip

Yes I do have equality with some peers, but not all. In work for example their is a hierarchy for good reason. I’m equal to another coworker doing the same job, but not equal to the bosses.

The we are all equal is deeply routed in marxism as you know. It doesn’t work that way.

As for the hiding behind others to avoid legalities, we’ll have to disagree. IF that, as I suspect, is the reason then whoever gave that as sound legal advice really needs to think again and get some proper advice on this.

The leadership/website owners are just as liable as the membership carrying out the actions. Guess in time we’ll see if any corps or those arrested seek to take action. Certainly if I was an arrestee and was convicted as a result of an action I was told was ok on the site I would be looking at my options legally with regard to the groups organisers.

There is a reason groups like this haven’t had success using this form of protest before, as some will learn to their personal detriment sadly.

So a bunch of middle class wusses decide to engage with a bit of criminal damage because this current government wants to spend £2billion less than the alternative?

Pathetic and for the hopeless Ed Miliband, the tax avoiding multimillionaire living in Primrose Hill to talk about some struggle after never doing a single days work in his life really sticks in the throats of the working classes.

What’s worse is the stupidity of the members of UK Uncut who have a sit in at Fortnum and Mason who give more to charity than they would pay in tax, yet refuse to protest the Guardian Media Group who are genuinely avoiding tax.

Pathetic privately educated hypocrites who expect the working class to pay for their advantages in life…

@39

How do you know what school every protester went to? And how do you know what the “working class” (one monolithic block of people, according to you?) want?
As someone who has worked in factories, call centres and supermarkets I can say that for myself I’d quite like Vodafone, Boots, and yes the Guardian to pay their fair share of tax….not that hard to comprehend, really.

anon e mouse

*like*

It does make me laugh how right-wing apologists will attack ~150 protesters for apparent “crimes” that they are yet to be convicted of but willingly cheer on the destruction of the social fabric of the country – a lot more damage is being done by the right-wingers’ pals on the front benches than will ever be caused by UKuncut/Black Bloc/People’s Front of Judea.

Mr S.Pill – Are you serious? I’m an apologist for no one on the right (especially after the party I used to vote for supported George W Bush and proposed ID Cards – the term is meaningless after Blair) I don’t need to be but just look at the left at the moment and Miliband’s ridiculous speech prior to the criminal damage.

Do you really think the protesters against apartheid in south Africa have anything in common with Ed Miliband’s “struggle”. Come on.

And the “social fabric” of the country? Labour had thirteen years to sort out all that and did nothing except leave the country in debt as all Labour governments do and increase the differential between the rich and poor. Plus reward the bankers with knighthoods.

This is all a rerun of the 1980’s and the results will be exactly the same. Labour will go into the wilderness led by a leader only elected by the unions.

None of these selfish wusses will achieve anything except annoy people and ensure the government stay in power. I remember supporting the miners until the day that taxi driver was killed by a concrete block thrown from a bridge.

At the next election Miliband (because Labour are too stupid to get rid of him) will be pictured alongside riots and fire extinguishers thrown off a building and the public, quite rightly, won’t vote for them. After the last 13 years why would anyone be that stupid, cuts or no cuts.

All this lot is about is a government budget and these selfish “protesters” need to grow up….

@43

You make the mistake of putting New Labour on the left. Also I don’t see why you can’t support the principle of something and the actions of the majority while disagreeing with the actions of a minority. Conflating the smashing of windows with the death of the taxi driver in the ’80s is disingenuous IMO. I just don’t think you should pretend to be waving a flag for the “working class” when there is such a variety of opinion amongst everyone (except the establishment class natch, who are always willing to condemn any anti-establishment movement).

Mr S. Pill – I can make the distinction of majority opinion and minority actions – I just happen to think they are wrong to be going so over the top over a government budget. It is lame.

As for comparing the concrete block from a bridge it isn’t a million miles from a metal fire extinguisher if someone is hit.

It also isn’t about establishment – it’s just straight forward bad behaviour by stupid ill informed people who clearly don’t have a job to go to or anything better to do.

At least the miners were losing their jobs and had a grievance – these people are losing nothing.

So there are some cuts in government spending? Good. It’s our money and it’s about time something got a grip in this country. Alistair Darling said he had identified some £11 billion of government waste before the election yet was prepared to leave it which is fine because it’s not his money.

These protesters need to get a life because the cause is pathetic and the whole thing is just an excuse for vandalism and is inexcusable. People should not have to live in a society where people can go on the rampage on a whim…

@ 45 Anon E Mouse

“I can make the distinction of majority opinion and minority actions”

Can you?

“These protesters need to get a life because the cause is pathetic and the whole thing is just an excuse for vandalism and is inexcusable. People should not have to live in a society where people can go on the rampage on a whim…”

It appears not!

FAIL

Chaise Guevara – Just because I can make the distinction doesn’t mean I agree with that cause. I can just make the distinction.

Yes the majority of the people at that march were supporting the cause but I don’t and there are 70 million people in this country and once the fact the cuts are not as severe as the Labour / Union doom merchants would have you believe most people will support them.

We are only going back to 2007 levels in spending terms and that was bad enough. These people need to realise that it is our money they are wasting – not theirs.

The last Prime Minister (not elected by anyone in fairness) spent £12500 of our money in cash, with no receipt, for cleaning a flat he never lived in by his brother who isn’t a cleaner. That last government shouldn’t have been paid in washers.

Once again we have a country where there is no opposition to the government that is credible (the polls show the ineptitude of Labour under Miliband) but I think if anyone is under the illusion that rioting will help any cause then they just don’t get this place…

Chaise @ 23

Voting. Literature. YouTube. Facebook campaigns. Flyers. Peaceful protest. There are loads of ways to express your anger without resorting to violence.

All of these are totally useless and do not get at the issue. I am not saying these people are correct in throwing stones through windows, but I can well understand why they do it. Anyway, we have seen what happens to people who use those methods to ‘protest’ against large multinationals, they have whole departments of layers who will sue you to death, if you take them on.

@ 47 Anon E Mouse

“Chaise Guevara – Just because I can make the distinction doesn’t mean I agree with that cause. I can just make the distinction.”

I’m not saying you have to agree with the cause – I wasn’t responding to the bit where you said it was pathetic. I disagree, but it’s a POV.

My point was that you claimed to be able to distinguish between the majority and minority, but then attacked the protesters in general by saying that “the whole thing is just an excuse for vandalism and is inexcusable” and that “People should not have to live in a society where people can go on the rampage on a whim…”.

So either you can’t tell the difference, or you’re deliberately ignoring it.

@45

When unemployment rockets & the CPI & RPI outstrip wages/benefits I do hope you’ll come back and issue an apology.

@ 48 Jim

“All of these are totally useless and do not get at the issue. I am not saying these people are correct in throwing stones through windows, but I can well understand why they do it.”

Whereas violence is counterproductive and immoral in itself. I can understand why they do it – they’re angry and not very bright, or they just like to get attention and feel like rebels – but that doesn’t mean I condone it, or feel the need to defend their actions.

“Anyway, we have seen what happens to people who use those methods to ‘protest’ against large multinationals, they have whole departments of layers who will sue you to death, if you take them on.”

Not if you have evidence for your claims (or at least the lawsuits won’t get anywhere). And in reality, companies generally don’t sue anyone who says nasty things about them because the resulting PR damage can be many times worse. I know that people have been sued over this sort of thing – McLibel and so on – but it’s the exception, not the rule. And as I said, stick to evidence-based claims and you’re clean.

Vandalism?

I’ve just seen this.

http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2041528/mps-exlcuded-tax-avoidance-legislation

UK uncut need to get some guillotines……….

@47 Anon E Mouse

“Yes the majority of the people at that march were supporting the cause but I don’t and there are 70 million people in this country and once the fact the cuts are not as severe as the Labour / Union doom merchants would have you believe most people will support them.”

The cuts havent bitten yet. They WILL in Q2/3 this year. HARD.

I agree with protest, but am of the opinion tax evasion wont cure our ills. Closing stores wont change gov policies on taxation, and certainly will never reach out to those affected by cuts on a major level.

You also have to remember a vast number avoid tax themselves, so are unlikely to welcome a major crackdown on taxation and become squeezed further. There are a high proportion who make additional funds to get by through ‘cash-in-hand’ second jobs.

My issue is also that no one has been tackling care home closures, disability cuts etc etc whilst this side show of sit-ins have taken place. Now the cuts have taken place, and are financially uneconomical to reverse, its TOO LATE.

There has been no mass movement or group taking an interest until March 26th. And now what? Should have marched in November LATEST, but then I guess unions didnt fancy roaming London in the cold and wet.

Dedication to fighting the cuts eh?

@48 Jim

You mention lawyers. So far as I’m aware, no one has gone legal on anyone yet. Or do you have proof otherwise?

UKcuts @ 52, Chaise @ 51

do you remember the so-called ‘McLibel’ case(s)? If you are rich enough, you can buy your way out of ‘free speech’. When you take on the Multinational machine, you better have LOTS of money and nerves of steel as well.

It doesn’t really matter how strong your case is, they can always effectively gag you, with a slap suit.

Chaise @ 51

companies generally don’t sue anyone who says nasty things about them because the resulting PR damage can be many times worse

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/EthicalConsumerBlogs/tabid/62/EntryId/484/Sued-for-speaking-out.aspx

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/other/542/

29. Davey Boy

– don’t know whether to pick up on your spelling mistakes, your hatred, your factually inaccurate assessment that Russia and China are somehow “leftie”, your anger, your illogical sequence of arguments, your desire to abuse someone you have never met, or your efforts to contribute nothing worthwhile. As my folks used to say of us squabbling siblings “If you have nothing positive or constructive to say, it’s better not to say anything”.

I really recommend you spend time away from the computer, doing something positive for the community around you. The energy in your hatred must be put to some more worthwhile use than it is currently.

@ 53 and 54

Yes, I said they “generally” don’t, and that it did happen sometimes. You guys have provided three examples. That’s anecdotal to begin with, but all of them have problems as well:

McLibel: the judge found that the defendants had committed libel – not on one technicality, but on several counts.

Simon Singh: not found guilty, AFAIK, but admittedly did seem to go through hell during the case. However, Labour kick-started legislation to prevent this sort of libel-suit-as-bullying-tactic, and the coalition said they’d bring it foward.

Charles Hector: that doesn’t appear to be in the UK.

Of course, if you decide to use violence instead, you may well go to jail. So it’s a bad argument there too.

Chaise @ 56

To be fair though, I could have quoted a ton more, not just on the internet, but in almost every sphere and every aspect of life. From this type of thing to calling your take away a similar name, etc, I can find thousands of those stories via google. It is no suprise that the McLibel case judge found the case against the small time protesters proven, McDonald’s et al own the courts, effectively, but surely that was a a very large hammer to crack a nut? The millionaires that own Mcdonald’s took out some of their pocket money and used it to smite a couple of guys who attempted to make their protest against a huge multinational. Free speech? Okay, if that is what you want to call it, but the rules simply do not apply to big business, because they can rip people like ‘Private Eye’ to shreads at the drop of a hat.

I wonder how many true stories are kept out of the newspapers/ private eye, simply because the wrong doers can afford people like Carter Ruck?

Chaise Guevara – Let’s put it in other terms then to show I can indeed tell the difference.

The Provisional IRA made territorial claims on the “divided country” in which they lived.

Irrespective of my opinion on those claims I can accept that. They acted in an unlawful violent manner to achieve their aims which I cannot accept.

If this country never bowed down to bombings and murder, both in the “disputed” territory and here on the mainland, they certainly aren’t going to cower at a few students on the rampage in central London.

They are just going to get annoyed and Labour, desperate because of their flawed leader and no traction in the polls (Blair was 21 points ahead at this point without any cuts) will make stupid speeches and align themselves with the lawful side of protest and will suffer.

The public do not distinguish between a man making childish student type speeches to a crowd and buildings on fire in London – not when the only story on the 24 hour media showed property ablaze.

This criminal behaviour is about the budget put in place by our government. Nothing more. If you don’t like that vote them out because that’s how it works here…

Mr S.Pill – You say:

“When unemployment rockets & the CPI & RPI outstrip wages/benefits I do hope you’ll come back and issue an apology”.

When it does I certainly will.

Don’t hold your breath though….

@ukcuts – We are going back to 2007 levels of spending and the world didn’t collapse then despite Labour droning on about doing “The hard job of government”.

We have interest payments of £120 million a day – personally I’d rather build schools and hospitals than service a debt or get in hock with the Tory invented PFI.

You say: “My issue is also that no one has been tackling care home closures, disability cuts etc etc whilst this side show of sit-ins have taken place. Now the cuts have taken place, and are financially uneconomical to reverse, its TOO LATE.”

Two things. Firstly how many care homes could be built with £120 million a day without a single penny more being taken in tax. Not a penny.

Secondly this government isn’t making a single cut to a care home – the local authorities are. Some of those council bosses earn enough to be millionaires in five years – from public service. Why aren’t UK Uncut up in arms over those greedy hypocrites?

To me I’d start with clamping down on excessive wages and perks. You cannot tell me keeping order of a few drunken scalleys in Liverpool on a Saturday night deserves a higher rate of pay then the Prime Minister because it doesn’t.

The boss of the BBC simply shouldn’t be paid £950K a year end of.

And all the public need to be told is that whilst the fat cats in the councils get all this money the poor OAP’s are having their services cut and remind the voters at election time because smashing up a phone box in London will just backfire and drive support to the government.

They know it and so do we. Thatcher was really unpopular (obviously not in Gordon Brown’s league but that’s a given) and she still got elected and elected.

If UK Uncut are the answer then you’re asking the wrong question….

@ Anon E Mouse

“This criminal behaviour is about the budget put in place by our government. Nothing more. If you don’t like that vote them out because that’s how it works here…”

False dichotomy, because “criminal behaviour” and “voting” are not the only two options. You still have the right to peacefully protest against things you don’t like – because that’s how it works here.

I think saying people should suffer the government’s actions in silence because “that’s democracy” is weak at the best of times, as you always have a right to make your voice heard. And this goes double when the coalition is making cuts that were in neither the Lib Dem or Tory manifestos. If someone lies* to get into power, shouldn’t you protest?

*Simplification, maybe, but it doesn’t change the fact that the government can’t claim things like cutting the NHS are “the will of the people” based solely on the election.

@ 57 Jim

I agree libel law is currently prejudiced against the defendent in this country (although naming your burger bar “McRonalds” or something isn’t really a free speech issue). However, as I say, we’re changing the law to prevent this. And it doesn’t change the facts that:

1) You’re safe if you stick to evidence-based claims.

2) It’s false to suggest that you have no choice to be violent because of the possible penalties for peaceful protest, as violence brings harsher pernalties (jail time instead of a fine).

Chaise Guevara – The manifesto’s of each party went out of the window when the truth of Labour’s overspending became clear.

I didn’t hear Liam Byrne, Labour’s Treasury minister, telling the public “All the money’s gone. Good luck” before the election.

Perhaps if Alistair Darling hadn’t been bullied by Labour when “The forces of hell were unleashed” on him we have all been in a better position to decide.

As for the forms of protest I saw a million march against the war in Iraq and that didn’t work. The only thing that works in this country is General Elections not violent behaviour – all it does is annoy the people.

Especially when very few people are actually affected. Did you know that some councils continue to advertise for “Climate Control Outreach Community Coordinators” (Notice the capitals there) believe it or not.

Natural wastage will get rid of 10% staff in big institutions without any redundancies and I don’t see anyone except Labour supporters “suffering” as you put it.

The coalition government is stuck now on the cuts (if they are real – Thatchers were all talk) for 5 years and when the economy has turned in their favour, which it will (Boom and Bust had never been abolished by Labour), the country will reelect them. Including Clegg who I now support.

Next election one picture of Brown will be enough to scupper Labour. The cuts are coming. Protest all you want but the public will support them…

Chaise @ 62

Calling your little burger bar at the edge of town ‘McRonalds’ or something is not doing anyone anyone any real harm, is it? No-one is going to your burger bar, thinking they are getting a ‘Real’ McDonalds, are they?

Anyway, Simon Singh et al would argue with your first point. However, you point doesn’t really adress the issue. If the banking crisis has destroyed your life and you post something on U tube to that effect, the big beasts have enough powers and money to sue you off the internet, and you and I both know it.

Secondly, whether or not people have a mythical ‘right’ to peacefull protest, they cannot legally do anything that is effective against the big corparations. Like it or not this type of vandalism is the only thing that people ‘feel’ has anything like an effective method of registering your anger. It doesn’t matter if it is right or wrong, for some people, people with no voice, it feels right.

Instead of condemning that action, why not spend some time actually finding out why ‘some’ people feel that throwing bricks through windows is their only course of action?

That is a FAR more interesting thread.

Mr S.Pill – Judging by the inflation figures yesterday and the unemployment figures this morning it appears I won’t be holding my breath any time soon.

What happened to the “Double Dip Recession” predicted by Labour I wonder?

Perhaps you’d like to admit that, like Labour, you got that one wrong…

@ 63 Anon E Mouse

“The manifesto’s of each party went out of the window when the truth of Labour’s overspending became clear.

I didn’t hear Liam Byrne, Labour’s Treasury minister, telling the public “All the money’s gone. Good luck” before the election.

Perhaps if Alistair Darling hadn’t been bullied by Labour when “The forces of hell were unleashed” on him we have all been in a better position to decide.”

Um, defending the coalition’s decisions does not, in any way, justify saying other people should not protest them. You’re off on a tangent.

“As for the forms of protest I saw a million march against the war in Iraq and that didn’t work. The only thing that works in this country is General Elections not violent behaviour – all it does is annoy the people.”

Protest =/= violence.

Protest =/= violence.

Protest =/= violence.

Is this getting through to you yet? I don’t know what your problem with freedom of speech is, but it’s getting pretty lame that you can only attack it through non-sequiturs and straw men.

@ 64 Jim

“Calling your little burger bar at the edge of town ‘McRonalds’ or something is not doing anyone anyone any real harm, is it? No-one is going to your burger bar, thinking they are getting a ‘Real’ McDonalds, are they?”

I agree, but I never said otherwise. It’s not a freedom of speech thing, is my point.

“Anyway, Simon Singh et al would argue with your first point.”

SImon Singh registered an opinion, something that isn’t evidence-based (although I agree he shouldn’t have been sued for it either). So I doubt he’d argue on that basis.

“However, you point doesn’t really adress the issue. If the banking crisis has destroyed your life and you post something on U tube to that effect, the big beasts have enough powers and money to sue you off the internet, and you and I both know it.”

It’s still very rare. And I did address the issue by pointing out that the law is changing; you’re just ignoring things that don’t fit your agenda. In any case, even were the law not changing, the issue would be fully addressed by the following point:

“Secondly, whether or not people have a mythical ‘right’ to peacefull protest, they cannot legally do anything that is effective against the big corparations. Like it or not this type of vandalism is the only thing that people ‘feel’ has anything like an effective method of registering your anger. It doesn’t matter if it is right or wrong, for some people, people with no voice, it feels right.”

For some people, multiple murder feels right. So what? You keep justifying violence on the basis that other methods are “ineffective”, but ignoring the fact that violence is actually COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. It does more harm than good. Why would you prefer to do active damage to your cause?

“Instead of condemning that action, why not spend some time actually finding out why ‘some’ people feel that throwing bricks through windows is their only course of action?”

I know why, see above. They either want attention, to feel like rebels, or they’re just not very bright and have trouble expressing themselves in a way that isn’t moronic. None of those are good reasons.

Chaise Guevara – Me. Strawman? Please. The protest does equal violence so far.

First the students act disgracefully and storm the Tory HQ, Cenotaph and throw metal objects off roofs.

Charlie Gilmour, whose father is worth £186 million swings off memorials (to people who died so he could he could have that privilege) and he complains because someone else doesn’t want to pay for their education in the future. Wow some struggle he’s going through.

Secondly we have scenes of the capital burning on the day of the TUC march.

The message cannot get through of peaceful protest – it didn’t work for the Countryside Alliance or the Iraq War – because the peaceful message is drowned out or the position is misguided.

When you show me some peaceful protest I’ll give an opinion but until there is some it makes no difference because there hasn’t been any.

(Your theory may be correct Chaise but it’s not relevant – plus this article is about the acceptance of the very behaviour I describe)

@63

“The manifesto’s of each party went out of the window when the truth of Labour’s overspending became clear.”

They knew the figures as they. were in the budget held just a few weeks before the general election, so to claim surprise at the figures is a lame excuse by the coalition in order to drive home idealistic cuts.

It’s very clear the lib Dems only got their concessions in exchange for supporting the cuts. How else could they be paid for?

Personally I believe in a coalition there should be an amalgamation of manifestos on which the electorate voted. Culling the.NHS, forests etc fall outside that and should be prevented without a referendum by the people to agree on anything so fundamentaly huge.

@68

wtf? there were, quite literally, hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters on the 26th March. Out of (conservative estimate) 200,000 protesters there were 150 arrests.
And back in the student protests – out of around 50,000 demonstrators around 500 were involved in violence. that is 1%, by the way.

No peaceful demonstrators? None?

Either you’re willfully lying because of your ideological opposition to the anti-fees/anti-cuts movement of you’re genuinely misguided because of the lies on Sky TV and the Sun. I can’t decide.

oh and @65

CPI is down. RPI is still slightly up IIUC. Unemployment figures may be down atm but I would put money on them rocketing by september.

Chaise @ 67

It’s still very rare. And I did address the issue by pointing out that the law is changing; you’re just ignoring things that don’t fit your agenda.

But is it ‘rare’ though? Do you make room for the posilibity that it is rare because few people tend to use these types of protests because they fear the big beasts clobbering the small guys everytime they need to?

You say the law is changing, well let us ee if you are right, but let us further see if the changes are anything like what is required to allow free speech in this Country. Forgive me if I fail to share your touching faith in the system to change, because I have seen this too many times beforehand and it normally ends in a fudge and it never gets to the bottom of the issue.

For some people, multiple murder feels right. So what? You keep justifying violence on the basis that other methods are “ineffective”, but ignoring the fact that violence is actually COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. It does more harm than good. Why would you prefer to do active damage to your cause?

Christ sir, you are missing the point by a mile, aren’t you? This is not about ‘justifying’, ‘supporting’ or condoning anything.

We are not talking about multiple murder, we are talking about anger at a political system. You cannot assuage that ‘anger’ with a pithy youTube post, people feel, rightly or wrongly, that they need to lash out. They feel anger at the fact that they have no way of changing the system because the system is not designed for them. They will never change the banking system or the ATOS tests or whatever because there is no way of talking to the people who make the decisions. These organisations are seen, rightly or wrongly, to be inaccessible to them.

That is the issue we need to address. We need to give people a stake in our society and allow them to participate in our governance. Simply telling violent people that they need to learn how to write better letters is hardly likely to steer people from that violence, is it?

or they’re just not very bright and have trouble expressing themselves in a way that isn’t moronic.

Yeah, when you put it like that, you may have a pont. These people are too stupid to vote, therefore if we just ignore them and their views they will get bored and go away.

@70

Yes the Fortnums arrests may total 1% for the day. Estimates put uncut protest numbers at 5-600 making it that 1/4 of the uncut protesters were arrested.

That’s a pretty high casualty rate for any protest. My question would be what the.other 450 did during Fortnums occupation.

@72 Jim

Free speech doesn’t give the right to make libelous or defamatory remarks. As has been said, if you have solid sources and can prove your claims then you shouldn’t have an issue.

I think you’re making arguments for issues that don’t exist except to the tin-foil hat brigade looking for conspiracy at every turn.

@ 72 Jim

“But is it ‘rare’ though? Do you make room for the posilibity that it is rare because few people tend to use these types of protests because they fear the big beasts clobbering the small guys everytime they need to?”

That’s possible in theory, but a quick search on the internet will show a lot of people attacking big companies. I don’t think they’re intimidated en masse.

“You say the law is changing, well let us ee if you are right, but let us further see if the changes are anything like what is required to allow free speech in this Country. Forgive me if I fail to share your touching faith in the system to change, because I have seen this too many times beforehand and it normally ends in a fudge and it never gets to the bottom of the issue.”

I SHARE your concerns about the system. I just don’t use them to excuse violence, which (regardless of your claims to the contrary) is precisely what you’re doing now.

“We are not talking about multiple murder, we are talking about anger at a political system.”

I’m aware of that, funnily enough.

“You cannot assuage that ‘anger’ with a pithy youTube post, people feel, rightly or wrongly, that they need to lash out.”

Do you really want me to provide a list of people who “feel the need to lash out”? Domestic abusers, for example? Patiently explaining why people want to be violent does not excuse their violence.

“That is the issue we need to address. We need to give people a stake in our society and allow them to participate in our governance. Simply telling violent people that they need to learn how to write better letters is hardly likely to steer people from that violence, is it?”

This I agree with, but how can we apply it in the short-term scenario of dealing with protests that are happening now? Simply: do you think violent rioters should or should not be prosecuted?

“Yeah, when you put it like that, you may have a pont. These people are too stupid to vote, therefore if we just ignore them and their views they will get bored and go away.”

Ah, when you put it like a straw man, you may have a point! Grow up. I never said that they were too stupid to vote, or that they will (or should) go away if we ignore them. And I objected to their actions, not their views – learn to distinguish the two! I just provided an explanation of why people feel the need to express themselves through vandalism and intimidation.

Instead of acting as if I’m being cruel to these thugs, why not provide your alternative? If you don’t want their actions to be “ignored”, what should we do instead? Back down in front of their violence? Change government policy to suit any thug with a brick in their hands?

Mr S. Pill – Are you so naive that you really think anyone cares how many peaceful protesters there were. Did you not see a single news report or headline the following day? All people care about is the damage they see on the BBC or Sky.

You have missed the point totally it seems and as an ex-Labour voter I really hope all other Labour supporters share your opinion.

I have no idealogical opposition to cuts – just governments wasting money that isn’t theirs and the last one did it on a monumental scale.

Let me put it back to you. Why do you think it’s right for a government to not do it’s upmost to repay our debts? Why is it right to leave our children’s children to pick up the bill?

And regarding lying I remember voting for Tony Full Third Term Blair, being told Gordon Brown had abolished Boom and Bust and in 45 minutes Iraq could explode WMD in Cyprus. Please don’t talk to me about lying.

The books in this country last balanced in 2001 despite Brown’s stupid Golden Rules. These are simply cuts in spending that are long overdue. The country is bust as it always has been without exception after a Labour government is booted out.

There is no “struggle” by a party lead by a tax avoiding multimillionaire from Primrose Hill and if you have 10 million people peacefully protesting and only 2 of them start damaging property that’s the bit the media will report on. Get real.

What Labour don’t like is the fact they are more and more irrelevant and without bully boys like Alistair Campbell they can no longer manipulate the media.

And finally you kick your prediction to September now which is pathetic really. No offence…

@UKcuts – If what you say is true regarding the extent of the debt this country is in then why would Liam Byrne make that comment?

There is nothing that is “fundamentally huge” regarding “cuts” to the NHS – the country had it’s referendum and Labour were booted out so whatever your opinion on how parties should behave is irrelevant since it was a disaster for the Labour Party. I have blogged this else where and got some of it from Labour List:

Labour’s worst performance in a general election since 1918.
More seats were lost than at any general election since 1931.
The Conservatives achieved their second biggest swing from Labour since Thatcher in 1979.
2% more than Michael Foot in 1983 – 3% less than John Major in his landslide defeat of 1997.
Over 4000 councillors lost since Tony Blair’s election as Labour leader.
No government has lost so many votes/ percentage points as Labour 1997 and 2010.
Five million voters lost since 1st May 1997.
More people voted Conservative in Wales than Labour for the first time ever.
Gordon Brown was the least popular Prime Minister since records began.
The PLP never elected Brown or Miliband. Or the Labour Party members.
The biggest budget deficit in British peacetime history was inflicted on this country.
Labour owes in excess of £24million – it’s bust.

Cut’s to the forests? Please.

Personally, I’ve moved beyond bank bashing.

The ground has been covered endlesly, and as mentioned in this thread WE are just as guilty as the banks.

We need to move on if we’re to sort the issues we all caused out.

oops, last post was for another topic.

@77

We’re all aware of the stats relating to Labours loss last year.

I’m not sure how that gives the Tories or Libdems, both of whom also LOST, licence to radically change things when neither had this within their manifestos. If we want this kind of get in and do as you wish leadership, then we may as well simply install a dictatorship.

IF they had have documented all these changes and cuts in their manifestos, then neither would have got the level of votes they did.

Cameron very clearly said the NHS wouldnt be touched, education would be preserved, MOD & child benefit wouldnt be cut. He was very clear on this. He even went so far as to say you could trust him on these issues.

It’s why he got votes. Had people known what was ahead, we’d either have a very slim Labour win, or a Lab/Lib coalition instead.

So lets dispense with the idea we had a referendum on this and this was what was agreed, because cutting vital services and our NHS wasnt what I voted on as it wasnt tabled back then. And neither did the majority who voted last year.

As I posted earlier, the “we didnt know the debt was this bad” is crap. Both parties have shadow finance ministers who will have seen the figures as will any MP who reads the ‘red book’ published by the treasury at a budget.

Which leads us back to ideaology as to why the cuts are faster than really needed. The latest ONS unemployment figures dont cover the end of march for inflation and unemployment. If they did you’d see what everyone else is seeing. Bad times and double dip in full swing.

And as for the cuts to forests, a lazy reply from my mobile. I was refering to the needless exercise in selling off our forests – again not mentioned in either manifesto.

Chaise @ 75

Change government policy to suit any thug with a brick in their hands?

No. What we need to do is take into account that when legitimate protests take place, that some people will use it as an excuse to vent their anger. To put it as bluntly as I can and without condoning it in any way, the odd broken window is just the price we pay for having groups of people who are outside the political loop (for whatever reason).

What the ‘Left’ have to do is not get tangled up in these silly debates about ‘do you condemn this vandalism’, we need to ask ‘why are these people driven to vandalism’. We are not responsible for every brick thrown through a window, not directly anyway, we need to keep to the message that we are against the cuts. The brick throwers? They can answer for themselves and every time we are seen on telly talking about a brick then it detracts from thwe debate, that is why ‘the media’ go on about it.

I understand why people are reluctant to condemning the cuts. Mainly because it allows the media to move the focus away from the cuts onto a larger, deeper problem in society, i.e. why people who have no political vioce turn to vandalism. Frankly Paxman is not clearing that up at the start of the two minute debate.

When the Tory minister is on the box spining the latest cut in public service, you don’t see Paxman brandishing the latest hackwork from the aily Hate/Torygraph denouncing some disadvantaged group in society, do you? No, why not, because asking him to do that would leave him with little roomto expouse the Tory line and ‘appear rude’.

Of course, when a Tory minister is on, no-one ever stops forelock tuging long enough to to link the Tory Party with some nutters on the extreme end of the debate because that is ‘not the proper form’ is it?

@ukcuts – Which sounds fine but you are not answering the central reason for the “cuts” – after Labour governments leave office there is never any money left.

I know how much Labour loved spending billions with big business on PFI but we could build more schools than we have children by clearing the debt and paying no interest – it’s common sense.

Labour don’t like it because they know that in four years, all things being equal, the economy will have turned and the government will sell the bank shares and start shelling out the goodies and get re-elected. Labour can’t win with Miliband anyway and the government’s position will have been “proven” by then*

If there is an early election Labour will go bust anyway and if I was Cameron I’d look for an excuse to go to the country in 2013 by the time all this “end of the world for the NHS” nonsense has been shown to be just that. Nonsense.

Peaceful protest is fine. Violent action or damaging property is not.

*You may have noticed I don’t believe there are cuts any more than there were under Thatcher…

Jim – “Reasons for the vandalism…” Tough on crime eh Jim?

The left is doomed……

Im not an anarchist, but there is some things that need clearing up. The majority of Anarchists, whilst against the state, are not against state-benefits because most are left-wing/anarcosyndalists. They want destruction of the state but with the working-class being being in control of the means of production etc. Their are right-wing anarchists, anarcocapitalists etc, and some against any types of socialism. Thats in no way an experts view, just observations from anarchists in Portsmouth and other places i have met.

On the question of violence, I dont engage in it, but i dont condemn it. What were the targets? Banks and the Ritz. Although The Ritz may not have caused the crisis, you can be certain that those who did probably dined there and it is a symbol of wealth.

What was the violence? Poster paint and smashed windows. Rumours of explosives wrapped in coins and lightbulbs filled with armonia have not been proved (to my knowledge) and the protesters did not hurt as many people as the police yet people are not condemning the police for violence(though i note some are about other things).

People are not condemning it because ultimately, they probably think it wrong, but its only a bank.

@ 80 Jim

It seems to me, then, that the sensible thing to do is react to this violence in at least two ways simultaneously – arrest the people responsible (short-term), but also work to assess the situation that leads them to want to be violent (long-term). I’d certainly support that policy.

The problem is that, when person X condemns the violence and person Y counters by saying “ah, but it’s the establishment’s fault that they feel violent in the first place!”, that sounds like person Y is excusing the thugs rather than providing mitigating circumstance for them. Which leaves person X wondering whether this means we should allow thugs to go unchallenged.

Another point I’d make is that it would probably be impossible to remove all sources of political violence. First, you can’t please everyone. Second, some people have demands you would not want to meet (Islamist terrorists, for example). Third, I suspect some people just want to be agitators, rebels without causes. The sort of person who’s an animal liberation lunatic because the BNP didn’t get to him first.

Finally, what’s your basis for making Paxman out to be a Tory stooge? In my experience he’s equally aggressive with major politicians – in fact, his most famous moment was berating Michael Howard. I think the reason he doesn’t wave the Daily Mail in the face of Tory spokespersons is that the Tory could quite reasonably shrug and say “So? I’m not the Mail.”

@81

“*You may have noticed I don’t believe there are cuts any more than there were under Thatcher…
”

You don’t believe cuts see taking place? Seriously?

@83

So what your saying by attacking the ritz is this is a class war between the have & have nots really.

It’s ironic that many of the students protesting will one day earn the.salaries and be the people they currently despise of.

@85

Well, i do see it as a an attack on working class people by the ruling class. So do alot of other people.

With graduate unemployment, most students will probably end up working in low paid jobs, if they are lucky.

Chaise @ 84

Whoa, I never said these people should be immune from prosecution or sentencing, I said I can understand why some of them react the way they do. I cannot, with hand on heart, condemn these people because I cannot totally dismiss the possibility that I would copy their actions in the same circumstances. To be fair, I have remained relatively unscathed by the cuts, so far, but who is to say that will remain the same for the next five years?

I hope I never get so desperate that I feel my only course of action is to descend into this type of unfocused anger and vandalism, but who can say? I don’t want cancer either, but that is not to say I want the local hospice to close does it? I will be on marches this year with local people defending their services, even if I never actually use those services or need the benefits they use. I have been unemployed in the past though, so perhaps I am one of the people the ‘Left’ are ashamed of? Still, I see the Left Wing agenda has moved on inevitability to Palestine this week-end, so the Country’s undefended will take a back seat…
..Again. Still, best not make a fuss, who needs them anyway?

I do not think that Paxman et al (with a few exceptions) are ‘Tory’ stooges, per se, but they are establishment stooges. Every political movement has extremists, associated nutters and just plain thugs, but the media rarely focus on them. The Labour Party and the Left have to defend EVERYTHING that comes out of the mouth one of the various fringe people who exist within it. From poor old Bernie Grant’s ‘the police got a bloody hiding’, through to Linda Bellos ‘all white people are racist’ and everything in between.

Yet the Right are full of monsters that are of the same mind as every Cabinet minister. Cameron and now Clegg are allied to Climate Change deniers, yet neither is expected to condemn, without reservation, these people. We have seen the most sickening attacks on the sick and unemployed, yet no-one forces a minister to comment. We see Hannan trash the NHS, but we never hear Paxman ask Lansley or others: ‘You are the Party of Daniel Hannan who despises the NHS, why can we trust you’?

Never happens, because the odd ‘rogue Tory’ is just part of the political landscape and nothing to do with ‘real politics’ (unless he says something about race/sexuality of course) but every Leftie with a brick represents all of the people on a march, and everyone else on that march is expected to condemn it or have have it thrown into their faces.

@ 87 Jim

Fair enough, I think I’ve confused empathy with support in your case.

http://www.eveshamjournal.co.uk/news/local/pershore/8942398.Teacher_protest_terror

The head of foreign languages at St Bedes Middle School in Redditch was marching through Piccadilly when the trouble flared as a mob of masked thugs dressed in black surged into the peaceful protest intent on causing damage to banks, shops and disrupting the rally.

The Pershore resident said: “We could feel in the air that it had quickly turned sinister. There was a wave of these thugs dressed in black that seemed to come out of nowhere. I have never been so scared in my life. I felt something land on me that I found out later was paint but at the time you just don’t know. We were next to The Ritz Hotel and my friends and I pleaded with the manager to let us in. He was brilliant about it and we were told we had to stay indoors for about two hours as it wasn’t safe to go outside. These people turned it into a nightmare.”