News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


Liveblog: Brighton Smash EDO protest


Watch our video report above, more to follow tomorrow

8.30pm - Live blog now closed

The live blog is now closing. Sussex Police say the protest is now fully dispersed. A brief video report will be posted here this evening, and many more video reports will be uploaded tomorrow.

See tomorrow's Argus for a five page special, including the best of our photographs and reports from the street.

Click here for a gallery of pictures from the day, both from our photographers and from readers.

Thanks to all who contributed, including James Devonport, Dan Garland and Lasthours on Twitter, Ben Collier for his photographs, Rob Gourdie for his YouTube report, and everyone who commented on the story.

Argus coverage was carried out by reporters Emily Walker, Richard Gurner, Andy Chiles and Ben Parsons, and photographers Simon Dack, Kate Howell, Terry Aplin and Eddie Mitchell.

7.50pm - Police condemn "unjustified acts of violence"

Brighton & Hove City Commander, Chief Supt Graham Bartlett, has released the following statement about today's protest:

“Once again, during a demonstration organised by Smash EDO, we have seen unjustified acts of violence aimed at premises and police officers, with some officers receiving minor injuries. Members of public including many visitors to the city have been clearly frightened and intimidated by a small minority of the group who have been verbally abusive, and throwing missiles at police.

"One member of public was struck in the face by a missile and had to be treated by a police medical team.

"Paint has been thrown at and daubed on a number of premises and a window at a boutique in Market Street was broken. There was also other reports of wanton criminal damage taking place.

"This is a tough time for businesses and this additional disruption, coupled with these criminal acts, only can only impact even more on vital commerce and tourism in the city.

"As at 7.40pm, there were three arrests - one man was arrested for assaulting a police officer, one for obstructing police and one for criminal damage. We will continue to investigate the other offences that have occurred and where possible bring those responsible to justice.

"Once again I urge those who wish to hold demonstrations in the city to abide by the law and notify the police of their intentions in advance so that jointly we can plan a safe but visible event which respects their right to protest and others rights to go about their business free from intimidation and violence.

"I would like to remind the people of Brighton & Hove and the rest of Sussex is that the officers involved in policing violent demonstrations such as we have seen today are the same officers who provide the local policing service you would expect from us. We would all rather see them helping to resolve local issues in their neighbourhoods than having to police such protests as this."

7.30pm - Police confirm two more arrests. Police say the total number of people arrested is now three.

One man was arrested on suspicion of criminal damage after graffiti was sprayed on the Beach House cafe at the Palace Pier after a number of protesters climbed on the roof.

Another man was arrested on suspicion of obstructing police at the roundabout in front of the pier.

One protester has been taken to the Royal Sussex County Hospital after falling from the roof.

Police say a hardcore of about 15 people are still dancing in front of the Beach House Cafe.

7.20pm - Protest dies down

Most of the protest has now finished. Police say just one person has been arrested. Lasthours reports there are now just 50 people left at the Pier.

5.50pm - Protestors dance on pier roof as police back off.

Police have stepped back to avoid confrontation with protesters.

Around 40 people are on top of the roof of the Beach House Cafe, chanting "Who's streets? Our streets".

Some people are smashing lighbulbs on the pier chip shop, but agression and violence seems to be subsiding.

Kings Road and the Palace Pier roundabout are still closed to traffic, but the demonstration seems to be scaling down.

5.30pm - Protesters are marching along the seafront, throwing bottles and cans.

The 100-strong crowd is heading west along Kings Road.

The whole road has been cleared of traffic.

5.15pm - Protesters set off flares at pier

Smash EDO campaigners have been setting off bright red flares in the street, next to Brighton Pier.

The crowd at the pier roundabout has now swelled to around 400, as people make their way from the beach to watch.

Roads around the area, including St James's Street are believed to be completely blocked to traffic.

5pm - Protest heading back to pier.

Around 100 demonstrators have returned to the roundabout next the the Sealife Centre.

The bulk of the crowd had been congregating in Castle Square near the Pavillion.

Police officers are en route from John Street to the pier.

4.50pm - Police "preparing for riot" at police station

Police have closed the road and set up a wall of riot sheilds outside the police station in John Street.

The area has been cordonned off and blocked by police riot vans.

A witness said: "There are no protesters around, but the police look like they are expecting a riot."

4.30pm - Police officers are guarding EDO's factory, but protesters have not taken their campaign to the site.

Around a dozen police officers are guarding the site, but none of the protesters demonstrating in the city centre have yet broken away to the factory.

Officers were expecting the Moulsecoomb company to be the target of today's demonstration.

4.15pm - A mass of protesters are now on the land around St Peter's Church.

Lasthours reports on Twitter: "There are two soundsystems here. One playing king prawn, the other bad techno."

There seems to be a lull in the protest, possibly because of the rain which has just started.

3.45pm - Police have confirmed a woman was injured after being hit in the face with a missile.

A Sussex Police spokeswoman said: "In Priory Street at about 3pm a woman was injured after she was hit in the face by a missile."

Three police offficers are said to have been injured in total, described by the police spokeswoman as "push and shove" injuries.

Police estimate that 500 people were still involved in the protests at 2.30pm.

Around 200 protesters are still in Trafalgar Street.

A splinter group are thought to be heading towards Middle Street and the beach.

3.30pm - Protesters are using wheelie bins as battering rams to try and break down the police line.

As the stand-off in Trafalgar Street escalates, police have sealed off side streets and are trying to direct the march towards St Peter's Church.

Witnesses have reported tensions rising and a lot of pushing and shoving between police and protesters.

March organisers have hailed it a great success.

A spokesman for Smash EDO declared the demonstration the most successful in the campaign's history.

He said: "It was better than expected, I reckon at least 2,000 people at its height. It must be the best ever Smash EDO protest."

Jody Mcintyre, an 18-year-old student, said: "I think it's wrong that our country sells arms to other countries that you know are going to use them. "It's very distressing to see factories here in Brighton in the UK." Not everyone shared the thoughts of the protesters though. Rachel Newton, a 37-year-old architect technician, told The Argus: "Why don't they have a bath and get a life."

3.20pm - The standoff in Trafalgar Street continues.

Witnessing the action, James Devonport says: "There are massive confrontations happening. It's on verge of getting very violent. Very scary."

James posted this video of the standoff on YouTube:

3.15pm - Standoff between police and protesters in Trafalgar Street.

Demonstrators who have been turned back round by police, have thrown missiles, including cans and stones at police.

Protesters now seem to be changing direction and finding another route.

3pm-A man has been arrested during the Mayday march.

A spokesman for campaign group Smash EDO said he had been arrested on suspicion of assault.

The man, in his 20s was detained following a clash at the junction of Stanford Avenue and Cleveland Road.

The main body of protesters have now returned to Preston Circus, causing traffic chaos at the busy junction.

Police are still blocking demonstrators from accessing Ditchling Road from Stanley Road.

A small group of five or six cyclists, wearing the red and black Smash EDO uniform, have been spotted heading towards arms-manufacturer EDO MBM

Police have been coralling protesters into London Road.

The march has been directed up Anne Street to the New England Qurarter and onlookers reported the march becoming "a bit heated".

2.50pm - Unconfirmed reports an arrest has been made.

On Twitter, lasthours reports someone has been "nicked"

Meanwhile, former councillor and leading protester Marina Pepper has tweeted: "Sitting in Preston Park. Reclaim the Park? It's turned into a peace picnic! We'll regroup and head off soon."

2.45pm - Further violence between protesters and police as march heads through Preston Park.

One protester, wearing a black mask coverting his face was being restrained by police in Chester Terrace.

A female protestor was being held by police officers.

Confusion seems to be setting in amongst the crowd, with people shouting different directions.

Factions of the group seem to have split off, and shouted and conflicting destinations are being bandied around the group of around 300 people near Preston Park.

2.30pm - There are unconfirmed reports white paint has been thrown at a CCTV van in Preston Park.

On Twitter, anti-authoritarian zine lasthours also reports people are running out of the park to escape the police. It says people are forming a line, and police sirens are blazing.

It added: "People are singing the Darth Vader theme tune."

2.20pm - A crowd of around 300 protesters have gathered at Preston Park.

2.10pm - Angry clashes between police and protesters in Ditchling Road area.

Police officers drew their batons to keep protesters at bay in Ditchling Road.

A police line, keeping demonstrators in order, broke down after numerous missiles were thrown at officers.

Police resorted to using their batons to keep protesters at bay.

Rob Gourdie posted this video of riot police preparing for confrontation in nearby Fiveways:

At least one police officer was injured by a flying object, but injuries were not thought to be serious.

On Twitter, Lasthours reporter: "Just kicked off near Bromley Road. Some bricks thrown."

Traffic has been brought to a standstill at Preston Circus.

1.50pm - Police have lost control of the crowd in London Road and have tried to regain control using horses in Ditchling Road.

Two dozen officers up against a crowd of at least 200 have been forced to retreat under a hail of missiles.

At least one officer has been seen knocked to the ground.

Reporter Ben Parsons said: "The police seem to have lost all control of the crowd."

1.45pm - Protesters have been rocking a police van outside McDonald's.

A line of police with batons drawn are defending the restaurant. A group of protesters have peeled off down a side street and set off up Ditchling Road.

1.40pm - There are now clashes between police and protesters outside McDonald's in London Road.

Police have sealed off the road and some of the protesters appear to be trying to make their way to The Level.

On Twitter, Dan Garland reports that missiles have been thrown at the fast food chain, and police officers have moved in with riot shields to protect the building. He said: "The temperature's rising."

1.20pm - Turner prizewinner, Anish Kapoor, famous for his use of red paint, has been spotted watching the Mayday march.

The artist, currently artistic director of this year's Brighton festival was spotted watching the procession of around 500 people in Queen's Road.

Despite his love of red paint, the artist did not join in spraying red graffiti and throwing paint bombs at shops.

Protesters are now heading down Trafalgar Street.

Video by James Devonport. To see the footage in widescreen, click here

As the parade passed the heavy police pressence at the train station, more paint was sprayed onto a police CCTV van.

Crowds trying to get through the tunnel at the top of Trafalgar Street were crushed together from the sheer weight of the crowd.

1.05pm - Paintbombs thrown at campaign targets

DEMONSTRATORS have thrown bombs of red paint at capitalist and military targets.

Barlcays Bank in North Street was splattered in paint after one of the paint bombs was hurled from the increasingly aggressive crowd.

Now a second paint bomb has been thrown at the Army Surplus store in Queen's Road.

Lines of red graffiti have also been sprayed on shop fronts, as the march heads back towards Brighton train station.

1pm - Protesters climb scaffolding at bank

ANTI-CAPITALIST campaigners have climbed scaffolding on a bank.

Three men climbed the scaffolding to try and hang a banner on the North Street branch.

Police appear to have arrested some of the men trying to climb the scaffolding. Then men are believed to have tried to drag the officers back into the crowd with a scuffle ensuing.

Officers are now forming a protective barrier around the bank.

12:50pm - Police officers are preparing for clashes with protesters outside the Royal Bank of Scotland.

The Mayday demonstrators are now heading from the pier towards the city centre via the Old Steine and North Street.

Officers on horseback are stood guard against possible trouble at the bank, tipped as one of the capitalist targets by march organisers Smash EDO last week.

Half a dozen police officers are guarding the entrance and windows to the bank, but so far anti-capitalist campaigners are funnelling past peacefully.

Around 400 people have joined the march.

12:35pm - Protest moves tiowards Old Steine

BRIGHTON seafront has been closed off by police as protesters fill the area.

Protesters were starting to move towards the Old Steine, but are being kept near the pier by police.

Motorists are being diverted through the city centre as Kings Road has been closed to traffic at the pier.

Spots of rain are beginning to fall but they don't seem to bother the protesters at the Palace Pier. Spots of rain are beginning to fall but they don't seem to bother the protesters at the Palace Pier.

Members of the public do not seem too bothered with the distruption along the seafront.

Pub shift manager Jake Tyler, 23, from Kemp Town, said: "We're taking it all in our stride.

"It's not giving Brighton a bad name, this is what Brighton is all about."

Another bystander Helen Williams, a 33-year-old credit controller, said: "I think good on them. They're exercising their right to protest.

12:12pm - Traffic chaos up as protest grows

QUEUES are building up along Madeira Drive and Grand Parade as Smash EDO protesters block the pier roundabout.

Around 40 people are currently in the centre of the roundabout dancing.

A further 200 people have gathered near the entrance to Brighton Pier.

Cyclists are slowly pedalling along the seafront between the piers in a bid to further disrupt traffic.

Police are currently taking a hands-off approach and only intervening when vehicles become trapped on the aquarium roundabout.

12.00 - Cycling protesters halt traffic

Protesters have brought traffic to a standstill by riding continuously around the Palace Pier roundabout.

They left Brighton train station at about 11.10am.

Severe disruption is expected throughout the city as they head west towards the West Pier along the seafront.

11.50am Protesters heading to Brighton Pier

ANTI-ARMS and capitalism campaigners are heading for Brighton seafront for today's Mayday protest.

Protesters are expected to start congregating opposite Brighton Pier in the next hour.

There are about 50 to 60 cyclists heading from Brighton station towards the pier, and said they were intent on a peaceful protest.

Former Lewes councillor Marina Pepper cycled to Brighton train station from Saltdean for today's "street party".

She said: "I'm sure today will be a lovely tourist attraction." Asked whether criticism of the protesters was justified, she replied: "It's ridiculous.It's everybody's Bank Holiday and if people want to go to the garden centre they can go to the garden centre. "If people want to go to the beach they can but if people want to protest against the war machine then very much good for them."

11.30am Protesters start cycle ride around city

PROTESTERS on bicycles are starting to make their way onto the city centre streets.

Cyclists have just left Brighton train station on an secret route to disrupt traffic. There are about 40 to 50 cyclists on their way between the station and the city centre.

A protester who would only give his name as Tom, said: "I'm here today because people are dying everywhere as victims of the state and it's not right.

"I've travelled from Bristol today and there were a fair few of us on the train. "Hopefully it's going to be peaceful today. The police have been told to keep themselves in check."

11.15am Protesters gathering at Brighton station

PROTESTERS are beginning to gather at Brighton train station for today’s May Day protests.

One protester, Steven Sayer, 46, of Brighton said: “Of course today is going to be peaceful, we’ve got music, young people, it’s a carnival.

“I don’t want, on my conscience, in my town, equipment that has been used to kill children in Palestine.

“That’s not me saying something out of the air. That’s fact.”

The city is preparing for the biggest demonstration Brighton and Hove has ever seen with thousands expected to attend the Mayday march organised by peace campaign group Smash EDO.

The demonstrations are aimed at the Brighton-based defence manufacturer EDO MBM/ITT.

There are currently more police officers than demonstrators at the train station, including some riot officers on horseback.

Police teams started assuming positions around the city earlier this morning.

Sussex Police have set up a road block in Home Farm Road, blocking access to the site of the arms components factory which has been the focus of Smash EDO's activism.

8.25am Police prepare for protests

Police have begun preparing for a day of protest which threatens to bring Brighton's bank holiday to a standstill.

Smash EDO, the group organising the May Day demonstrations, has refused to co-operate with police or release details of the "Mass Street Party Against War and Greed" until just before the event begins.

Police units from across Sussex and the south east poured into Brighton and gathered at the Territorial Army centre in Dyke Road this morning.

About 40 vans were seen to arrive, some bearing the insignia of Thames Valley Police and Kent Police.

Dog units and police horses were seen as police gathered to plan their response to the day's protests.

Officers also stood guard in Home Farm Road, the site of the arms components factory EDO MBM Technology which has been the focus of Smash EDO's activism.

Demonstrations are expected to begin with a mass bicycle ride from Brighton railway station at 11am.

* For all the latest news from the demonstrations in Brighton visit www.theargus.co.uk throughout the day.

* Send us your pictures by emailing pix@theargus.co.uk or text them to 80360, starting your message with SUPIC.

* Let us know how you have been affected, or tell us your stories if you have taken part. Email news@theargus.co.uk. or add your comments to our coverage.


Comments(550)

Jay-kay says...
8:52am Mon 4 May 09

great, some bunch of smelly tramps having what they call a party means us normal folk cant go into town,, with their natted hair and saggy boobs, they are using our tax payers money to control them, I say ours because we know they dont pay it... so i will have to just go and sit in star bucks all day.. hope the police can get rid of them

TheInsider says...
9:02am Mon 4 May 09

People of Brighton and Hove, carry on your business.
Do not let out of towners ruin your hard earned holiday.

william of orange says...
9:11am Mon 4 May 09

TheInsider wrote:
People of Brighton and Hove, carry on your business. Do not let out of towners ruin your hard earned holiday.

I'm not....I'm off to the beach at Littlehampton!

I've just had a thought...will Police kettling tactics mean that the spread of swine flu will be quicker among EDO protestors?

Maybe that's what's really behind that tactic!


Osama bin there says...
9:14am Mon 4 May 09

Better get off down to Sainsburys before they shut the Lewes Road then...

PETE OF QUEENS PARK says...
9:20am Mon 4 May 09

Use all available means to stop these useless swampies from spoiling the day for decent living people,use hoses but I doubt the water would penetrat the filth on them and put a few tacks in front of there bikes or let the dogs loose,we are to soft with law breakers in this country

steeleysmith says...
9:22am Mon 4 May 09

Saturday -the Children's Parade brought out all that was good and positive in this city-the fear and intimidation that mass protests will inevitably evoke seems able to negate that optimism -Shame!

Fercri Sakes says...
9:37am Mon 4 May 09

To Steeleysmith: I'm not going to be one of these protesters but it's bit ironic to talk about the peaceful Children's Parade when just down the road they are making waepon systems that will be blowing innocent kids up in other parts of the world.

When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it.

So next time you off-handedly judge these people as wasters just think if they are successful in achieving their goals that one day from now some child won't be pulling a shard of metal out of their parent's head with "Made In Brighton" written on it.

Osama bin there says...
10:00am Mon 4 May 09

Fercri Sakes wrote:
To Steeleysmith: I'm not going to be one of these protesters but it's bit ironic to talk about the peaceful Children's Parade when just down the road they are making waepon systems that will be blowing innocent kids up in other parts of the world. When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it. So next time you off-handedly judge these people as wasters just think if they are successful in achieving their goals that one day from now some child won't be pulling a shard of metal out of their parent's head with "Made In Brighton" written on it.
They don't make bombs, and the bombs used by the Israelis, USA, UK are not fired by EDO.
It's like attacking BMW because lots of people lose their lives in accidents as result of young people driving these cars.
How many times do you people have to be told?

Tye says...
10:07am Mon 4 May 09

Osama bin there wrote:
Fercri Sakes wrote: To Steeleysmith: I'm not going to be one of these protesters but it's bit ironic to talk about the peaceful Children's Parade when just down the road they are making waepon systems that will be blowing innocent kids up in other parts of the world. When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it. So next time you off-handedly judge these people as wasters just think if they are successful in achieving their goals that one day from now some child won't be pulling a shard of metal out of their parent's head with "Made In Brighton" written on it.
They don't make bombs, and the bombs used by the Israelis, USA, UK are not fired by EDO. It's like attacking BMW because lots of people lose their lives in accidents as result of young people driving these cars. How many times do you people have to be told?
Well Done that man.

I agree completely

(We'll probably agree the next time we have a dry bank holiday :)

Tye says...
10:11am Mon 4 May 09

My only other question is why oh why do British Police NOT use water cannon in the same way as the rest of Europe

would a **** good wash infringe the uman rites of these scum - funny how we brits are about the only followers of this damned stupid EU regulation

steeleysmith says...
10:14am Mon 4 May 09

No doubt there will be some protesters with strongly held pacificistic beliefs.However I guarantee that there will be a significant element of extremists and anarchists whose prime aim is to destabilise the system rather than to protect and to validate the democratic right of protest. Alienating the disinterested majority will not advance the cause!

Acheron says...
10:16am Mon 4 May 09

Tye, Osama,

They ain't going to listen. They are happy to believe the propaganda they are given by those they support, but are unwilling to listen to factual information from others. All rather sad really!

steeleysmith says...
10:23am Mon 4 May 09

Targeting peripheral businesses because of their association with EDO is ludicrous- connections can be established in all areas - that does not make the distant connections equally -to paraphrase the protestors philosophy- "culpable". It is just an excuse to spread disruption - but maybe , by doing so , will dilute the effect.

S.T. Rewth says...
10:23am Mon 4 May 09

Round them up.
Put them in a field.
Take their names.
Stop their benefits.

All in a peaceful manner of course.

S.T. Rewth says...
10:23am Mon 4 May 09

Round them up.
Put them in a field.
Take their names.
Stop their benefits.

All in a peaceful manner of course.

Osama bin there says...
10:26am Mon 4 May 09

Tye wrote:
My only other question is why oh why do British Police NOT use water cannon in the same way as the rest of Europe would a **** good wash infringe the uman rites of these scum - funny how we brits are about the only followers of this damned stupid EU regulation
I don't know why we don't use it. It's an easy way of dispersing a crowd without causing major injury.
I'll never forget the tv pictures of the Belgian police using water cannon against english football hooligans, after they had done their best to wreck a beautiful medieval town centre.
The look of pure bewilderment on some fat, lagered up skinhead as he was swept across a plaza on his ar5e by the water cannon was a joy to behold..
And then the big babies accused the belgian police of overreacting!
Yep - bring on the water cannon!

Hugh Rinall says...
10:31am Mon 4 May 09

As a young matelot in the Royal Navy, the brief when dealing with rioters in foreign lands was, 'identify the ringleader and shoot him'. It worked a treat! Lesson for dealing with workshy anarchist U.K. dossers I think!

TheInsider says...
10:32am Mon 4 May 09

Anyone who uses the cause of the suffragettes with this protest really needs to step back and re-consider the comment.
Campaigning outside a fast food chain, a bank or a company because you disagree with what they are doing and using threats of violence to achieve this aim is very different from Suffragettes chaining themselves to railings to get the vote...and their cause was not just about the vote, it was about achieving the vote to change a whole raft of laws and conditions which prevented women from being human beings, ie not having the rights to their own money, protection from domestic rape, the list goes on.
You have denigrated one of the most important campaigns in UK history and probably alienated any women who read your post.

steeleysmith says...
10:40am Mon 4 May 09

SMASH EDO,which incidentally is an anagram of Sad Homes - are unprepared to come to any agreement with the authorities to share their plans with the police and relevant authorities who are responsible for protecting not persecuting the public. I do hope that no tragedy occurs because of this lack of comunication. I thought democracy was about sharing opinions to reach a settlement through peaceful discussion and compromise. It has been stated that the Suffragettes' protest draws a parallel to this event. Surely your correspondent is aware of the long , arduous and involved negotiations that were conducted away from the public view to achieve sufferage for women. The public face of protest is often that which sets back campaigns by years.

Fight Back says...
10:44am Mon 4 May 09

Fercri Sakes wrote:
To Steeleysmith: I'm not going to be one of these protesters but it's bit ironic to talk about the peaceful Children's Parade when just down the road they are making waepon systems that will be blowing innocent kids up in other parts of the world.

When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it.

So next time you off-handedly judge these people as wasters just think if they are successful in achieving their goals that one day from now some child won't be pulling a shard of metal out of their parent's head with Then go and protest in Crawley, Reading, Bracknell, Linlithigow ...... all of which have far more defence companies some of whom actually make WEAPONS. Smash EDO are not welcome in this city and I personally make sure I continue to use Starbucks, McDs etc just to spite the protestors.

auby says...
10:47am Mon 4 May 09

I do have a job thanks and so do many others that will be attending the protest...Also edo do make parts that ignite bombs.Does it matter which country are firing them? Surely this is wrong as many innocent people and children are affected.I suppose you all listen and believe what you are reading in the press.Dont you think that they tell you want they want you to know.Oh and i also shower daily thanks! Try some independent sources please..............
....................
.....

Spx says...
10:53am Mon 4 May 09

Fercri Sakes wrote:
To Steeleysmith: I'm not going to be one of these protesters but it's bit ironic to talk about the peaceful Children's Parade when just down the road they are making waepon systems that will be blowing innocent kids up in other parts of the world. When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it. So next time you off-handedly judge these people as wasters just think if they are successful in achieving their goals that one day from now some child won't be pulling a shard of metal out of their parent's head with "Made In Brighton" written on it.
Classic!

Osama bin there says...
10:57am Mon 4 May 09

auby wrote:
I do have a job thanks and so do many others that will be attending the protest...Also edo do make parts that ignite bombs.Does it matter which country are firing them? Surely this is wrong as many innocent people and children are affected.I suppose you all listen and believe what you are reading in the press.Dont you think that they tell you want they want you to know.Oh and i also shower daily thanks! Try some independent sources please..............

....................

.....
I can't be bothered to go through it all again.
They don't make bombs. End of. And neither do MacDonalds, American Express, or Brighton & Hove City Council.
Stop using Wikipedia to back up all your arguments and do some real research.

steeleysmith says...
10:58am Mon 4 May 09

Another thought- why are the protestors not targetting the makers of the Army's IW manufacturers- or their suppliers- the screw manufacturers, the steel producers, the miners who mine the raw materials- all these are connections to weapons of destruction and perhaps more valid than a fast food chain !

Fight Back says...
11:03am Mon 4 May 09

auby wrote:
I do have a job thanks and so do many others that will be attending the protest...Also edo do make parts that ignite bombs.Does it matter which country are firing them? Surely this is wrong as many innocent people and children are affected.I suppose you all listen and believe what you are reading in the press.Dont you think that they tell you want they want you to know.Oh and i also shower daily thanks! Try some independent sources please..............

....................

.....
The parts not ignite the bombs ( this isn't a cartoon - they don't strike a match ! ). The parts prevent accidental release - comething completely different.

AJPrince says...
11:03am Mon 4 May 09

I think the right to peaceful protest and freedom of speech is one of the many things soldiers died for in the world wars to give us. I'm proud of people who bother to get off their backsides and try and make a difference, even if the cause at times may be misguided. I just hope the protestors have brought their cameras to keep an eye on how the police 'control' them.

TheInsider says...
11:05am Mon 4 May 09

Suffragettes lobbied parliament and many of them were from the upper echelons of society so were able to engage with those with the power to effect change. They did not achieve their aim with violence.
And what has a fast food burger chain have in common with EDO and banks?
It's utterly bizarre and most people are utterly confused by this campaign.
Did McD give away bomb making kits with every Happy Meal?
It's all a bit of a disorganised mess.

Brunswicker says...
11:16am Mon 4 May 09

I pay enough tax in one year to pay for the entire police for this protest. I employ over 30 people and yes I do wash. My business is community based and NOT making components to kill people.

It is my perfect right to protest and so I will be there (just leaving now).

Tye says...
11:18am Mon 4 May 09

Its funny how its only thanks to our armed forces and our arms making factories that these agitatots/troble makers have the freedom to complain about these folks

Irony ?

sugarhorse says...
11:18am Mon 4 May 09

AJPrince wrote:
I think the right to peaceful protest and freedom of speech is one of the many things soldiers died for in the world wars to give us. I'm proud of people who bother to get off their backsides and try and make a difference, even if the cause at times may be misguided. I just hope the protestors have brought their cameras to keep an eye on how the police 'control' them.
You are right, they gave us the right to peaceful protest.

The key word there is peaceful.

These demonstrations are not peaceful at all. Every time they include damage, humiliation, violence and then these buffoons wonder why they are met with force.

Hopefully the police will be able to push them all up the A23 and let me carry on with what I needed to do today, but now can't.

Tye says...
11:21am Mon 4 May 09

Brunswicker wrote:
I pay enough tax in one year to pay for the entire police for this protest. I employ over 30 people and yes I do wash. My business is community based and NOT making components to kill people. It is my perfect right to protest and so I will be there (just leaving now).
Community based?

Rich scroungers abusing the system that feeds them!

auby says...
11:21am Mon 4 May 09

Osama i have not ever used wikipedia,maybe its you that does....Nobody has said edo and maccy d are related in any way.The protest has many different issues.What a shame fight back....A cartoon would be better.Any association with the making of weapons that hurt innocent people is wrong.I wonder how many of you are from brighton/hove???? I dont meet many of you that often. MC Crap is maybe what you like to eat...I thought you lot posted about chavs eating that crap...X

steeleysmith says...
11:23am Mon 4 May 09

AJPrince wrote:
I think the right to peaceful protest and freedom of speech is one of the many things soldiers died for in the world wars to give us. I'm proud of people who bother to get off their backsides and try and make a difference, even if the cause at times may be misguided. I just hope the protestors have brought their cameras to keep an eye on how the police 'control' them.
I agree with freedom of speech and peaceful protest-let's just keep the objects of protest legitimate and peaceful

steeleysmith says...
11:31am Mon 4 May 09

Luckily we don't have to worry any more- it's a carnival- with music and children ( quote latest update)- I thought this was a serious and reasoned protest- but it's just another Bank Holiday blurt- a composite motion for the disaffected- still back to work tomorrow eh ?

Bennn says...
11:32am Mon 4 May 09

How is it every single miserable right-wing old moaner in Brighton and Hove seems to comment on these stories. "Round them up, stop their benefits"???? I don't agree with all that Smash EDO says, and I will not be protesting today, but these people have a right to protest and some of the comments I have read here today are far more agressive than the protesters themselves. What would the world become if everybody just shut up, stopped protesting and accepted everything? Certainly not a better place. Brighton is a place where people feel free and where moaners like yourselves only seem to be found on The Argus website, so just let them protest while you lie on the beach under the clouds. Once again, I am against violence and hope the protests will stay peaceful, but some of the comments here are so horrible, violent, stupid and closed-minded that it makes me happy to see that some people in this country still rebel against the things they disagree with.

Andy R says...
11:40am Mon 4 May 09

TheInsider wrote:
Suffragettes lobbied parliament and many of them were from the upper echelons of society so were able to engage with those with the power to effect change. They did not achieve their aim with violence. And what has a fast food burger chain have in common with EDO and banks? It's utterly bizarre and most people are utterly confused by this campaign. Did McD give away bomb making kits with every Happy Meal? It's all a bit of a disorganised mess.
You've got a very romantic view of the Suffragettes. They used a variety of tactics, including smashing up property and physically attacking politicians. They did what they needed to do at various times. I suspect that, by the end of day, we'll be wondering what all the fuss was about today, though no doubt the Argus will be doing its best to turn any minor scuffle into a full-blown riot.

Security word "drug-time" (yes it really is!)

steeleysmith says...
11:42am Mon 4 May 09

Will our MPS be joining the protest bearing in mind their stand on the Iraq War or are they keeping their heads down- and could someone give me a breakdown between local protestors and out-of towners -including Dieppe !

paulbton says...
11:45am Mon 4 May 09

Fercri Sakes wrote:
To Steeleysmith: I'm not going to be one of these protesters but it's bit ironic to talk about the peaceful Children's Parade when just down the road they are making waepon systems that will be blowing innocent kids up in other parts of the world.

When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it.

So next time you off-handedly judge these people as wasters just think if they are successful in achieving their goals that one day from now some child won't be pulling a shard of metal out of their parent's head with "Made In Brighton" written on it.
"when just down the road they are making waepon systems that will be blowing innocent kids up in other parts of the world." is this what you think they do? make weapons to kill children ? you can spin anything to make it sound bad or the way you want it to. I myself think they help build weapons to protect or country and to help others YES I know innocent people and children get killed in wars, in some African countries they cut off the hands of children so they can't fight when they grow up, we still make knifes! Children have a better chance of surviving a car accident if the car is travelling at 30mph, but all cars are not limited to 30mph. War is evil but if we don't have the weapons to defend country who will ? You...

Acheron says...
11:59am Mon 4 May 09

Auby,

Can I ask what makes your sources indepent. You're accusing people who agree with the media (not cite them, just agree with them) that they are not independant. I'd hardly call Smash Edo independant as a source of information, they are the exact opposite. So please, who are your independant sources?

william of orange says...
12:00pm Mon 4 May 09


Please , please, please target the Labour HQ in Brighton...then even I would join you!

After all they are the ones that voted to start these illegal wars!

But then no you wouldn't want to punish those actually responsible would you!


BN1 says...
12:02pm Mon 4 May 09

I hope it rains.

Number Cruncher says...
12:14pm Mon 4 May 09

They have just passed our office in the Old Steine, must have lost a few on their way. Only 10 or so cyclists ringing their bells - hardly a threat to civilisation!

Osama bin there says...
12:25pm Mon 4 May 09

If they are actually blocking the use of the roundabout by the pier why aren't the police arresting everyone concerned?
It's other people's right to be able to use the roads as normal.

BN1 says...
12:25pm Mon 4 May 09

Blocking the roundabout by the pier? Big AND clever... i hope the poice get the tasers out...

brightongirl1 says...
12:31pm Mon 4 May 09

i think there protest is for a good cause but they go about it in the wrong way and cause problems for everyone around them.the last protest they had along lewis road caused problems as they felt the need to do it when the children were coming out of school,some children saw fights which scared them and they had no consideration for people needing to get there children home.i was trying to get my children home and had to walk along lewis road and my children were very worried i think they are being very selfish!!!

BN1 says...
12:35pm Mon 4 May 09

EDO have just announced they are closing down - 40 hippies on a roundabout was far too much for them.

getreal1 says...
1:05pm Mon 4 May 09

Osama bin there wrote:
Tye wrote: My only other question is why oh why do British Police NOT use water cannon in the same way as the rest of Europe would a **** good wash infringe the uman rites of these scum - funny how we brits are about the only followers of this damned stupid EU regulation
I don't know why we don't use it. It's an easy way of dispersing a crowd without causing major injury. I'll never forget the tv pictures of the Belgian police using water cannon against english football hooligans, after they had done their best to wreck a beautiful medieval town centre. The look of pure bewilderment on some fat, lagered up skinhead as he was swept across a plaza on his ar5e by the water cannon was a joy to behold.. And then the big babies accused the belgian police of overreacting! Yep - bring on the water cannon!
Osama - those moments were priceless and I never spoke to anyone who thought that these people had had their rights infringed .... just as I doubt I'd speak to anyone who would oppose the use of water cannon save for those who are afraid of it being used against them.

getreal1 says...
1:06pm Mon 4 May 09

getreal1 wrote:
Osama bin there wrote:
Tye wrote: My only other question is why oh why do British Police NOT use water cannon in the same way as the rest of Europe would a **** good wash infringe the uman rites of these scum - funny how we brits are about the only followers of this damned stupid EU regulation
I don't know why we don't use it. It's an easy way of dispersing a crowd without causing major injury. I'll never forget the tv pictures of the Belgian police using water cannon against english football hooligans, after they had done their best to wreck a beautiful medieval town centre. The look of pure bewilderment on some fat, lagered up skinhead as he was swept across a plaza on his ar5e by the water cannon was a joy to behold.. And then the big babies accused the belgian police of overreacting! Yep - bring on the water cannon!
Osama - those moments were priceless and I never spoke to anyone who thought that these people had had their rights infringed .... just as I doubt I'd speak to anyone who would oppose the use of water cannon save for those who are afraid of it being used against them.
spoken - sorry

Osama bin there says...
1:06pm Mon 4 May 09

Looks like they've managed to keep it 'peaceful' for about 2 hrs.
I can hear the police sirens right now.
security word:
grow-home
should have been go-home

Osama bin there says...
1:08pm Mon 4 May 09

And what the flip do the Royal Bank of Scotland have to do with EDO?
I'd love one you protest supporters to explain that one.

AJPrince says...
1:12pm Mon 4 May 09

sugarhorse wrote:
AJPrince wrote:
I think the right to peaceful protest and freedom of speech is one of the many things soldiers died for in the world wars to give us. I'm proud of people who bother to get off their backsides and try and make a difference, even if the cause at times may be misguided. I just hope the protestors have brought their cameras to keep an eye on how the police 'control' them.
You are right, they gave us the right to peaceful protest.

The key word there is peaceful.

These demonstrations are not peaceful at all. Every time they include damage, humiliation, violence and then these buffoons wonder why they are met with force.

Hopefully the police will be able to push them all up the A23 and let me carry on with what I needed to do today, but now can't.
Indeed, unfortunately you'll often get some protestors getting violent, rather like some police do. Still, it's good to see that not all Brighton residents are content to just contemplate their lattes and plasmas TVs but actually stand up for something.

Tye says...
1:15pm Mon 4 May 09

Number Cruncher wrote:
They have just passed our office in the Old Steine, must have lost a few on their way. Only 10 or so cyclists ringing their bells - hardly a threat to civilisation!
but "smash EDO" ?

How ?

or just anti people with cars now!

Tye says...
1:15pm Mon 4 May 09

Number Cruncher wrote:
They have just passed our office in the Old Steine, must have lost a few on their way. Only 10 or so cyclists ringing their bells - hardly a threat to civilisation!
but "smash EDO" ?

How ?

or just anti people with cars now!

fergus96 says...
1:18pm Mon 4 May 09

pikey scum

Lawson-land says...
1:19pm Mon 4 May 09

Can we have some more photos Argus please!

Llort says...
1:21pm Mon 4 May 09

Some of the comments above make me ashamed to be from B&H. The Argus comments have become dominated by a small group of aggressively minded thugs, whom I presume are just excited to have a platform, when I imagine in real life, away from their computers, they struggle to find an audience.

Disperse them with water cannons? Scroungers? Unwashed? Give em a bashing? Those views are a couple of decades out of date.

Thankfully, some people out there are still prepared to switch off their computers, go outside and declare what they are for or against.

That takes sacrifice and guts. Mayday has long been a day of celebration, solidarity with the downtrodden, and the rights of humanity. Today's events are perfectly in keeping with that, not easy in the face of apathy and those such as the government, the police and clearly some of the minority represented by the regular posters above, who wish to deny those rights.

These protesters are part of the rich cultural tapestry of this city, alongside the pier amusements, the art of the Brighton Festival, the music scene and so on. They are not contrary to it.

wongy says...
1:22pm Mon 4 May 09

hope these protesters are gonna come back and clean up the mess from their paint bombs.its gonna take washing powder to get it off their clothes

Jo Wadsworth says...
1:31pm Mon 4 May 09

Lawson-land wrote:
Can we have some more photos Argus please!
Our photographers are right in the thick of it at the moment. However, we're hoping to get lots through in about half an hour, and then I'll be setting up a gallery to post them all to.

BN1 says...
1:32pm Mon 4 May 09

So it's turning into another free-for-all in the streets in the loose name of a protest is it?

AJPrince says...
1:32pm Mon 4 May 09

Osama bin there wrote:
And what the flip do the Royal Bank of Scotland have to do with EDO?
I'd love one you protest supporters to explain that one.
The protest is also targeting greed and capitalism apparently, which means banks such as RBS - the organisations who have kindly assisted the government in bringing about the recession.

Tye says...
1:33pm Mon 4 May 09

Llort wrote:
Some of the comments above make me ashamed to be from B&H. The Argus comments have become dominated by a small group of aggressively minded thugs, whom I presume are just excited to have a platform, when I imagine in real life, away from their computers, they struggle to find an audience. Disperse them with water cannons? Scroungers? Unwashed? Give em a bashing? Those views are a couple of decades out of date. Thankfully, some people out there are still prepared to switch off their computers, go outside and declare what they are for or against. That takes sacrifice and guts. Mayday has long been a day of celebration, solidarity with the downtrodden, and the rights of humanity. Today's events are perfectly in keeping with that, not easy in the face of apathy and those such as the government, the police and clearly some of the minority represented by the regular posters above, who wish to deny those rights. These protesters are part of the rich cultural tapestry of this city, alongside the pier amusements, the art of the Brighton Festival, the music scene and so on. They are not contrary to it.
You want anger or confrontation - just look at how Mugabe or China deals with its dissenters - now THEY are Police States but just because the UK cops don't bend over backwards to help them ......

correction man says...
1:39pm Mon 4 May 09

think your reporter may be lost, no Queen Street in Brighton

Osama bin there says...
1:42pm Mon 4 May 09

AJPrince wrote:
Osama bin there wrote:
And what the flip do the Royal Bank of Scotland have to do with EDO?
I'd love one you protest supporters to explain that one.
The protest is also targeting greed and capitalism apparently, which means banks such as RBS - the organisations who have kindly assisted the government in bringing about the recession.
Well they are attacking the wrong target.
It was Margaret Thatcher who dismantled all the banking regulations in the mid 80s, started the 'greed is good' society and then sold off all the state owned utilities, which is the main reason we find ourselves in the financial position we are in now.
So they should go and protest outside 'Thatcher Towers' instead.
Sadly I don't think the protesters today have any idea of the history.

Dave At Home says...
1:47pm Mon 4 May 09

Osama bin there wrote:
Tye wrote:
My only other question is why oh why do British Police NOT use water cannon in the same way as the rest of Europe would a **** good wash infringe the uman rites of these scum - funny how we brits are about the only followers of this damned stupid EU regulation
I don't know why we don't use it. It's an easy way of dispersing a crowd without causing major injury.
I'll never forget the tv pictures of the Belgian police using water cannon against english football hooligans, after they had done their best to wreck a beautiful medieval town centre.
The look of pure bewilderment on some fat, lagered up skinhead as he was swept across a plaza on his ar5e by the water cannon was a joy to behold..
And then the big babies accused the belgian police of overreacting!
Yep - bring on the water cannon!
There is only one water cannon in the UK and that is located in Northern Ireland, it has only been brought over to the mainland once for the G8 summit.

Maybe we could let some police dogs loose on them and come back a few hours later and see what is left.

Acheron says...
1:51pm Mon 4 May 09

Llort,

By critising those people on here who don't hold to your view, you are just as guilty as those you choose to have a go at. You don't know any of us, know what we do etc. Just because we don't back this particular cause, doesn't mean there are others we don't back.

Me personally, I feel that doing something about the hundreds of thousands of under 5s who die from dehydration each year is a bigger issue.

Doesn't make me some sort of hero or anything. Just makes me someone who wants to make a difference and I can do it without resorting to violence and thuggish behaviour.

Jo Wadsworth says...
1:51pm Mon 4 May 09

correction man wrote:
think your reporter may be lost, no Queen Street in Brighton
Thanks correction man, I've now made the change. Please bear with us, and carry on pointing out errors - the nature of a live blog means the odd mistake will creep through, and we really appreciate your help with this.


Meanwhile, Lawson-land, the photographer who was heading to a quiet spot to get pictures back just got caught up outside McDonald's, but we'll get them up as soon as we can. In the meantime, I've posted another picture which someone uploaded to Twitter.

steeleysmith says...
1:55pm Mon 4 May 09

Good to see that the face of deomcracy is being responsibly maintained by paint bombing McDonalds. What's next ? I wonder if Brunswicker's tax bill will also cover the clean up of the city.

BN1 says...
1:55pm Mon 4 May 09

It's just wall to wall police sirens up here - who's paying for all this policing?

Acheron says...
1:59pm Mon 4 May 09

Jo (web editor).

Can you post the twitter link so we can follow on that as well (or is it just the same as whats appearing here). Thanks, had a quick look and couldn't find it.

Lil says...
1:59pm Mon 4 May 09

Charlie Brooker would have a field day over this one.

sugarhorse says...
2:02pm Mon 4 May 09

BN1 wrote:
It's just wall to wall police sirens up here - who's paying for all this policing?
I guess we are....as well as paying for the damage that these idiots have caused to be put right.

Dave At Home says...
2:02pm Mon 4 May 09

Reporter Ben Parsons said: "The police seem to have lost all control of the crowd."

Well there is no surprise there, 20 officers against 200 rioters was never going to work in the first place.

I hope the photographers get loads of facial shots of these trouble makers and POST them so that their employers see what thugs they have working for them. Anyone wearing a balaclava should be arrested as well, why hide your face if you believe in your cause!!!!

It's about time WE the good citizens of Brighton stood up and fought for a decent place to live, work and play in.

Osama bin there says...
2:04pm Mon 4 May 09

Peaceful demonstration?....
Yeah...right...


fergus96 says...
2:06pm Mon 4 May 09

pikey out of work scum, someone should burn all their doss houses. Feed em to the pigs Erol.

Jo Wadsworth says...
2:07pm Mon 4 May 09

Acheron wrote:
Jo (web editor). Can you post the twitter link so we can follow on that as well (or is it just the same as whats appearing here). Thanks, had a quick look and couldn't find it.
There's no Twitter link as such, I've just found a few people who are tweeting live from the scene and are following what they say, and posting it here if it's more than what we have. But we have to be a bit careful, as we want information verified before including it here.

However, Dan Garland is independent, and he's tweeting it here: http://twitter.com/d
mgarland

In the meantime, our chief photographer has just arrived in the office, so a gallery will go up very soon - and someone has promised me a video of the protest going through Trafalgar Street too.

Lil says...
2:08pm Mon 4 May 09

I can imagine it now...

Reporter Peter O'Hanra-Hanrahan reports that at least 66 billion residents of the UK have descended into Brighton for a peaceful protest which is currently passing off peacefully.

Peter you've lost the news!

Hohum. Still let's not let a little bit of jumped up hysteria, over-reporting, undue limelight and media enduced frenzy get in the way of the facts...

Osama bin there says...
2:14pm Mon 4 May 09

Lil wrote:
I can imagine it now...

Reporter Peter O'Hanra-Hanrahan reports that at least 66 billion residents of the UK have descended into Brighton for a peaceful protest which is currently passing off peacefully.

Peter you've lost the news!

Hohum. Still let's not let a little bit of jumped up hysteria, over-reporting, undue limelight and media enduced frenzy get in the way of the facts...
You're along way away in Worthing, unfortunately I'm quite close and can hear in all kicking off.
There is a mini riot going on whether you want to believe it or not.

Lollercopter says...
2:15pm Mon 4 May 09

Just saw 7 or more police vans screaming down upper lewes to london road, only to retreat 5 minutes later. about half of them were Hampshire Police. Now there's a steady stream of protesters peeling off and walking towards lewes road, like they've given up for the day.

I go to University at Sussex so I get left-wing extremist protests quite frequently, particularly because Sussex invests a couple of thousand pounds a year (roughly 1% of budget) in EDO. I have to say that their arguments are always without fact and frequently degenerate into a shouting match where you can't discuss anything. I liked the protester who said EDO bombs kill Palestinian kids, and that she wasn't making it up-it was fact! Show us the facts, let both sides talk and maybe you won't alienate everyone. Protest yes, violence and criminal damage no.

BN1 says...
2:16pm Mon 4 May 09

I'd like to these "protests" banned now - either that or make them register and charge a massive fee or no protest... that would sort out the scum who can't trusted.

steeleysmith says...
2:19pm Mon 4 May 09

Why don't the 90% of peaceful demonstrators control the errant 10%-or they beyond their control- and therefore the police have every right to protect the public and their property

Lil says...
2:35pm Mon 4 May 09

Osama bin there wrote:
Lil wrote:
I can imagine it now...

Reporter Peter O'Hanra-Hanrahan reports that at least 66 billion residents of the UK have descended into Brighton for a peaceful protest which is currently passing off peacefully.

Peter you've lost the news!

Hohum. Still let's not let a little bit of jumped up hysteria, over-reporting, undue limelight and media enduced frenzy get in the way of the facts...
You're along way away in Worthing, unfortunately I'm quite close and can hear in all kicking off.
There is a mini riot going on whether you want to believe it or not.
I'm over at a friends house in Brighton (Carden Ave area) at the moment, although appreciably not that near the central area, I've heard the odd siren but not loads.

Maybe I was a bit too sarcastic but I do feel that too much media coverage on such a protest could glorify it for the next time, and the next time...

Sorry if I offended, but I didn't really word my response that well.

Abrightonian says...
2:36pm Mon 4 May 09

There's more debate on here and on Twitter re the issues than there is on the streets of Brighton today.

This isn't about debate, discussion or conversation.

And if anyone knows why MacDonald's is a target, I'd love to know!

Acheron says...
2:38pm Mon 4 May 09

I think that the tune being sung is the Imperial March rather than 'Darth Vaders Tune'! (I know thats what was said on the twitter report)

(And I'll go back to my geek hole now! lol)

Acheron says...
2:40pm Mon 4 May 09

Oh I think McD is targeted as some of the EDO workers ate there once when the canteen was shut.
(Sorry, I'll be told off for joking about something like that, but it's probably that loose a connection!)

The God Of Love says...
2:40pm Mon 4 May 09

What a bunch of muppets.

Do all the pondlife come out of the woodwork for May Bank Holiday?

Make them all work - oh I forgot they don't!!

Dossers - give them £1,500 spot fines.

On_the_Level says...
2:42pm Mon 4 May 09

I have just seen the protestors go past - fuelled by 'Special Brew' judging by the number of cans in hand!

Osama bin there says...
2:45pm Mon 4 May 09

Lil wrote:
Osama bin there wrote:
Lil wrote:
I can imagine it now...

Reporter Peter O'Hanra-Hanrahan reports that at least 66 billion residents of the UK have descended into Brighton for a peaceful protest which is currently passing off peacefully.

Peter you've lost the news!

Hohum. Still let's not let a little bit of jumped up hysteria, over-reporting, undue limelight and media enduced frenzy get in the way of the facts...
You're along way away in Worthing, unfortunately I'm quite close and can hear in all kicking off.
There is a mini riot going on whether you want to believe it or not.
I'm over at a friends house in Brighton (Carden Ave area) at the moment, although appreciably not that near the central area, I've heard the odd siren but not loads.

Maybe I was a bit too sarcastic but I do feel that too much media coverage on such a protest could glorify it for the next time, and the next time...

Sorry if I offended, but I didn't really word my response that well.
I kind of agree with you to a certain extent, that very often in the Argus stuff is reported that without the oxygen of publicity wouldn't actually be much of a story.
However, in this case, I think that The Argus' coverage is necessary and welcome, as those of us who live here, myself included, need to know what's going on so that we can avoid the trouble spots.
I have to go into town at about 5pm to pick up my partner from work in the Lanes, so I have a vested interest!

Number Six says...
2:47pm Mon 4 May 09

So Rent-a-mob are back. ThankGod I left Brighton.

It's a funny old world! When I was a lad Socialists used May Day to proudly show off their military hardware. Now they want to bully EDO into submission.

TheInsider says...
2:58pm Mon 4 May 09

Marina Pepper, the former councillor and former Page 3 pin up is protesting!!!!!
This woman posed naked for The Sun, the epitome of capitalism and right-wing politics and at a time when women were still fighting for equality in modern Britain.
Funny what protestors will do for cash when the capitalist machine is vending money. I guess it is a bank holiday and she can hang up her capitalist morals.


Acheron says...
2:58pm Mon 4 May 09

Have to laugh, following Last Hours on twitter and he's saying how everyone is now feeling a bit tired! 3 hours!!!! Says it all really! lol

Lawson-land says...
3:03pm Mon 4 May 09

Jo Wadsworth wrote:
Lawson-land wrote:
Can we have some more photos Argus please!
Our photographers are right in the thick of it at the moment. However, we're hoping to get lots through in about half an hour, and then I'll be setting up a gallery to post them all to.
Thanks Jo and the Argus reporters.

Acheron says...
3:06pm Mon 4 May 09

News in - Apparently McD is a target because they own shares in EDO! My dad used to own shares in Marconi, wonder if he's a target!

Mel Shock says...
3:09pm Mon 4 May 09

Benn, well done one of the few sensible comments I have seen on here and I whole heartedly agree with you........well said, as for you "Mrpresident" if all you can retort to is childsih abuse then go back to reading the Sun.........

I agree with what is being protested about, do not necessarily agree with the violence......we need to stand up for what we believe is right, we have a moral duty to do so!! and people do this in different ways.......Mcdonalds being targeted will be due to them being an unscrupulous multi national....(just google Mcdonals for any info on there business!!) and I smile everytime they are targeted.
EDO has no business being in Brighton and to force them out would be marvellous......

there are protesters from every walk of life, and for some of the comments I have seen here, touting them as the great unwashed, saggy boobed masses is ignorant!! (QUOTING - Jay-kay, brighton says...
8:52am Mon 4 May 09 )

There have definitely been some hideous comments on here and all missing the point of what the protest is about and have jsut ended up focusing on the people themselves!, perhaps people should read more on what EDO are upto on your doorsteps and get an education...........

Acheron says...
3:13pm Mon 4 May 09

I have a perfectly good and high standard of education thank you Mel.

What you're really asking for is rather than us have an education, for us to have the same view as you. Sadly thats not education, thats indoctrination, but never mind!

Number Six says...
3:18pm Mon 4 May 09

Acheron wrote:
News in - Apparently McD is a target because they own shares in EDO! My dad used to own shares in Marconi, wonder if he's a target!
Oh no! I've got shares in Barclays. Does that mean that rent-a-mob will be coming round here?


TheInsider says...
3:18pm Mon 4 May 09

Mel, there is hardly a UK company left which is not owned by an overseas majority shareholder, including most power suppliers, telecomms companies and utilities.
You would close down most of the UK if you delved into ownership of so-called UK companies.

PS not all the protesters are saggy boobed...one of your protesters is former Page 3 Sun pin up Marina Pepper.

Mel Shock says...
3:19pm Mon 4 May 09

no read up on what they do, make your own mind up but be aware of what they do do!
everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no right to personally attack others.

Acheron says...
3:27pm Mon 4 May 09

I have read up on what they do. No only do I know what they are making, I can also go into the physics of why such devices are needed on bombers.

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you'll find that the vast majority of the posts prior to this thread have involved certain protesters (Maggie for one) insisting that anyone who doesn't support Smash EDO is supporting the killing of children! Obviously they are not on here today, but they have been dishing out the abuse verbally.

If you voice an opinion on an open forum you have to expect people not to agree with it and for people to have the right to point out flaws in arguements etc. (yes some people stereotype, but we all do at times). I've been ridiculed on here in the past, it's fine, water off a ducks back.

You also need to appreciate that two people can have very different interpretations of "facts". Just ask any opposing football fans after a match about what happened!

ctkirk says...
3:28pm Mon 4 May 09

I dont understand. I thought this was a demonstartion against EDO. It seems to be the only place they havnt been. Why not pick a day when they are open and go and bother them there. How does **** off normal people help protest against a factory 2 miles away from where the protestors are. Go home you inbred mutants. You are ruining a bank holiday for everyone in Brighton.

TheInsider says...
3:33pm Mon 4 May 09

The unis train engineers some of whom go on to work in defence...anyone who attends these colleges and pays fees for any course are possibly supporting mass killing. Will the colleges be the next targets?
All mobile phone companies provide telecomms for military...will you dispose of your phone and target them?
Various food chains set up food canteens in Iraq for troops, the NHS here at home provide care for injured soldiers who often return to service perhaps dropping bombs.
The supply chain to military forces all over the world is intertwined with almost every aspect of every day life and you fund it somehow and probably are unaware that you do.

Osama bin there says...
3:39pm Mon 4 May 09

"March organisers have hailed it a great success."
How can it be?
It was promised by the organisers that it was to be a peaceful protest.
It seems it's been anything but.
After today I would like to see anymore public protests from Smash EDO banned in Brighton. We have all had enough.
Use legitimate channels instead of holding the city to ransom.

Number Six says...
3:42pm Mon 4 May 09

"A spokesman for Smash EDO declared the demonstration the most successful in the campaign's history."

And what is the criterion for judging success, I wonder.

Causing havoc and disruption - certainly. Ruining a lot of innocent people's day off - definatly. Smashing EDO - abject failure.


BN1 says...
3:43pm Mon 4 May 09

It was a massive success. There was disruption, chaos and they all got to have another pop at the old bill - let's face it - that's all these "protesters" are interested in doing.

Acheron says...
3:46pm Mon 4 May 09

Ah, so that student Jody Mcintyre clearly knows what shes demonstrating about! What a shame she has just embarassed herself.

If Smash EDO think it's been a success then maybe they should ask everyone on the protest what is was about. I reckon on 10% if that knowing what EDO actually do!

ipaymytaxes says...
3:48pm Mon 4 May 09

Just to let you all know that in order to assist with a peaceful protest, Sussex Police contacted the organisers to request information on where the campaigners were planning to demonstrate and they refused to give any information. Although many innocent & peaceful protesters may have valid points; the remaining fraggles - just like in London, will use this opportunity as another attempt to hold a major city to ransom, cause trouble, chaos and claim police brutality.

Fight Back says...
3:49pm Mon 4 May 09

Oh waht a surprise - a Smash EDO demo turning violent !!! GO HOME AND LEAVE THE CITY TO THOSE OF US THAT WISH TO LIVE HERE !!!! Scum the lot of you. I note that my £100 was safe - so where's your hundred per protestor to a local charity.

Brightongal86 says...
3:50pm Mon 4 May 09

BN1 wrote:
It was a massive success. There was disruption, chaos and they all got to have another pop at the old bill - let's face it - that's all these "protesters" are interested in doing.
I agree its all about the disruption. The more they are disruptive the more they think they are getting the point across!!!!

brightongal2009 says...
3:51pm Mon 4 May 09

OMG im innocently enjoying my bank holiday, when i stumble across the news.

im a 21 year old student and have my own problems to think about....my job, college, family and A WELL EARNED DAY OFF (bank holiday) so for a cheeky low lifer to turn around and say that just because normal down to earth people do not take part means we are supporting the killing of children is sick and should be locked up in a mental institution!!!! what do you know Mel or who ever you are? Do you know me you stereotype? do you know what i believe in? idiot!

kabsolution says...
3:52pm Mon 4 May 09

Why can't they be less destructive, pool their resources and be proactiven and leave our city alone?!

jay316 says...
3:53pm Mon 4 May 09

Brightongal86 wrote:
BN1 wrote:
It was a massive success. There was disruption, chaos and they all got to have another pop at the old bill - let's face it - that's all these "protesters" are interested in doing.
I agree its all about the disruption. The more they are disruptive the more they think they are getting the point across!!!!
Indeed.. and no doubt we;ll only see one side of the story..

I'd be interested to know who got injuried was it a bystander or one of the protestors..

"we can't get you a hospital, as all the roads are blocked" < love it :P


jay316 says...
3:55pm Mon 4 May 09

kabsolution wrote:
Why can't they be less destructive, pool their resources and be proactiven and leave our city alone?!
because its not them that have to pay for the damage to be repaired...

I think the police should take the same stance as in China...

The protestors are just **** lucky we don't allow our police to carry guns.

Brightongal86 says...
3:55pm Mon 4 May 09

kabsolution wrote:
Why can't they be less destructive, pool their resources and be proactiven and leave our city alone?!
Because that would be the peaceful way to do it.

Brigadier Monty says...
3:56pm Mon 4 May 09

What a bunch of mugs these protesters are. Whilst I can sympathise with some of the sentiments towards the banks, the fact is Barclays have done little to cause this recession anyway!! Most of these idiots are just jobless, worthless scum, and noone in this proud city including me wants you here. You are all just anarchists, rioters and what does all this resolve, what does it achieve exactly? How dare you come in the wonderful city of Brighton and cause disruption to everyones hard earned bank holiday how bloody dare you. While I will out hard at work tomorrow you mugs will doing nothing, the jobless do gooding lefties you all are.
So all you want to achieve is cause disruption is it, have a pop at the old bill, why does it make you feel better about yoruselves does it? It is nothing but meaningless violence disrupting the good hard working people of Brighton and Hove.

Wont be druv says...
3:56pm Mon 4 May 09

Just an idea, but the police cold just let the protesters protest and have plv to catch the culprits and the plain clothes cops in the crowd can then follow the gulity home and arrest them with no fuss on their own doorsteps. This would allow a demonstration and remove allegations of heavy handed policing whilst catching a trouble maker.

BN1 says...
3:56pm Mon 4 May 09

"Indeed.. and no doubt we;ll only see one side of the story..."

They'll all be complaining about police brutality - IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT THEN GO HOME - you can't run wild in our streets and expect nothing to be done.

SeanCh says...
3:56pm Mon 4 May 09

So much for peaceful protests, using wheely-bins as battering rams, people getting hit in the face with projectiles, police getting injured. I have no problem with people protesting, but when it gets violent like this then the protestors get everything they deserve, the police should have more power to stop these things when they get violent. Any credability that Smash Edo had has been lost by turning violent, they should just give up and go home before anyone else is hurt and then the police blamed. The residents of the areas these protestors are dont deserve to have to worry about their homes or saftey because of idiots like this.

brightongal2009 says...
3:58pm Mon 4 May 09

go home and find a constructive job to do!

jay316 says...
4:02pm Mon 4 May 09

brightongal2009 wrote:
go home and find a constructive job to do!
Why work, when the country will give you hand outs..

I am almost homeless, and work my a$$ off and have nothing to show for it..

I should be come a protestor and get everything given to me on a plate

gerardgraphics says...
4:04pm Mon 4 May 09

Sit by your barbecues, rub your fat pampered bellies and do what 'the man' tells you. If you don't we will hit you with our truncheons.

ipaymytaxes says...
4:05pm Mon 4 May 09

My heart goes out to the residents of Brighton and the innocent protesters and police who will get caught up in this. It will be front page news when some violent tree hugger falls over and claims compensation and brutality. Do people honestly think that this sort of protest does the cause any favours? Decent people do not behave in this way; they should be ashamed.

sabbat36 says...
4:05pm Mon 4 May 09

why oh why when EDO is in Hollingdean/lew road are people chuck ing wheelie bins at people in trafalgar street, just a few streets away from me?
SCUM

Brightongal86 says...
4:05pm Mon 4 May 09

Go ruin your own neighbourhood! Not ours! If you have a problem with what EDO are doing go to where they are and not cause chaos for families who what a nice, well deserved day out!!!!!

green-griffin says...
4:06pm Mon 4 May 09

I live in lower hollingdean road, are they coming this way? I dont really want my house smashed up.

jay316 says...
4:07pm Mon 4 May 09

ipaymytaxes wrote:
My heart goes out to the residents of Brighton and the innocent protesters and police who will get caught up in this. It will be front page news when some violent tree hugger falls over and claims compensation and brutality. Do people honestly think that this sort of protest does the cause any favours? Decent people do not behave in this way; they should be ashamed.
They have no respect..

What annoys me is if they are protesting lawfully do they have to 1) block anyone with a camera, 2) hide their faces.. If you ain't doing nowt wrong why worry.

SeanCh says...
4:07pm Mon 4 May 09

gerardgraphics wrote:
Sit by your barbecues, rub your fat pampered bellies and do what 'the man' tells you. If you don't we will hit you with our truncheons.
You can say that, but when someone hits you with a bin, or throws a brick into your face your not just going to sit by let it go are you, think about what you say before making yourself look like an idiot, the protestors are lucky the police are restrained so much, because if you treated a normal group of people like that your likely to get you head kicked in. (not me trying to be threatening or violent, its just what would happen)

brightongal2009 says...
4:08pm Mon 4 May 09

unlike sum i appreciate the fact that i made that money throught my own sweat and blood. i dont live on handouts because that means im usless...almost homeless??? i am homeless and have been for years...living in friends and now with boyfiends family and contributing to the household! i went to the council once but apparently u gotta be pregnant, married or a complete drug or alcahol addict to be eligable for handouts. says alot doesnt it. im just glad i can run my car and have decent cloathes on my back like i should, i work for it. i choose not to be the sufferer who resorts to drugs, alcahol and handouts. hail to the hard workers!

Osama bin there says...
4:10pm Mon 4 May 09

gerardgraphics wrote:
Sit by your barbecues, rub your fat pampered bellies and do what 'the man' tells you. If you don't we will hit you with our truncheons.
Sit by your barbecues?
It's raining... and no doubt that will send what's left of the protesters home in their limos.

AJPrince says...
4:10pm Mon 4 May 09

jay316 wrote:
kabsolution wrote:
Why can't they be less destructive, pool their resources and be proactiven and leave our city alone?!
because its not them that have to pay for the damage to be repaired...

I think the police should take the same stance as in China...

The protestors are just **** lucky we don't allow our police to carry guns.
Yes I'm sure that out of 2,000 people not one of them pays taxes or council tax :) And yes the police don't carry guns thankfully, you wouldn't give a box of matches to a pyromanic would you.

jay316 says...
4:11pm Mon 4 May 09

SeanCh wrote:
gerardgraphics wrote:
Sit by your barbecues, rub your fat pampered bellies and do what 'the man' tells you. If you don't we will hit you with our truncheons.
You can say that, but when someone hits you with a bin, or throws a brick into your face your not just going to sit by let it go are you, think about what you say before making yourself look like an idiot, the protestors are lucky the police are restrained so much, because if you treated a normal group of people like that your likely to get you head kicked in. (not me trying to be threatening or violent, its just what would happen)
or spat in the face.. which is the worse of the worse..

what is good for the goose is good for the gander.. (ie fight fire with fire).

Police should just tazzer any agressive people.

Lil says...
4:11pm Mon 4 May 09

So what if one of these protesters lobs a missile, it hits an innocent child and leaves them in hospital, wounded or worse?

Is that OK?

sandy1304 says...
4:13pm Mon 4 May 09

Peaceful protest? It wasnt very peaceful sitting inside mcdonalds when these so called peaceful protestors were throwing bricks at the windows, with children sitting yards away inside. My 3 year old child was scared out of his wits.

SeanCh says...
4:14pm Mon 4 May 09

gerardgraphics wrote:
Sit by your barbecues, rub your fat pampered bellies and do what 'the man' tells you. If you don't we will hit you with our truncheons.
I Think some of the protestors are already out moulscoomb way, at the bottom of the road that leads upto the EDO factory, can hear their drums etc... might go take a look

Brightongal86 says...
4:14pm Mon 4 May 09

brightongal2009 wrote:
unlike sum i appreciate the fact that i made that money throught my own sweat and blood. i dont live on handouts because that means im usless...almost homeless??? i am homeless and have been for years...living in friends and now with boyfiends family and contributing to the household! i went to the council once but apparently u gotta be pregnant, married or a complete drug or alcahol addict to be eligable for handouts. says alot doesnt it. im just glad i can run my car and have decent cloathes on my back like i should, i work for it. i choose not to be the sufferer who resorts to drugs, alcahol and handouts. hail to the hard workers!
Correction handouts are for alcoholics, druggies, people who are not born in this country and lazy people. Even if you are pregnant or married you get nothing!

DWho says...
4:14pm Mon 4 May 09

gerardgraphics wrote:
Sit by your barbecues, rub your fat pampered bellies and do what 'the man' tells you. If you don't we will hit you with our truncheons.
and what you're doing is *so* much more worthwhile, obviously...

...incidentally, don't make false claims about your truncheon, I doubt it's that impressive....

BN1 says...
4:15pm Mon 4 May 09

gerardgraphics wrote:
Sit by your barbecues, rub your fat pampered bellies and do what 'the man' tells you. If you don't we will hit you with our truncheons.
Rik from The Young Ones?

jay316 says...
4:18pm Mon 4 May 09

SeanCh wrote:
gerardgraphics wrote:
Sit by your barbecues, rub your fat pampered bellies and do what 'the man' tells you. If you don't we will hit you with our truncheons.
I Think some of the protestors are already out moulscoomb way, at the bottom of the road that leads upto the EDO factory, can hear their drums etc... might go take a look
Yes they are... already there....

Still 12000v on the fence that will stop them getting in - lol

SeanCh says...
4:21pm Mon 4 May 09

gerardgraphics wrote:
Sit by your barbecues, rub your fat pampered bellies and do what 'the man' tells you. If you don't we will hit you with our truncheons.
Well that rules me taking my dogs out for a walk until they've gone, any idea how many are out this way?

mish25 says...
4:22pm Mon 4 May 09

Lil wrote:
So what if one of these protesters lobs a missile, it hits an innocent child and leaves them in hospital, wounded or worse? Is that OK?
then they can go and prtest to the person that threw the missile the people that made it and imn a town that sells it just for fits and giggles. what gets me is that there are small children in the protest witnessing all of it how are these children going to grow up?

churchst says...
4:22pm Mon 4 May 09

If you want to vent your anger about how your bank holiday has been messed up.... prove the protesters wrong.

It's interesting that most of the vitriolic posts here are personal accusations about the cleanliness of the protesters or the whether they have a job or not.

There is a real issue here, and it's about a arms factory in your neighborhood. Why not talk about that, maybe even try to resolve it? Prove the protesters wrong perhaps?

Or is it easier just call to call them names....?

donitababy says...
4:22pm Mon 4 May 09

i would just like to say i don't agree with the protest getting voilent i really enjoyed watching the parade and thought there was a great buzz about it its just a shame some had to spoil it for others there message was a good one there shouldnt be that factory in brighton its wrong
once again its a shame a small minority of people have spoiled that message getting accross by acting in a voilent way

brightongal2009 says...
4:24pm Mon 4 May 09

sorry i only said pregnant and married coz they asked me those questions and when i said no...i knew i wernt getting help by the look on his face and he confirmed that. i wouldnt know hun havnt been pregnant yet, sorry if i offended u.

gerardgraphics says...
4:25pm Mon 4 May 09

Yes, it is me, Wrick from The Young Ones hooking you all in.

jay316 says...
4:26pm Mon 4 May 09

donitababy wrote:
i would just like to say i don't agree with the protest getting voilent i really enjoyed watching the parade and thought there was a great buzz about it its just a shame some had to spoil it for others there message was a good one there shouldnt be that factory in brighton its wrong
once again its a shame a small minority of people have spoiled that message getting accross by acting in a voilent way
Yep... only to be expected.. whole protest was a sham coz of these few idiots.. just makes people hate this cause more.

ipaymytaxes says...
4:26pm Mon 4 May 09

gerardgraphics wrote:
Sit by your barbecues, rub your fat pampered bellies and do what 'the man' tells you. If you don't we will hit you with our truncheons.
WHAT?! I hope that you do not pardon the behaviour demmonstrated by thugs who claim to have a cause? I sincerely hope that nobody you know is injured. Im not having a BBQ, do not have a fat belly and if I was throwing missiles towards a crowd of children I would expect to be hit with a truncheon.

BN1 says...
4:27pm Mon 4 May 09

"Wrick"

LOL!

Brightongal86 says...
4:29pm Mon 4 May 09

Thats fine honest! Thats a whole other issue !

Lil says...
4:29pm Mon 4 May 09

Ok another idea. If violence in the Smash EDO protests are against your own personal way of protesting, and you still stick by your conviction of protesting against EDO, why not set up a seperate group, seperate from Smash EDO and its anarchists, and protest as that group?

That would really sort out those there on their conviction of beliefs and those there to create trouble.

jay316 says...
4:29pm Mon 4 May 09

ipaymytaxes wrote:
gerardgraphics wrote:
Sit by your barbecues, rub your fat pampered bellies and do what 'the man' tells you. If you don't we will hit you with our truncheons.
WHAT?! I hope that you do not pardon the behaviour demmonstrated by thugs who claim to have a cause? I sincerely hope that nobody you know is injured. Im not having a BBQ, do not have a fat belly and if I was throwing missiles towards a crowd of children I would expect to be hit with a truncheon.
or tazer'd.

But these protestors are allowed to injury others.. its the law...

If you or I hit one of them, we'd be in prison.

brightongal2009 says...
4:32pm Mon 4 May 09

hang on a minute. there are children at this thing! i thought part of this was making weapons that killed children in other countries!!!! but they are doing the same by throwing misiles that potentially could hit thier children, what a contradiction!

Bryan taxi driver says...
4:32pm Mon 4 May 09

these people r not there to protest they r there to cause as much trouble as they can? so the answer is give them what they want and give them a good beating!! and then see them cry like babys they r scum.

Osama bin there says...
4:32pm Mon 4 May 09

churchst wrote:
If you want to vent your anger about how your bank holiday has been messed up.... prove the protesters wrong.

It's interesting that most of the vitriolic posts here are personal accusations about the cleanliness of the protesters or the whether they have a job or not.

There is a real issue here, and it's about a arms factory in your neighborhood. Why not talk about that, maybe even try to resolve it? Prove the protesters wrong perhaps?

Or is it easier just call to call them names....?
I'll say it just one more time. IT'S NOT AN ARMS FACTORY.
You lot are so indoctrinated, you don't seem to be able to think for yourselves.
An if EDO are the 'real issue' why have the protesters spent the whole of the afternoon disrupting and fighting with police in other parts of the town, and attacking totally unconnected businesses?
No. You can't have it both ways. As usual, logic is not the strong point in any Smash EDO argument.

donitababy says...
4:32pm Mon 4 May 09

well i hope these voilent people dont stop the message getting accross why make bombs and sell them to a country who will given half the chance use them on uk doesnt make sense to me
i believe everyone is entilted to there own opinion but name calling is just petty there point is valid they just havent been able to project there feelings in the right way

Tye says...
4:32pm Mon 4 May 09

Dave At Home wrote:
Osama bin there wrote:
Tye wrote: My only other question is why oh why do British Police NOT use water cannon in the same way as the rest of Europe would a **** good wash infringe the uman rites of these scum - funny how we brits are about the only followers of this damned stupid EU regulation
I don't know why we don't use it. It's an easy way of dispersing a crowd without causing major injury. I'll never forget the tv pictures of the Belgian police using water cannon against english football hooligans, after they had done their best to wreck a beautiful medieval town centre. The look of pure bewilderment on some fat, lagered up skinhead as he was swept across a plaza on his ar5e by the water cannon was a joy to behold.. And then the big babies accused the belgian police of overreacting! Yep - bring on the water cannon!
There is only one water cannon in the UK and that is located in Northern Ireland, it has only been brought over to the mainland once for the G8 summit. Maybe we could let some police dogs loose on them and come back a few hours later and see what is left.
How could you be so cruel about the poor dogs ?

and church st - ofcourse we complain about theit hygiene becaue as\ we now know their " strongly held beliefs" against capitalism can be bought quite cheaply by Max Hastings :(

jay316 says...
4:35pm Mon 4 May 09

Osama bin there wrote:
churchst wrote:
If you want to vent your anger about how your bank holiday has been messed up.... prove the protesters wrong.

It's interesting that most of the vitriolic posts here are personal accusations about the cleanliness of the protesters or the whether they have a job or not.

There is a real issue here, and it's about a arms factory in your neighborhood. Why not talk about that, maybe even try to resolve it? Prove the protesters wrong perhaps?

Or is it easier just call to call them names....?
I'll say it just one more time. IT'S NOT AN ARMS FACTORY.
You lot are so indoctrinated, you don't seem to be able to think for yourselves.
An if EDO are the 'real issue' why have the protesters spent the whole of the afternoon disrupting and fighting with police in other parts of the town, and attacking totally unconnected businesses?
No. You can't have it both ways. As usual, logic is not the strong point in any Smash EDO argument.
As its already been stated.. most of those protesting probably don't know why they are there... Just out to force more businesses to close.. but they don't care as they get all their money given to them.


ipaymytaxes says...
4:37pm Mon 4 May 09

churchst wrote:
If you want to vent your anger about how your bank holiday has been messed up.... prove the protesters wrong. It's interesting that most of the vitriolic posts here are personal accusations about the cleanliness of the protesters or the whether they have a job or not. There is a real issue here, and it's about a arms factory in your neighborhood. Why not talk about that, maybe even try to resolve it? Prove the protesters wrong perhaps? Or is it easier just call to call them names....?
Yes, the issue is the arms factory and people are well within their rights to stand up for what they belive - I do not think anybody is doubting that. The real problem is the fact that many protestors are using violence, chaos and the harm of innocent people to try and get a message across. It would appear that many of THESE campaigners are not decent, hard working and respectful people. You cannot prove people wrong if they are intent on causing trouble.

waynegee says...
4:41pm Mon 4 May 09

The reporter here is quoting twitter.com/lasthour
s (often w/o full credit) on arrests and king prawn, but refuses to mention lasthour's reports or allegations of police violence. Please provide more thorough reporting. Police violence is one of the biggest issues in the UK right now!

tomBarnabyRules says...
4:44pm Mon 4 May 09

Anyone eating at McDonalds is effectively admitting being a war criminal, especially if they wash their hands afterwards. Generally people eat at McDonalds to make a pro-capitalist statement, asking for a second pot of ketchup is a typical example. Its the thin end of the wedge. One pot per person, smash the state.

sabbat36 says...
4:44pm Mon 4 May 09

"churchst wrote:
If you want to vent your anger about how your bank holiday has been messed up.... prove the protesters wrong. It's interesting that most of the vitriolic posts here are personal accusations about the cleanliness of the protesters or the whether they have a job or not. There is a real issue here, and it's about a arms factory in your neighborhood. Why not talk about that, maybe even try to resolve it? Prove the protesters wrong perhaps? Or is it easier just call to call them names....?"

So if the arms factory is in my neighbourhood how come the protestors are ramsacking the north laine and not MOULESCOOMB/HOLLINGD
EAN -where EDO is?
Plus EDO are legally allowed to manufacture weapons - though i do think mcdonalds is pretty **** food - it doesnt deserve smashing up when kids and mums are in there does it?

sabbat36 says...
4:47pm Mon 4 May 09

"
waynegee, Brighton says...
4:41pm Mon 4 May 09

The reporter here is quoting twitter.com/lasthour

s (often w/o full credit) on arrests and king prawn, but refuses to mention lasthour's reports or allegations of police violence. Please provide more thorough reporting. Police violence is one of the biggest issues in the UK right now!"

come on dude you havent got an inkling about police brutality - ive just been down there and nothing is coming from the police.

Try south yorkshire in 1984 - i was down the front as a teenager, and that was when the police were brutal.

Middle classes grrrrr

churchst says...
4:50pm Mon 4 May 09

Osama bin there wrote:
churchst wrote:
If you want to vent your anger about how your bank holiday has been messed up.... prove the protesters wrong.

It's interesting that most of the vitriolic posts here are personal accusations about the cleanliness of the protesters or the whether they have a job or not.

There is a real issue here, and it's about a arms factory in your neighborhood. Why not talk about that, maybe even try to resolve it? Prove the protesters wrong perhaps?

Or is it easier just call to call them names....?
I'll say it just one more time. IT'S NOT AN ARMS FACTORY.
You lot are so indoctrinated, you don't seem to be able to think for yourselves.
An if EDO are the 'real issue' why have the protesters spent the whole of the afternoon disrupting and fighting with police in other parts of the town, and attacking totally unconnected businesses?
No. You can't have it both ways. As usual, logic is not the strong point in any Smash EDO argument.
Ok... it's not an arms factory perse... what to call it then. 'Missile release component Factory' - the basis of arguments here seems to be that the protesters don't really need or have a cause, they just want to cause chaos for the sake of it?

Unconnected businesses? do your homework - McDonald's for instance have 61,000 shares in ITT/EDO.

This is a publicity stunt for the protesters... they want you to know about ITT/EDO and which businesses support them in your area.

Do you think there make this all up to have a good fight the police?

Lets have some intelligent responses here. Not arguments fueled by the fact people couldn't get their bank holiday big mac.


steveP2009 says...
4:51pm Mon 4 May 09

ipaymytaxes wrote:
churchst wrote:
If you want to vent your anger about how your bank holiday has been messed up.... prove the protesters wrong. It's interesting that most of the vitriolic posts here are personal accusations about the cleanliness of the protesters or the whether they have a job or not. There is a real issue here, and it's about a arms factory in your neighborhood. Why not talk about that, maybe even try to resolve it? Prove the protesters wrong perhaps? Or is it easier just call to call them names....?
Yes, the issue is the arms factory and people are well within their rights to stand up for what they belive - I do not think anybody is doubting that. The real problem is the fact that many protestors are using violence, chaos and the harm of innocent people to try and get a message across. It would appear that many of THESE campaigners are not decent, hard working and respectful people. You cannot prove people wrong if they are intent on causing trouble.
"Police violence is one of the biggest issues in the UK right now!"

Haha, the police in this country are the most softest and least violent force in the world. I wish they could be more violent towards violent protestors and put these trouble makers in prison where they belong.

Psychic-S says...
4:52pm Mon 4 May 09

I completely believe in our right to protest peacefully for what we truly believe in. Having just witnessed mindless violence and attacks on people simply out and minding their own business, however, I think we need to ask whether people are capable of this! Intimidation is certainly not peaceful... I was also completely blown away by the amount of children who were being allowed to witness this behaviour and were carrying placards about violence and war being wrong! It would seem, however, that not protecting your own children is OK! And some of the arguments on here are about the value of children's lives.....pot and kettle spring to mind!

ipaymytaxes says...
4:53pm Mon 4 May 09

waynegee wrote:
The reporter here is quoting twitter.com/lasthour s (often w/o full credit) on arrests and king prawn, but refuses to mention lasthour's reports or allegations of police violence. Please provide more thorough reporting. Police violence is one of the biggest issues in the UK right now!
Granted there are a few police who will over step the mark and let the profession down but most reported cases of police brutality are biased and portray criminals as innocent victims. The police are in Brighton to protect the innocent people who always get caught up in this sort of demonstration. I would like to know how the families of injured bystanders and police react when they are hurt -Oh I forgot...front page news is only ever about the human rights of trouble makers. I would never condone excessive police force but gently asking armed protesters to move along whilst playing classical music is also not going to work. If people are determined to cause trouble then they need to deal with the consequences.

steveP2009 says...
4:53pm Mon 4 May 09

Oh sorry i didnt mean to quote those quotes :) ^^

TheInsider says...
4:53pm Mon 4 May 09

If local people were that bothered about the factory it would not be able to exist and no-one would work in it. Mot of the time, no-one bats an eyelid that it is here.
Clearly the majority of local people aren't bothered.
And as there are three McDs in the city and numerous other US fast food chains, clearly Brighton has clearly embraced capitalism.
Maybe that's why the protestors are so angry, that even in this hippy enclave called Brighton, most socialists are at home today planning their summer breaks to Tuscany.

princecharles says...
4:54pm Mon 4 May 09

The Argus: written by idiots; read by idiots.





jay316 says...
4:55pm Mon 4 May 09

lol gotta love the crap that lasthours is pumping out... must work for Fox News (allegdely) :)

jay316 says...
4:57pm Mon 4 May 09

princecharles wrote:
The Argus: written by idiots; read by idiots.




Twitter read by morons also...

Always one side on all stories...

I have a team on the ground and they saw nobody get punched in the face..

People just believe what they read :(


Abrightonian says...
4:57pm Mon 4 May 09

@princecharles

I think today that the Argus have done a brilliant job using a variety of sources (including the voices of protesters) to paint a vivid picture of what's going on in our city.

I'd say it was very balanced day. And a textbook example of liveblogging by a regional newspaper.

jay316 says...
4:58pm Mon 4 May 09

princecharles wrote:
The Argus: written by idiots; read by idiots.




Sorry forgot to say .. so why are you on their website.. if are basically say your and idiot yourself :)

sabbat36 says...
4:58pm Mon 4 May 09

"
TheInsider, Brighton says...
4:53pm Mon 4 May 09

If local people were that bothered about the factory it would not be able to exist and no-one would work in it. Mot of the time, no-one bats an eyelid that it is here.
Clearly the majority of local people aren't bothered.
And as there are three McDs in the city and numerous other US fast food chains, clearly Brighton has clearly embraced capitalism.
Maybe that's why the protestors are so angry, that even in this hippy enclave called Brighton, most socialists are at home today planning their summer breaks to Tuscany."

Hmm so the protesters care about EDO?
Why the f~~~~~ are they rioting in NORTH LAINE then?
Duh!

And please stop it with the middle class stuff - you probably grew up in leafy westedene or something.

Some of socialists here are allowed to be **** off because we cant take our kids down the level, for instance.

SurgicalMask says...
5:00pm Mon 4 May 09

@Abrightonian

I second that opionion. I've spent the day working in Trafalgar Place and have found this site both useful and interesting. Good work The Argus!

DWho says...
5:01pm Mon 4 May 09

waynegee wrote:
The reporter here is quoting twitter.com/lasthour s (often w/o full credit) on arrests and king prawn, but refuses to mention lasthour's reports or allegations of police violence. Please provide more thorough reporting. Police violence is one of the biggest issues in the UK right now!
Well, frankly, the " active protesters" (aka yobs with no idea of how to conduct themselves in a public place) would shout that, wouldn't they - precisely to try and get their whinging little voices heard...


jay316 says...
5:04pm Mon 4 May 09

DWho wrote:
waynegee wrote:
The reporter here is quoting twitter.com/lasthour s (often w/o full credit) on arrests and king prawn, but refuses to mention lasthour's reports or allegations of police violence. Please provide more thorough reporting. Police violence is one of the biggest issues in the UK right now!
Well, frankly, the " active protesters" (aka yobs with no idea of how to conduct themselves in a public place) would shout that, wouldn't they - precisely to try and get their whinging little voices heard...

why are they down by the pier. oh the pier make weapons my bad.

FFS.. !!???!?

Jo Wadsworth says...
5:06pm Mon 4 May 09

waynegee wrote:
The reporter here is quoting twitter.com/lasthour s (often w/o full credit) on arrests and king prawn, but refuses to mention lasthour's reports or allegations of police violence. Please provide more thorough reporting. Police violence is one of the biggest issues in the UK right now!
Wayne, you make a very important point there. I've not included some of the more contentious tweets lasthours is making, because we do have a duty to make sure serious allegations like that are confirmed before reporting them. We cannot prove what he is saying, and so could not defend ourselves against any libel actions. However, we do of course intend following up any allegations once the protest is over.

jay316 says...
5:10pm Mon 4 May 09

Jo Wadsworth wrote:
waynegee wrote:
The reporter here is quoting twitter.com/lasthour s (often w/o full credit) on arrests and king prawn, but refuses to mention lasthour's reports or allegations of police violence. Please provide more thorough reporting. Police violence is one of the biggest issues in the UK right now!
Wayne, you make a very important point there. I've not included some of the more contentious tweets lasthours is making, because we do have a duty to make sure serious allegations like that are confirmed before reporting them. We cannot prove what he is saying, and so could not defend ourselves against any libel actions. However, we do of course intend following up any allegations once the protest is over.
It odd that there is live tv or radio reports.. and we are only getting tweets from a protestor..

I wonder if they are using a phone that is made in a country that is involved with using missles..

bugmenot says...
5:11pm Mon 4 May 09

I say good for SmashEDO. Let's face it, there is no 'good' or 'appropriate' time to protest. You're always going to cause some kind of problems, so you may as well go for the busiest day and get your point across. The police have been violent for too long, they need to know their place. See: g20 protest. People here claim it was stupid to wander into a protest, that may be so but considering he posed no threat, there is no reason he should have been struck down like that. Police are there for the safety of others and themselves. Not to attack bystanders.

TheInsider says...
5:11pm Mon 4 May 09

Perhaps if The Argus had its whole news and photo team on the scene we could trust the reporting and you would not have to use reports from unverified sources.
Perhaps Newsquest should not have axed so many of its staff.

Tye says...
5:16pm Mon 4 May 09

waynegee wrote:
The reporter here is quoting twitter.com/lasthour s (often w/o full credit) on arrests and king prawn, but refuses to mention lasthour's reports or allegations of police violence. Please provide more thorough reporting. Police violence is one of the biggest issues in the UK right now!
tw4t and a liar

get a wash!
W e are not the guardian so we don#t believe your bovine effluent!"

ipaymytaxes says...
5:16pm Mon 4 May 09

bugmenot wrote:
I say good for SmashEDO. Let's face it, there is no 'good' or 'appropriate' time to protest. You're always going to cause some kind of problems, so you may as well go for the busiest day and get your point across. The police have been violent for too long, they need to know their place. See: g20 protest. People here claim it was stupid to wander into a protest, that may be so but considering he posed no threat, there is no reason he should have been struck down like that. Police are there for the safety of others and themselves. Not to attack bystanders.
I repeat my earlier post

'Granted there are a few police who will over step the mark and let the profession down but most reported cases of police brutality are biased and portray criminals as innocent victims. The police are in Brighton to protect the innocent people who always get caught up in this sort of demonstration. I would like to know how the families of injured bystanders and police react when they are hurt -Oh I forgot...front page news is only ever about the human rights of trouble makers. I would never condone excessive police force but gently asking armed protesters to move along whilst playing classical music is also not going to work. If people are determined to cause trouble then they need to deal with the consequences'

brightongal2009 says...
5:16pm Mon 4 May 09

can i just say something...i dont got to mc donalds to support what ever the protesters are claiming we are supporting by doing so....but simply...to get a burger and chips coz im hungry!!! LOL

Jo Wadsworth says...
5:19pm Mon 4 May 09

TheInsider wrote:
Perhaps if The Argus had its whole news and photo team on the scene we could trust the reporting and you would not have to use reports from unverified sources. Perhaps Newsquest should not have axed so many of its staff.
I obviously can't comment on your last point. But we've three reporters and two photographers on the scene, but even if we had 30 reporters and 20 photographers, we would still include third-party sources. The strongest lines from the G20 protest came from citizen journalists - albeit with the help of mainstream media (The Guardian and Channel 4 News) to get to the widest audience.

Tye says...
5:20pm Mon 4 May 09

princecharles wrote:
The Argus: written by idiots; read by idiots.
I guess you've just commented without listening tomthe argumwnt- well done


thats the bigots way!

jay316 says...
5:20pm Mon 4 May 09

ipaymytaxes wrote:
bugmenot wrote:
I say good for SmashEDO. Let's face it, there is no 'good' or 'appropriate' time to protest. You're always going to cause some kind of problems, so you may as well go for the busiest day and get your point across. The police have been violent for too long, they need to know their place. See: g20 protest. People here claim it was stupid to wander into a protest, that may be so but considering he posed no threat, there is no reason he should have been struck down like that. Police are there for the safety of others and themselves. Not to attack bystanders.
I repeat my earlier post

'Granted there are a few police who will over step the mark and let the profession down but most reported cases of police brutality are biased and portray criminals as innocent victims. The police are in Brighton to protect the innocent people who always get caught up in this sort of demonstration. I would like to know how the families of injured bystanders and police react when they are hurt -Oh I forgot...front page news is only ever about the human rights of trouble makers. I would never condone excessive police force but gently asking armed protesters to move along whilst playing classical music is also not going to work. If people are determined to cause trouble then they need to deal with the consequences'
As is the case in any profession, be it police, security, stewards, armed forces. There are always the bad apples.. But until you get both sides of the story we can only go on what we are told.

It would be interesting to see Brighton Councils CCTV footage.

bugmenot says...
5:21pm Mon 4 May 09

ipaymytaxes wrote:
bugmenot wrote:
I say good for SmashEDO. Let's face it, there is no 'good' or 'appropriate' time to protest. You're always going to cause some kind of problems, so you may as well go for the busiest day and get your point across. The police have been violent for too long, they need to know their place. See: g20 protest. People here claim it was stupid to wander into a protest, that may be so but considering he posed no threat, there is no reason he should have been struck down like that. Police are there for the safety of others and themselves. Not to attack bystanders.
I repeat my earlier post

'Granted there are a few police who will over step the mark and let the profession down but most reported cases of police brutality are biased and portray criminals as innocent victims. The police are in Brighton to protect the innocent people who always get caught up in this sort of demonstration. I would like to know how the families of injured bystanders and police react when they are hurt -Oh I forgot...front page news is only ever about the human rights of trouble makers. I would never condone excessive police force but gently asking armed protesters to move along whilst playing classical music is also not going to work. If people are determined to cause trouble then they need to deal with the consequences'
By your logic, innocent bystanders that are caught up are also trouble makers that the media likes to make human rights stories about.

...Wait what?

tl;dr: lern2arguement

drewboy30 says...
5:24pm Mon 4 May 09

churchst wrote:
If you want to vent your anger about how your bank holiday has been messed up.... prove the protesters wrong. It's interesting that most of the vitriolic posts here are personal accusations about the cleanliness of the protesters or the whether they have a job or not. There is a real issue here, and it's about a arms factory in your neighborhood. Why not talk about that, maybe even try to resolve it? Prove the protesters wrong perhaps? Or is it easier just call to call them names....?
The problem is that these protestors are exactly like that. They present as dirty and unwashed weirdos.

I am glad that the arms factory is here in brighton. If it was not here providing work for people in the city it would in another town or city doing the same. Therefore I do not see the issue that needs resolving.

In an ideal world we would have no need of arms and therefore no need of this sort of protest.

Unfortunately,that is a dream that will never see the light of day. To think otherwise is to be living in cloud cuckhoo land !!


bugmenot says...
5:29pm Mon 4 May 09

drewboy30 wrote:
churchst wrote:
If you want to vent your anger about how your bank holiday has been messed up.... prove the protesters wrong. It's interesting that most of the vitriolic posts here are personal accusations about the cleanliness of the protesters or the whether they have a job or not. There is a real issue here, and it's about a arms factory in your neighborhood. Why not talk about that, maybe even try to resolve it? Prove the protesters wrong perhaps? Or is it easier just call to call them names....?
The problem is that these protestors are exactly like that. They present as dirty and unwashed weirdos.

I am glad that the arms factory is here in brighton. If it was not here providing work for people in the city it would in another town or city doing the same. Therefore I do not see the issue that needs resolving.

In an ideal world we would have no need of arms and therefore no need of this sort of protest.

Unfortunately,that is a dream that will never see the light of day. To think otherwise is to be living in cloud cuckhoo land !!

How do you know they are unwashed? Did you go up and ask them? No. Back up your arguments with valid, proven points and don't try and spread hatred around. Just because they do not fit your mold of society does not mean they are unwashed or otherwise dirty.

sabbat36 says...
5:30pm Mon 4 May 09

again -the protestors have come off looking like fools.
No one is down at EDO lol - just looking like twits on the pier roundabout lol

ipaymytaxes says...
5:31pm Mon 4 May 09

bugmenot wrote:
ipaymytaxes wrote:
bugmenot wrote: I say good for SmashEDO. Let's face it, there is no 'good' or 'appropriate' time to protest. You're always going to cause some kind of problems, so you may as well go for the busiest day and get your point across. The police have been violent for too long, they need to know their place. See: g20 protest. People here claim it was stupid to wander into a protest, that may be so but considering he posed no threat, there is no reason he should have been struck down like that. Police are there for the safety of others and themselves. Not to attack bystanders.
I repeat my earlier post 'Granted there are a few police who will over step the mark and let the profession down but most reported cases of police brutality are biased and portray criminals as innocent victims. The police are in Brighton to protect the innocent people who always get caught up in this sort of demonstration. I would like to know how the families of injured bystanders and police react when they are hurt -Oh I forgot...front page news is only ever about the human rights of trouble makers. I would never condone excessive police force but gently asking armed protesters to move along whilst playing classical music is also not going to work. If people are determined to cause trouble then they need to deal with the consequences'
By your logic, innocent bystanders that are caught up are also trouble makers that the media likes to make human rights stories about. ...Wait what? tl;dr: lern2arguement
Badly interpreted on your part.

steveP2009 says...
5:33pm Mon 4 May 09

An anti-weapon protester shooting flares in a public place by the pier?! This is the story of the anti-capitalist selling whistles for a pound each at G20 protest all over again! These are clearly young, naive thick idiots (who don't even know what the factory actually is or don't know what the word capitalism actually means) who got nothing better to do than constantly try and make polices and the government look bad, while the tax payers feed and shelter them, I find it shameful to think they're the same generation as me. I say send them off to Robert Mugabe's government and see what they really think of our country now.

Spx says...
5:34pm Mon 4 May 09

I'm not allowed out but if I was I'd be on my bike checking the behaviour of both sides and admiring the spectacle. Hopefully the police can come away proud that too many people didn't get hurt and the protesters can go home feeling like they've vented their spleen about topics they care about. I wouldn't be at home writing fearful rubbish about topics I barely understand or can't be bothered to follow. It took me about three hours to cross Oxford Street in London in the 1980s because the Sihks were protesting about whether they could wear they're turbans on motorbikes, I got over-taken by a motorcyclist on the way into Paris who was doing a wheelie faster than 100mph on his way to a protest about motorcycling restrictions. I saw prostitutes doing a conga at lunchtime in Tooting Common because Police and neighbours didn't like them soliciting in that "safe" area of the park. Instead of Protest why don't we call this BACKBONE, someones standing up. How many of us send bad food back when we're in a restaurant? Let's learn from today? but better if we were there! Eh

bugmenot says...
5:34pm Mon 4 May 09

ipaymytaxes wrote:
bugmenot wrote:
ipaymytaxes wrote:
bugmenot wrote: I say good for SmashEDO. Let's face it, there is no 'good' or 'appropriate' time to protest. You're always going to cause some kind of problems, so you may as well go for the busiest day and get your point across. The police have been violent for too long, they need to know their place. See: g20 protest. People here claim it was stupid to wander into a protest, that may be so but considering he posed no threat, there is no reason he should have been struck down like that. Police are there for the safety of others and themselves. Not to attack bystanders.
I repeat my earlier post 'Granted there are a few police who will over step the mark and let the profession down but most reported cases of police brutality are biased and portray criminals as innocent victims. The police are in Brighton to protect the innocent people who always get caught up in this sort of demonstration. I would like to know how the families of injured bystanders and police react when they are hurt -Oh I forgot...front page news is only ever about the human rights of trouble makers. I would never condone excessive police force but gently asking armed protesters to move along whilst playing classical music is also not going to work. If people are determined to cause trouble then they need to deal with the consequences'
By your logic, innocent bystanders that are caught up are also trouble makers that the media likes to make human rights stories about. ...Wait what? tl;dr: lern2arguement
Badly interpreted on your part.
Bad interpretation is a two way street, and seeing as I can read perfectly, there must be a problem with your writing. Maybe you should try making your point clear before rushing into a debate, spouting mindless comments left right and centre.

SimonS says...
5:34pm Mon 4 May 09

Throwing bottles and cans, ramming police with wheelie bins, lighting flares... well, if I didn't support Smash EDO yesterday I certainly wouldn't today. What a load of idiots. I feel sorry for the police who are probably too scared to use force because of these winging freeloaders.

Good work Argus BTW for following the protest today.

waynegee says...
5:38pm Mon 4 May 09

Jo Wadsworth wrote:
waynegee wrote:
The reporter here is quoting twitter.com/lasthour s (often w/o full credit) on arrests and king prawn, but refuses to mention lasthour's reports or allegations of police violence. Please provide more thorough reporting. Police violence is one of the biggest issues in the UK right now!
Wayne, you make a very important point there. I've not included some of the more contentious tweets lasthours is making, because we do have a duty to make sure serious allegations like that are confirmed before reporting them. We cannot prove what he is saying, and so could not defend ourselves against any libel actions. However, we do of course intend following up any allegations once the protest is over.
I can appreciate that, but you do report allegations of violence from protesters, sourced from lasthours. All readers will be grateful that you will be following up allegations after the protests. Information about the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests emerged after the the protest, for example.

churchst says...
5:39pm Mon 4 May 09

drewboy30 wrote:
churchst wrote:
If you want to vent your anger about how your bank holiday has been messed up.... prove the protesters wrong. It's interesting that most of the vitriolic posts here are personal accusations about the cleanliness of the protesters or the whether they have a job or not. There is a real issue here, and it's about a arms factory in your neighborhood. Why not talk about that, maybe even try to resolve it? Prove the protesters wrong perhaps? Or is it easier just call to call them names....?
The problem is that these protestors are exactly like that. They present as dirty and unwashed weirdos.

I am glad that the arms factory is here in brighton. If it was not here providing work for people in the city it would in another town or city doing the same. Therefore I do not see the issue that needs resolving.

In an ideal world we would have no need of arms and therefore no need of this sort of protest.

Unfortunately,that is a dream that will never see the light of day. To think otherwise is to be living in cloud cuckhoo land !!

Picking on a sub-group of the protesters to define all the protesters present in Brighton today is short sighted. There were parents, children, pensioners as well as the'unwashed' types.

There are lot of young protesters out today, masked up, being provocative, probably drinking too much, and just because they make the most noise, cause the biggest scene doesn't mean they speak for all.

The people who marched today come from many places. Not just one. It's too easy to put them all in the same pigeon hole.

Shutting down the factory in Brighton would be a symbolic victory. Of course it would just move somewhere else perhaps, but that's not really the point is it.

Try think outside the big mac box.


bugmenot says...
5:39pm Mon 4 May 09

steveP2009 wrote:
An anti-weapon protester shooting flares in a public place by the pier?! This is the story of the anti-capitalist selling whistles for a pound each at G20 protest all over again! These are clearly young, naive thick idiots (who don't even know what the factory actually is or don't know what the word capitalism actually means) who got nothing better to do than constantly try and make polices and the government look bad, while the tax payers feed and shelter them, I find it shameful to think they're the same generation as me. I say send them off to Robert Mugabe's government and see what they really think of our country now.
Where does it say they shot flares? There is more than one way to set off a flare, clearly you're ignorant to any other methods.

The red flare could be seen as a metaphor for communism, an ideology that would do alot of good to many of the commenters here. There's no violence in such an action, it's simply making a point in a safe and outspoken manner.

Bennn says...
5:40pm Mon 4 May 09

Yep, good work Argus! You did a fantastic job today and you stayed balanced, which is very important.

Jim BB says...
5:42pm Mon 4 May 09

These so-called protesters are so concerned about people and the environment - then why aren't they recycling their bottles and cans instead of using them as weapons?

Am I the only person to feel that anti-war protesters and their use of weapons don't quite tally?

steveP2009 says...
5:44pm Mon 4 May 09

bugmenot wrote:
steveP2009 wrote:
An anti-weapon protester shooting flares in a public place by the pier?! This is the story of the anti-capitalist selling whistles for a pound each at G20 protest all over again! These are clearly young, naive thick idiots (who don't even know what the factory actually is or don't know what the word capitalism actually means) who got nothing better to do than constantly try and make polices and the government look bad, while the tax payers feed and shelter them, I find it shameful to think they're the same generation as me. I say send them off to Robert Mugabe's government and see what they really think of our country now.
Where does it say they shot flares? There is more than one way to set off a flare, clearly you're ignorant to any other methods.

The red flare could be seen as a metaphor for communism, an ideology that would do alot of good to many of the commenters here. There's no violence in such an action, it's simply making a point in a safe and outspoken manner.
my point is if they don't want weapons because they're dangerous and harm people, maybe they shouldn't be playing with dangerous objects in the middle of a crowd, patronising but true

steveP2009 says...
5:46pm Mon 4 May 09

Jim BB wrote:
These so-called protesters are so concerned about people and the environment - then why aren't they recycling their bottles and cans instead of using them as weapons?

Am I the only person to feel that anti-war protesters and their use of weapons don't quite tally?
that was exactly my point referring to what i wrote earlier

dazv88 says...
5:50pm Mon 4 May 09

Throwing bottles, bricks, setting off flares what a peacefull protest. Can not wait for these vagrant anarchists to leave, have a bath, hair cut and a shave !!!

bugmenot says...
5:53pm Mon 4 May 09

steveP2009 wrote:
bugmenot wrote:
steveP2009 wrote:
An anti-weapon protester shooting flares in a public place by the pier?! This is the story of the anti-capitalist selling whistles for a pound each at G20 protest all over again! These are clearly young, naive thick idiots (who don't even know what the factory actually is or don't know what the word capitalism actually means) who got nothing better to do than constantly try and make polices and the government look bad, while the tax payers feed and shelter them, I find it shameful to think they're the same generation as me. I say send them off to Robert Mugabe's government and see what they really think of our country now.
Where does it say they shot flares? There is more than one way to set off a flare, clearly you're ignorant to any other methods.

The red flare could be seen as a metaphor for communism, an ideology that would do alot of good to many of the commenters here. There's no violence in such an action, it's simply making a point in a safe and outspoken manner.
my point is if they don't want weapons because they're dangerous and harm people, maybe they shouldn't be playing with dangerous objects in the middle of a crowd, patronising but true
A flare is a simple piece of pyrotechnics equipment. It is not different from a firework or a sparkler, just light and noise. How many people do you see letting children as young as 3 hold sparklers?

Tye says...
5:54pm Mon 4 May 09

Jo, you and your colleagues are doing a great job!

You only know this because both sides are slagging you off- the cops are neither Saints or sinners but doing a hell of a difficult job!

JO - Once again

WELL DONE!

possible troll - BUT why do the british police NOT use tear gas or water cannons - I think its interesting to find out!

SimonS says...
5:54pm Mon 4 May 09

Good to see you're allowed to get away with shouting in the streets, closing roads, climbing on buildings, attacking the police with misiles and bins and closing half of the city if you call it a 'protest'.

steveP2009 says...
5:56pm Mon 4 May 09

bugmenot wrote:
steveP2009 wrote:
bugmenot wrote:
steveP2009 wrote:
An anti-weapon protester shooting flares in a public place by the pier?! This is the story of the anti-capitalist selling whistles for a pound each at G20 protest all over again! These are clearly young, naive thick idiots (who don't even know what the factory actually is or don't know what the word capitalism actually means) who got nothing better to do than constantly try and make polices and the government look bad, while the tax payers feed and shelter them, I find it shameful to think they're the same generation as me. I say send them off to Robert Mugabe's government and see what they really think of our country now.
Where does it say they shot flares? There is more than one way to set off a flare, clearly you're ignorant to any other methods.

The red flare could be seen as a metaphor for communism, an ideology that would do alot of good to many of the commenters here. There's no violence in such an action, it's simply making a point in a safe and outspoken manner.
my point is if they don't want weapons because they're dangerous and harm people, maybe they shouldn't be playing with dangerous objects in the middle of a crowd, patronising but true
A flare is a simple piece of pyrotechnics equipment. It is not different from a firework or a sparkler, just light and noise. How many people do you see letting children as young as 3 hold sparklers?
can't you just take the concept of the paragraph instead of just the flare. figure of speaking is what it is.

bugmenot says...
5:56pm Mon 4 May 09

dazv88 wrote:
Throwing bottles, bricks, setting off flares what a peacefull protest. Can not wait for these vagrant anarchists to leave, have a bath, hair cut and a shave !!!
Yeah mate!!!! lets all go and watch the footy with a pint of stella and shout at foreigners!!!

Your antisocial comments are not wanted here. Take your extremist views on conformity elsewhere.

drewboy30 says...
5:56pm Mon 4 May 09

ipaymytaxes wrote:
waynegee wrote: The reporter here is quoting twitter.com/lasthour s (often w/o full credit) on arrests and king prawn, but refuses to mention lasthour's reports or allegations of police violence. Please provide more thorough reporting. Police violence is one of the biggest issues in the UK right now!
Granted there are a few police who will over step the mark and let the profession down but most reported cases of police brutality are biased and portray criminals as innocent victims. The police are in Brighton to protect the innocent people who always get caught up in this sort of demonstration. I would like to know how the families of injured bystanders and police react when they are hurt -Oh I forgot...front page news is only ever about the human rights of trouble makers. I would never condone excessive police force but gently asking armed protesters to move along whilst playing classical music is also not going to work. If people are determined to cause trouble then they need to deal with the consequences.
Indeed and a case in point was the BBC coverage of a Police officer in London being seriously injured trying to arrest a Burglar. This was just prior to the G20 problems. He got about half a day on the front page. Thereafter the alleged actions of other officers at the G20 continued unabated for days and weeks on end.

DWho says...
5:58pm Mon 4 May 09

bugmenot wrote:
steveP2009 wrote: An anti-weapon protester shooting flares in a public place by the pier?! This is the story of the anti-capitalist selling whistles for a pound each at G20 protest all over again! These are clearly young, naive thick idiots (who don't even know what the factory actually is or don't know what the word capitalism actually means) who got nothing better to do than constantly try and make polices and the government look bad, while the tax payers feed and shelter them, I find it shameful to think they're the same generation as me. I say send them off to Robert Mugabe's government and see what they really think of our country now.
Where does it say they shot flares? There is more than one way to set off a flare, clearly you're ignorant to any other methods. The red flare could be seen as a metaphor for communism, an ideology that would do alot of good to many of the commenters here. There's no violence in such an action, it's simply making a point in a safe and outspoken manner.
I quite agree. they could throw it up in the air and then shout "whoosh! Bang! RED!"

Red flares are also a metaphor for a moron who can't express a valid opinion without the need to let off what's basically a firework in an occupied public area to show how "safe and outspoken" they are.

Have a nice day.

bugmenot says...
5:59pm Mon 4 May 09

steveP2009 wrote:
bugmenot wrote:
steveP2009 wrote:
bugmenot wrote:
steveP2009 wrote:
An anti-weapon protester shooting flares in a public place by the pier?! This is the story of the anti-capitalist selling whistles for a pound each at G20 protest all over again! These are clearly young, naive thick idiots (who don't even know what the factory actually is or don't know what the word capitalism actually means) who got nothing better to do than constantly try and make polices and the government look bad, while the tax payers feed and shelter them, I find it shameful to think they're the same generation as me. I say send them off to Robert Mugabe's government and see what they really think of our country now.
Where does it say they shot flares? There is more than one way to set off a flare, clearly you're ignorant to any other methods.

The red flare could be seen as a metaphor for communism, an ideology that would do alot of good to many of the commenters here. There's no violence in such an action, it's simply making a point in a safe and outspoken manner.
my point is if they don't want weapons because they're dangerous and harm people, maybe they shouldn't be playing with dangerous objects in the middle of a crowd, patronising but true
A flare is a simple piece of pyrotechnics equipment. It is not different from a firework or a sparkler, just light and noise. How many people do you see letting children as young as 3 hold sparklers?
can't you just take the concept of the paragraph instead of just the flare. figure of speaking is what it is.
In other words, I think you meant to say, "You have proven that I am wrong, but for the sake of my pride and my weak argument I will instead go on to argue about semantics.

getreal1 says...
6:00pm Mon 4 May 09

I have witnessed a little having travelled to East Brighton from Hove and back again on a bus this afternoon. The merry funsters in the area of Castle Square simply blocked the road, danced a bit and wandered off towards the pier area. The point to their protest would not have been apparent save for the reports in the Argus. Banging on buses and cars which I heard and witnessed, and turning up in third world apparel - together with throwing bottles and cans as reported by the paper is NOT legitimate protest. It is anti-social criminal behaviour by scum.

Tye says...
6:00pm Mon 4 May 09

SimonS wrote:
Good to see you're allowed to get away with shouting in the streets, closing roads, climbing on buildings, attacking the police with misiles and bins and closing half of the city if you call it a 'protest'.
spot on AND they call it a police state - DUH!

Tye says...
6:00pm Mon 4 May 09

SimonS wrote:
Good to see you're allowed to get away with shouting in the streets, closing roads, climbing on buildings, attacking the police with misiles and bins and closing half of the city if you call it a 'protest'.
spot on AND they call it a police state - DUH!

steveP2009 says...
6:01pm Mon 4 May 09

bugmenot wrote:
steveP2009 wrote:
bugmenot wrote:
steveP2009 wrote:
bugmenot wrote:
steveP2009 wrote:
An anti-weapon protester shooting flares in a public place by the pier?! This is the story of the anti-capitalist selling whistles for a pound each at G20 protest all over again! These are clearly young, naive thick idiots (who don't even know what the factory actually is or don't know what the word capitalism actually means) who got nothing better to do than constantly try and make polices and the government look bad, while the tax payers feed and shelter them, I find it shameful to think they're the same generation as me. I say send them off to Robert Mugabe's government and see what they really think of our country now.
Where does it say they shot flares? There is more than one way to set off a flare, clearly you're ignorant to any other methods.

The red flare could be seen as a metaphor for communism, an ideology that would do alot of good to many of the commenters here. There's no violence in such an action, it's simply making a point in a safe and outspoken manner.
my point is if they don't want weapons because they're dangerous and harm people, maybe they shouldn't be playing with dangerous objects in the middle of a crowd, patronising but true
A flare is a simple piece of pyrotechnics equipment. It is not different from a firework or a sparkler, just light and noise. How many people do you see letting children as young as 3 hold sparklers?
can't you just take the concept of the paragraph instead of just the flare. figure of speaking is what it is.
In other words, I think you meant to say, "You have proven that I am wrong, but for the sake of my pride and my weak argument I will instead go on to argue about semantics.
In other words, irony, naivety and and opposite of "peaceful"

bugmenot says...
6:02pm Mon 4 May 09

DWho wrote:
bugmenot wrote:
steveP2009 wrote: An anti-weapon protester shooting flares in a public place by the pier?! This is the story of the anti-capitalist selling whistles for a pound each at G20 protest all over again! These are clearly young, naive thick idiots (who don't even know what the factory actually is or don't know what the word capitalism actually means) who got nothing better to do than constantly try and make polices and the government look bad, while the tax payers feed and shelter them, I find it shameful to think they're the same generation as me. I say send them off to Robert Mugabe's government and see what they really think of our country now.
Where does it say they shot flares? There is more than one way to set off a flare, clearly you're ignorant to any other methods. The red flare could be seen as a metaphor for communism, an ideology that would do alot of good to many of the commenters here. There's no violence in such an action, it's simply making a point in a safe and outspoken manner.
I quite agree. they could throw it up in the air and then shout "whoosh! Bang! RED!"

Red flares are also a metaphor for a moron who can't express a valid opinion without the need to let off what's basically a firework in an occupied public area to show how "safe and outspoken" they are.

Have a nice day.
I fail to see the correlation between a red flare and a so called 'moron'. Maybe you should work on your metaphors and stop trying to 'win' an argument with unfunny remarks. Your statement holds no logic.

garnat says...
6:02pm Mon 4 May 09

Anyone supporting these idiots is no better than the protesters causing damage in the City. This is a pointless and ill informed protest, there is not a weapons factory in Brighton. Some small electrical components might be used in weapons manufacture, just as many other commodity electrical items make it into weapons systems. Suggest you 'supporters' throw your PC out of the window right now as there are also intel chips in weapons systems.

spuldge says...
6:04pm Mon 4 May 09

When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it."

No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women.
Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms.
Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.

green-griffin says...
6:05pm Mon 4 May 09

garnat wrote:
Anyone supporting these idiots is no better than the protesters causing damage in the City. This is a pointless and ill informed protest, there is not a weapons factory in Brighton. Some small electrical components might be used in weapons manufacture, just as many other commodity electrical items make it into weapons systems. Suggest you 'supporters' throw your PC out of the window right now as there are also intel chips in weapons systems.
no, apparently there is a weapons factory near wild park. might be why the police thought the protesters would be near moulscomb

jay316 says...
6:08pm Mon 4 May 09

green-griffin wrote:
garnat wrote:
Anyone supporting these idiots is no better than the protesters causing damage in the City. This is a pointless and ill informed protest, there is not a weapons factory in Brighton. Some small electrical components might be used in weapons manufacture, just as many other commodity electrical items make it into weapons systems. Suggest you 'supporters' throw your PC out of the window right now as there are also intel chips in weapons systems.
no, apparently there is a weapons factory near wild park. might be why the police thought the protesters would be near moulscomb
MBM technology makes parts for Nato. I know that coz they were original based in Portslade...

steveP2009 says...
6:09pm Mon 4 May 09

bugmenot wrote:
DWho wrote:
bugmenot wrote:
steveP2009 wrote: An anti-weapon protester shooting flares in a public place by the pier?! This is the story of the anti-capitalist selling whistles for a pound each at G20 protest all over again! These are clearly young, naive thick idiots (who don't even know what the factory actually is or don't know what the word capitalism actually means) who got nothing better to do than constantly try and make polices and the government look bad, while the tax payers feed and shelter them, I find it shameful to think they're the same generation as me. I say send them off to Robert Mugabe's government and see what they really think of our country now.
Where does it say they shot flares? There is more than one way to set off a flare, clearly you're ignorant to any other methods. The red flare could be seen as a metaphor for communism, an ideology that would do alot of good to many of the commenters here. There's no violence in such an action, it's simply making a point in a safe and outspoken manner.
I quite agree. they could throw it up in the air and then shout "whoosh! Bang! RED!"

Red flares are also a metaphor for a moron who can't express a valid opinion without the need to let off what's basically a firework in an occupied public area to show how "safe and outspoken" they are.

Have a nice day.
I fail to see the correlation between a red flare and a so called 'moron'. Maybe you should work on your metaphors and stop trying to 'win' an argument with unfunny remarks. Your statement holds no logic.
I'm not even trying to be funny (lord knows where you got that from) I'd rather be unfunny than a pompous know it all, I'm a resident of the centre of Brighton putting up with these people so I think I should have a say regardless.

SimonS says...
6:10pm Mon 4 May 09

Are they even a 'weapons factory' I thoguht they just made parts for them? Surely that's a bit like saying a field of wheat is a bread factory.

TheInsider says...
6:10pm Mon 4 May 09

If you look the BBC website the photos make the protesters look like the stereotypes we all expected. One woman quoted has taken her four year old daughter along to teach her about bombing children. Her child is called LaLa??????
Wasn't that a Tweenie?
And she must be scaring her child witless with such stories. The poor child.

Osama bin there says...
6:13pm Mon 4 May 09

can anyone explain to me what connection the pier has to edo? Its been attacked and damaged. Or maybe just mindless violence maybe?

jay316 says...
6:14pm Mon 4 May 09

Osama bin there wrote:
can anyone explain to me what connection the pier has to edo? Its been attacked and damaged. Or maybe just mindless violence maybe?
Well the pier obviously supports the making of bombs or weapons....

Same as the police station.

dazv88 says...
6:16pm Mon 4 May 09

Osama bin there wrote:
can anyone explain to me what connection the pier has to edo? Its been attacked and damaged. Or maybe just mindless violence maybe?
theres no connection unless someone who works at edo used to work there or knows someone who worked there, its just mindless violence by a group of hippies

churchst says...
6:17pm Mon 4 May 09

The Argus seems to have a relatively neutral approach to today's reporting, but judging by the comments on this page, they have to appease there target audience. Which, with all due respect, seem to be ignorant of the issues.

My problem is the front page picture, which speaks a million words. It's obvious where the paper stands and with whom.

jay316 says...
6:20pm Mon 4 May 09

dazv88 wrote:
Osama bin there wrote:
can anyone explain to me what connection the pier has to edo? Its been attacked and damaged. Or maybe just mindless violence maybe?
theres no connection unless someone who works at edo used to work there or knows someone who worked there, its just mindless violence by a group of hippies
As this is what is the problem.. I don't think anyone has an issue with protests, as long as they are peaceful. We all have our views and have a legal right to express them.

Number Six says...
6:21pm Mon 4 May 09

bugmenot wrote:
steveP2009 wrote: An anti-weapon protester shooting flares in a public place by the pier?! This is the story of the anti-capitalist selling whistles for a pound each at G20 protest all over again! These are clearly young, naive thick idiots (who don't even know what the factory actually is or don't know what the word capitalism actually means) who got nothing better to do than constantly try and make polices and the government look bad, while the tax payers feed and shelter them, I find it shameful to think they're the same generation as me. I say send them off to Robert Mugabe's government and see what they really think of our country now.
Where does it say they shot flares? There is more than one way to set off a flare, clearly you're ignorant to any other methods. The red flare could be seen as a metaphor for communism, an ideology that would do alot of good to many of the commenters here. There's no violence in such an action, it's simply making a point in a safe and outspoken manner.
Hmm. I hate to repeat myself but it was the Communist states (when we used to have such things) that used May Day as an exercise to display there weaponry. Communism certainly wasn't promoting peace.

Juliet Bravo says...
6:22pm Mon 4 May 09

Apparently EDO staff buy their coffee from Asda. Quick!Lets wreck the nearest supermarket!

sugarhorse says...
6:23pm Mon 4 May 09

jay316 wrote:
dazv88 wrote:
Osama bin there wrote:
can anyone explain to me what connection the pier has to edo? Its been attacked and damaged. Or maybe just mindless violence maybe?
theres no connection unless someone who works at edo used to work there or knows someone who worked there, its just mindless violence by a group of hippies
As this is what is the problem.. I don't think anyone has an issue with protests, as long as they are peaceful. We all have our views and have a legal right to express them.
Spot on Jay316.
Well said!

jay316 says...
6:27pm Mon 4 May 09

sugarhorse wrote:
jay316 wrote:
dazv88 wrote:
Osama bin there wrote:
can anyone explain to me what connection the pier has to edo? Its been attacked and damaged. Or maybe just mindless violence maybe?
theres no connection unless someone who works at edo used to work there or knows someone who worked there, its just mindless violence by a group of hippies
As this is what is the problem.. I don't think anyone has an issue with protests, as long as they are peaceful. We all have our views and have a legal right to express them.
Spot on Jay316.
Well said!
It really annoys me when the minority spoil a well planned protest. I have worked at presents... and I have seen stewards hurt, police hurt, security hurt, cival protesters hurt, and by-standers hurt, by the few that provoke police, security and stewards alike.

Now I would guarantte that if a protester was robbed, raped etc, they would soon need the help from the police... Which sadly the police have to deal with, as they have a legal duty of care.


garnat says...
6:27pm Mon 4 May 09

The internet was created by the US military. If you support these idiots then please unplug your computer now and do the world a favour.

brightongrappler says...
6:28pm Mon 4 May 09

give the cops live ammunition and there wont be a problem with the soap dodgers. its very simple

Fight Back says...
6:29pm Mon 4 May 09

SimonS wrote:
Are they even a 'weapons factory' I thoguht they just made parts for them? Surely that's a bit like saying a field of wheat is a bread factory.
As you've posted - THEY DON'T MAKE WEAPONS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They are units to prevent the accidental release of a bomb - personally I think that makes weapons somewhat safer. All Smash EDO wanted was a fight - hopefully a few will go home with some broken bones from the police horses !

DWho says...
6:30pm Mon 4 May 09

churchst wrote:
The Argus seems to have a relatively neutral approach to today's reporting, but judging by the comments on this page, they have to appease there target audience. Which, with all due respect, seem to be ignorant of the issues. My problem is the front page picture, which speaks a million words. It's obvious where the paper stands and with whom.
issues brought up by today:

name: "smash EDO"
issue: EDO not smashed; various other parts of Brighton, and some poor lady's face smashed instead.

name: "protester"
issue: complete failure to distance themselves from the violent loutish behaviour started by a few inane individuals and conduct themselves in a proper manner.

name: "police violence"
issue: Police (whom I have been watching for the afternoon) very restrained and to be applauded, especially with the baiting tactics of "protesters" (see issue 2) and with Police personnel being the subjects of violence and attacks themselves.

How am I doing so far?

Juliet Bravo says...
6:30pm Mon 4 May 09

churchst wrote:
drewboy30 wrote:
churchst wrote: If you want to vent your anger about how your bank holiday has been messed up.... prove the protesters wrong. It's interesting that most of the vitriolic posts here are personal accusations about the cleanliness of the protesters or the whether they have a job or not. There is a real issue here, and it's about a arms factory in your neighborhood. Why not talk about that, maybe even try to resolve it? Prove the protesters wrong perhaps? Or is it easier just call to call them names....?
The problem is that these protestors are exactly like that. They present as dirty and unwashed weirdos. I am glad that the arms factory is here in brighton. If it was not here providing work for people in the city it would in another town or city doing the same. Therefore I do not see the issue that needs resolving. In an ideal world we would have no need of arms and therefore no need of this sort of protest. Unfortunately,that is a dream that will never see the light of day. To think otherwise is to be living in cloud cuckhoo land !!
Picking on a sub-group of the protesters to define all the protesters present in Brighton today is short sighted. There were parents, children, pensioners as well as the'unwashed' types. There are lot of young protesters out today, masked up, being provocative, probably drinking too much, and just because they make the most noise, cause the biggest scene doesn't mean they speak for all. The people who marched today come from many places. Not just one. It's too easy to put them all in the same pigeon hole. Shutting down the factory in Brighton would be a symbolic victory. Of course it would just move somewhere else perhaps, but that's not really the point is it. Try think outside the big mac box.
Picking on a group of sub-protestors to define all the protestors present in Brighton today is short-sighted?

True.

As is using a few idiot coppers in the Metropolitan Police to define all police officers.

Yet no doubt the this newspaper will tomorrow be fronting up with cries of police states and regime-sanctioned brutality, based entirely on the lingering mis-representation of every serving officer as a result of the G20 few.

Same old, same old Argus. Yawn.

donitababy says...
6:30pm Mon 4 May 09

i am really angry just been down the pier to check the hadnt trashed the bungees which is where i work and they are all sat there getting **** what has that got to do with protesting about bomb factorys and that cafe roof they are jumping on is my friends buisness they have ruined his sign and that not fair wew are in a middle of a reccesion how is he meant to pay for a new sign what a load of ****
i bet you a million you wont see any of the reall protesters down there getting **** its just all the free loaders the cling on's what a joke

jay316 says...
6:31pm Mon 4 May 09

brightongrappler wrote:
give the cops live ammunition and there wont be a problem with the soap dodgers. its very simple
But they are not all like that.. You can't tarnish them all with the same brush because of the minority that are there just to cause issues.

Similar to the odd few football fans that are hell bend on causing issues (like at westham game this weekend)

loque77 says...
6:31pm Mon 4 May 09

Why dont these protesters make their voices count by putting a face to their voice.

Whats with people covering up their faces and running battles with the police?

These people need to learn how to have an effective protest that promotes their cause and doesn't just annoy everyone.

dazv88 says...
6:31pm Mon 4 May 09

brightongrappler wrote:
give the cops live ammunition and there wont be a problem with the soap dodgers. its very simple
they don't need that they need a reggy bath that will sort em out, metal scour pads n cold water is what the troublemakers need, a strong deterrent

brightonneil says...
6:31pm Mon 4 May 09

having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?

getreal1 says...
6:33pm Mon 4 May 09

"5.50pm - Protestors dance on pier roof as police back off.
Police have stepped back to avoid confrontation with protesters" If I stand on the roof of the cop shop tomorrow to complain about the soft handling of the demo, including allowing criminal damage to occur, will the police bottle it/back off to avoid confrontation with me. No. Given the number shipped in today, the job should have been done better.

jay316 says...
6:35pm Mon 4 May 09

DWho wrote:
churchst wrote:
The Argus seems to have a relatively neutral approach to today's reporting, but judging by the comments on this page, they have to appease there target audience. Which, with all due respect, seem to be ignorant of the issues. My problem is the front page picture, which speaks a million words. It's obvious where the paper stands and with whom.
issues brought up by today:

name: "smash EDO"
issue: EDO not smashed; various other parts of Brighton, and some poor lady's face smashed instead.

name: "protester"
issue: complete failure to distance themselves from the violent loutish behaviour started by a few inane individuals and conduct themselves in a proper manner.

name: "police violence"
issue: Police (whom I have been watching for the afternoon) very restrained and to be applauded, especially with the baiting tactics of "protesters" (see issue 2) and with Police personnel being the subjects of violence and attacks themselves.

How am I doing so far?
The police from what I have seen and have been told. Were not using heavy handed tacktic... I am sure the one sided videos we will see will be that of the protesters.. as they have already stated the stop other from filming, by blocking them (ie standing in front of them)..

I think that Brighton Council should make CCTV footage available for public/media viewing.. and I am sure the police copter was filming also.


Juliet Bravo says...
6:35pm Mon 4 May 09

loque77 wrote:
Why dont these protesters make their voices count by putting a face to their voice. Whats with people covering up their faces and running battles with the police? These people need to learn how to have an effective protest that promotes their cause and doesn't just annoy everyone.
Funny, isn't it, how they're so keen for the police to be individually identifiable.


jay316 says...
6:38pm Mon 4 May 09

brightonneil wrote:
having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?
section 5 public order at least, possibly Afray.

But surely as the organisers didn't supply information (and I thought any lawful protest had to be sorted with police) as required.. this could be seens as an unlawful gathering..

Maybe there are some lawyers on line that can clarify this.!!

bibble says...
6:38pm Mon 4 May 09

What a bunch on moaning minnies most commentators are. If you are happy having a bomb-part making factory on your doorsteps and don't do anything about it, you'll have to put up with people who are not so docile.

kevg says...
6:38pm Mon 4 May 09

Well done to The Argus... this is the most balanced piece of reporting i have read in a long time. Being a Police Officer, not from sussex (or the met for that matter), the media are all too quick to report on the wrong doings of the police... and yes i agree there are some officers who take things too far. there was very little reporting on the officer from the met who died following injuries he sustained whilst on duty, yet days and days of headlines following the death during the G20 protest.
The Argus today however have been fair and balanced. I havent been in brighton today, but it sounds to me that the police have done a great job. comments from the Argus at 5:50pm... Police have backed off to avoid a confrontation.... to all the critics... dont tar us all with the same brush. and to keep up the balance... not all the protestors are unwashed and violent. i am sure there are plenty of decent, employed, nice smelling family types who feel pasionately enough about their views to join the protest.

steveP2009 says...
6:39pm Mon 4 May 09

Juliet Bravo wrote:
loque77 wrote:
Why dont these protesters make their voices count by putting a face to their voice. Whats with people covering up their faces and running battles with the police? These people need to learn how to have an effective protest that promotes their cause and doesn't just annoy everyone.
Funny, isn't it, how they're so keen for the police to be individually identifiable.

I've been waiting for someone to say that Juliet! Well said.

jay316 says...
6:41pm Mon 4 May 09

getreal1 wrote:
"5.50pm - Protestors dance on pier roof as police back off.
Police have stepped back to avoid confrontation with protesters" If I stand on the roof of the cop shop tomorrow to complain about the soft handling of the demo, including allowing criminal damage to occur, will the police bottle it/back off to avoid confrontation with me. No. Given the number shipped in today, the job should have been done better.
The police did the right thing in backing away.. If somebody fell from that roof, then the police would have more problems. Its called not putting fuel on the fire.

These few protestors are in one place, which is controlable.. and right by a cctv camera. So the police can deal with those involved at a later date. And the owner of the stand can if need be press charged for Criminal Damage.

Juliet Bravo says...
6:45pm Mon 4 May 09

kevg, while few of my colleagues read the Argus (thanks to some alarmingly biased stories in recent history), and I will await to see what happens tomorrow, I think I broadly agree with you.

There will have been plenty of perfectly decent protestors today, along with the usual rent-a-mob anti-everything buffoons, looking to give it large to the police, and then run screaming to the media when after numerous warnings they get pushed back (metaphorically or otherwise) or restricted in their aims.

brightonneil says...
6:45pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
What a bunch on moaning minnies most commentators are. If you are happy having a bomb-part making factory on your doorsteps and don't do anything about it, you'll have to put up with people who are not so docile.
apparently the law in this country is that you are allowed to operate a factory that makes anything that is legal. If you feel that strongly maybe you should lobby your mp to change the law.
or p**s off back to london with all the other s**t

bibble says...
6:46pm Mon 4 May 09

jay316 wrote:
brightonneil wrote: having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?
section 5 public order at least, possibly Afray. But surely as the organisers didn't supply information (and I thought any lawful protest had to be sorted with police) as required.. this could be seens as an unlawful gathering.. Maybe there are some lawyers on line that can clarify this.!!
Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law, completely trumps any mistaken ideas you may have about "illegal gatherings".

There is a RIGHT to gather, not just a freedom to do so.

maxiboy says...
6:47pm Mon 4 May 09

Great Britain means growing our own food, making cars, trains etc. To defend our island we need to make our own weapons too. I pity these worthless vermin who make out they are doing good with their protest. But to put it bluntly they would make good cannon fodder for our troops training on Sailsbury plain.

Cookie83 says...
6:47pm Mon 4 May 09

For people who seem to be protesting for peace, they don't seem very peaceful!Was just at the Pier and all I saw was a bunch of drunk hangry kids jumping around, disrupting peoples' lives..That will get their point through I'm sure...And a lot of support as well!!!

donitababy says...
6:47pm Mon 4 May 09

well i hope my friend gets his new sign payed for its not his fault and i can you tell you now there are no proper prtoesters down there they are all drinking even the underage children they have gone to far this is not fair on ym friends buisness
this has nothing to do with there dislike of EDO this is just an excuse to get drunk in the street and cause mayhem and thats wrong

bibble says...
6:51pm Mon 4 May 09

maxiboy wrote:
Great Britain means growing our own food, making cars, trains etc. To defend our island we need to make our own weapons too. I pity these worthless vermin who make out they are doing good with their protest. But to put it bluntly they would make good cannon fodder for our troops training on Sailsbury plain.
Where have you been for the last twenty years? We don't make cars or trains any more. The car "factories" are screwdriver assembly lines - no different from you buying a DIY book shelf.

Now enough of your nasty talk, calling people "vermin". That is the sort of language used in Hitler's Germany.

Cookie83 says...
6:52pm Mon 4 May 09

There should also be the RESPONSABILITY to behave in a civilized way if we want to claim a civilized world...

jay316 says...
6:53pm Mon 4 May 09

Cookie83 wrote:
For people who seem to be protesting for peace, they don't seem very peaceful!Was just at the Pier and all I saw was a bunch of drunk hangry kids jumping around, disrupting peoples' lives..That will get their point through I'm sure...And a lot of support as well!!!
Look how much media coverage they will get !!

davyboy says...
6:55pm Mon 4 May 09

Tye wrote:
My only other question is why oh why do British Police NOT use water cannon in the same way as the rest of Europe

would a **** good wash infringe the uman rites of these scum - funny how we brits are about the only followers of this damned stupid EU regulation
exactly my thoughts. had it not been a bank holiday, rent-a-mob would have to be at work(lol) or college. water cannon best way of dealing with this sort of behaviour, as they do in germany. a good soaking would do these shirkers a heap of good. why can't people do business without threats?

stickman says...
6:55pm Mon 4 May 09

To the protest supporters - do you get that many more would support your cause if these so-called peaceful demos didn't always end in violence?

I don't think anyone apart from total idiots would attack anybodys right to peaceful protest - problem is that Smash EDO are not really interested in peaceful protest, they just want to go out and smash something up.

Where exactly does the Beach House Cafe come into all this? Have they been knowlingly selling ice creams to members of the Israeli air force?

jay316 says...
6:56pm Mon 4 May 09

"A man in a panda suit is taunting the cops on his bike."

This was from LASTHOURs twitter about 2 hours ago from txt


and they wonder why the police get **** off.

jay316 says...
6:58pm Mon 4 May 09

"Where exactly does the Beach House Cafe come into all this? Have they been knowlingly selling ice creams to members of the Israeli air force?"

LOL.. probably....

bibble says...
6:59pm Mon 4 May 09

spuldge wrote:
When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.
You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote.

Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.

Osama bin there says...
7:00pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
brightonneil wrote: having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?
section 5 public order at least, possibly Afray. But surely as the organisers didn't supply information (and I thought any lawful protest had to be sorted with police) as required.. this could be seens as an unlawful gathering.. Maybe there are some lawyers on line that can clarify this.!!
Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law, completely trumps any mistaken ideas you may have about "illegal gatherings".

There is a RIGHT to gather, not just a freedom to do so.
Could you show me the statute, in law, that allows violent protest and distruction of property?
Thought not. As someone else so eloquently put it -
f**k off back to London.

getreal1 says...
7:02pm Mon 4 May 09

jay316 wrote:
getreal1 wrote: "5.50pm - Protestors dance on pier roof as police back off. Police have stepped back to avoid confrontation with protesters" If I stand on the roof of the cop shop tomorrow to complain about the soft handling of the demo, including allowing criminal damage to occur, will the police bottle it/back off to avoid confrontation with me. No. Given the number shipped in today, the job should have been done better.
The police did the right thing in backing away.. If somebody fell from that roof, then the police would have more problems. Its called not putting fuel on the fire. These few protestors are in one place, which is controlable.. and right by a cctv camera. So the police can deal with those involved at a later date. And the owner of the stand can if need be press charged for Criminal Damage.
A point well made Jay but the reality is that unless an extremely serious offence, well beyond criminal damage, is committed, I do not believe that the police would bother at a later date. The owners of property defaced or vandalised will be advised that it's not worth it, told to claim from their insurance company and think themselves lucky that it wasn't worse.

Brampton_Horritt says...
7:04pm Mon 4 May 09

jay316 wrote:
Cookie83 wrote:
For people who seem to be protesting for peace, they don't seem very peaceful!Was just at the Pier and all I saw was a bunch of drunk hangry kids jumping around, disrupting peoples' lives..That will get their point through I'm sure...And a lot of support as well!!!
Look how much media coverage they will get !!
Lets just hope it shows them exactly as they are - a bunch of trouble hungry numpties - the majority of those I spoke to didn't have a clue what they were protesting about. Wasters.

Top marks to the police for a very considered and restrained approach.

htims says...
7:06pm Mon 4 May 09

Has it all stopped now? There haven't been any updates for a while! Also, the argus didn't write about the protesters standing in the road blocking the traffic near RSB!

stickman says...
7:07pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
spuldge wrote:
When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.
You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote.

Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.
No - you're wrong. The suffragettes backed off during WW1 and used peaceful protest only. Women then proved themselves in the war and won the vote that way.

Violent acts only provoke a natural reaction against them, read these comments if you dont believe me, and never succeed in a democracy.

bibble says...
7:08pm Mon 4 May 09

Osama bin there wrote:
bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
brightonneil wrote: having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?
section 5 public order at least, possibly Afray. But surely as the organisers didn't supply information (and I thought any lawful protest had to be sorted with police) as required.. this could be seens as an unlawful gathering.. Maybe there are some lawyers on line that can clarify this.!!
Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law, completely trumps any mistaken ideas you may have about "illegal gatherings". There is a RIGHT to gather, not just a freedom to do so.
Could you show me the statute, in law, that allows violent protest and distruction of property? Thought not. As someone else so eloquently put it - f**k off back to London.
Will you please stop using your foul language? What is wrong with you?

If some people are beiong violent that does NOT take away the rights of other people to demonstrate. When you have fully digested and understood that you may rejoin the real world.

s8814548 says...
7:09pm Mon 4 May 09

It surprizes me that a defence company can't deal with some vermin. These vermin were prepaired to damage business and attack inocent people. And I understand from Reuters were chanting give us our streets back. Which is funny when they arn't from brighton.

Why didn't edo help the police and supply a few stinger missles to help deal with these protesters. And if they don't like our country they can leave they always have that choice.

David

jay316 says...
7:09pm Mon 4 May 09

getreal1 wrote:
jay316 wrote:
getreal1 wrote: "5.50pm - Protestors dance on pier roof as police back off. Police have stepped back to avoid confrontation with protesters" If I stand on the roof of the cop shop tomorrow to complain about the soft handling of the demo, including allowing criminal damage to occur, will the police bottle it/back off to avoid confrontation with me. No. Given the number shipped in today, the job should have been done better.
The police did the right thing in backing away.. If somebody fell from that roof, then the police would have more problems. Its called not putting fuel on the fire. These few protestors are in one place, which is controlable.. and right by a cctv camera. So the police can deal with those involved at a later date. And the owner of the stand can if need be press charged for Criminal Damage.
A point well made Jay but the reality is that unless an extremely serious offence, well beyond criminal damage, is committed, I do not believe that the police would bother at a later date. The owners of property defaced or vandalised will be advised that it's not worth it, told to claim from their insurance company and think themselves lucky that it wasn't worse.
Totally agree... the point I was making, if you feel from that roof (drunk or not) you'd probably be seriously hurt, or dead..

The police as I said felt for safety of themselves, public and the protestors, it wouldn't be a good idea to edge forward.

That roof I don't think would support the weight (or is big enough) for 40 people.

The other question as this is on Brighton Piers property, why didn;t their security deal with it.

brightoncore says...
7:09pm Mon 4 May 09

I am not surprised at the conservative contingent here in Brighton. Having been born and bred in Brighton this influx of wealthy Bourgeois only seeks to whittle out the Bohemian heart of Brighton which I think is now sadly dead.
Listening to a wealthy family in a pub talking about how they were planning to buy another property in London while on another table people were worried about jobs clearly provided me with a classic example of how the pubs, attitudes and people in Brighton are now more like Surrey conservatives than the greater 'left' leaning of real Brightonians over the years. After being sniped at by the father of this family (who is a day trader, and to which he wanted to tell everyone in a very loud voice how much stock he was dealing in) in the pub as being ‘not a local’ and taking his ‘favorite spot’, I feel my anger burning at these usurpers of Brighton who’s money and attitudes are killing its creative heart.
Police powers have now gone too far, liberty and your rights are at threat, but for the Daily Mail (and Argus Readers) images such as those on this website and the coverage will only fuel anger at what are a small minority of people who are doing what many of us are too hypocritical or scared to do.
So I guess you people didn’t realise that the Bankers have caused more damage to this country than any terrorist has ever done, they are the one’s who are traitors. Over half a trillion debt, and they walk scot free. Get your priorities right and don’t believe conservative backed newspapers, go see for yourself.

bibble says...
7:11pm Mon 4 May 09

stickman wrote:
bibble wrote:
spuldge wrote: When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.
You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote. Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.
No - you're wrong. The suffragettes backed off during WW1 and used peaceful protest only. Women then proved themselves in the war and won the vote that way. Violent acts only provoke a natural reaction against them, read these comments if you dont believe me, and never succeed in a democracy.
It is you who is wrong. You've obviously been reading a goody-two-shoes version of history where everything is milk and honey if only people ask nicely for things.

Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust.

Osama bin there says...
7:12pm Mon 4 May 09

When the dust has settled, us, the people that actually live here, will be even more against the protesters than we were before.
Even if they had a valid cause, which I don't think they have, they have done a great job by alienating about 98% of the population of Brighton.
Damaging the pier? What the hell do they have to do with EDO?
Mindless morons no better than football hooligans, and that's doing a disservice to football hooligans - because at least most of them have jobs.
Idiots, the lot of them.

jay316 says...
7:13pm Mon 4 May 09

s8814548 wrote:
It surprizes me that a defence company can't deal with some vermin. These vermin were prepaired to damage business and attack inocent people. And I understand from Reuters were chanting give us our streets back. Which is funny when they arn't from brighton.

Why didn't edo help the police and supply a few stinger missles to help deal with these protesters. And if they don't like our country they can leave they always have that choice.

David
Because they don't make missles.. they make parts for missles.. same as intel make CPUS :)

churchst says...
7:15pm Mon 4 May 09

DWho wrote:
churchst wrote:
The Argus seems to have a relatively neutral approach to today's reporting, but judging by the comments on this page, they have to appease there target audience. Which, with all due respect, seem to be ignorant of the issues. My problem is the front page picture, which speaks a million words. It's obvious where the paper stands and with whom.
issues brought up by today:

name: "smash EDO"
issue: EDO not smashed; various other parts of Brighton, and some poor lady's face smashed instead.

name: "protester"
issue: complete failure to distance themselves from the violent loutish behaviour started by a few inane individuals and conduct themselves in a proper manner.

name: "police violence"
issue: Police (whom I have been watching for the afternoon) very restrained and to be applauded, especially with the baiting tactics of "protesters" (see issue 2) and with Police personnel being the subjects of violence and attacks themselves.

How am I doing so far?
Not very good.

Your points are reactionary and incoherent.

Maybe it's all the preservatives and E numbers in your 'Big Tasty® with Bacon'

brightonneil says...
7:15pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
Osama bin there wrote:
bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
brightonneil wrote: having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?
section 5 public order at least, possibly Afray. But surely as the organisers didn't supply information (and I thought any lawful protest had to be sorted with police) as required.. this could be seens as an unlawful gathering.. Maybe there are some lawyers on line that can clarify this.!!
Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law, completely trumps any mistaken ideas you may have about "illegal gatherings". There is a RIGHT to gather, not just a freedom to do so.
Could you show me the statute, in law, that allows violent protest and distruction of property? Thought not. As someone else so eloquently put it - f**k off back to London.
Will you please stop using your foul language? What is wrong with you? If some people are beiong violent that does NOT take away the rights of other people to demonstrate. When you have fully digested and understood that you may rejoin the real world.
as a brightonian all my life(51yrs) it is my human right to go around my city on a bank holiday with my wife and 8 children and associated grandchildren without being harrassed and intimidated by a bunch of people who are just intent on causing trouble if you are upset by my comments you should have heard what was being shouted by the party goers. if you dont like the comments of a true brightonian please do us all a favour and dont come down here

Stu says...
7:20pm Mon 4 May 09

It's extremely sad to see other people's property damaged by so called grown adults acting like children.

By all means protest but please don't come back again cos we aren't interested in your cause here.

churchst says...
7:20pm Mon 4 May 09

jay316 wrote:
s8814548 wrote:
It surprizes me that a defence company can't deal with some vermin. These vermin were prepaired to damage business and attack inocent people. And I understand from Reuters were chanting give us our streets back. Which is funny when they arn't from brighton.

Why didn't edo help the police and supply a few stinger missles to help deal with these protesters. And if they don't like our country they can leave they always have that choice.

David
Because they don't make missles.. they make parts for missles.. same as intel make CPUS :)
Maybe the protesters feel as patriotic as you do. Maybe they feel responsible for the UK as a whole and not just the city/town they live in.

Maybe they didn't attack innocent people, maybe you made that up.

Maybe you just an angry old man.


yifat says...
7:21pm Mon 4 May 09

i have worked and paid taxes for years and i don't want my tax money to subsidise the arms trade and wars of imperial conquest.
yes there were many drunk people on the march and stuff was thrown at the police but this is a fraction of what is inflicted by our armed forces on the peoples of iraq and afghanistan. can we please get some perspective on this.

surreyseagull says...
7:22pm Mon 4 May 09

Foul left wing scum whose only agenda is to have a go at the forces of law and order. Brighton doesn't want you and in fact NOBODY wants you with your pathetic protests about a factory employing ordinary people who have a right to work - when will you get that idea into your idiot heads. Oh "work" , I suppose, is probably a dirty word to all you anti capitalist winkers (misprint)

Osama bin there says...
7:22pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
Osama bin there wrote:
bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
brightonneil wrote: having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?
section 5 public order at least, possibly Afray. But surely as the organisers didn't supply information (and I thought any lawful protest had to be sorted with police) as required.. this could be seens as an unlawful gathering.. Maybe there are some lawyers on line that can clarify this.!!
Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law, completely trumps any mistaken ideas you may have about "illegal gatherings". There is a RIGHT to gather, not just a freedom to do so.
Could you show me the statute, in law, that allows violent protest and distruction of property? Thought not. As someone else so eloquently put it - f**k off back to London.
Will you please stop using your foul language? What is wrong with you?

If some people are beiong violent that does NOT take away the rights of other people to demonstrate. When you have fully digested and understood that you may rejoin the real world.
I was quoting someone else, and am still waiting for you to quote the chapter and verse on the legal statute that allows violent protest.


bibble says...
7:23pm Mon 4 May 09

brightoncore wrote:
I am not surprised at the conservative contingent here in Brighton. Having been born and bred in Brighton this influx of wealthy Bourgeois only seeks to whittle out the Bohemian heart of Brighton which I think is now sadly dead. Listening to a wealthy family in a pub talking about how they were planning to buy another property in London while on another table people were worried about jobs clearly provided me with a classic example of how the pubs, attitudes and people in Brighton are now more like Surrey conservatives than the greater 'left' leaning of real Brightonians over the years. After being sniped at by the father of this family (who is a day trader, and to which he wanted to tell everyone in a very loud voice how much stock he was dealing in) in the pub as being ‘not a local’ and taking his ‘favorite spot’, I feel my anger burning at these usurpers of Brighton who’s money and attitudes are killing its creative heart. Police powers have now gone too far, liberty and your rights are at threat, but for the Daily Mail (and Argus Readers) images such as those on this website and the coverage will only fuel anger at what are a small minority of people who are doing what many of us are too hypocritical or scared to do. So I guess you people didn’t realise that the Bankers have caused more damage to this country than any terrorist has ever done, they are the one’s who are traitors. Over half a trillion debt, and they walk scot free. Get your priorities right and don’t believe conservative backed newspapers, go see for yourself.
Very well said, brightoncore. I've seen the damage done by "gentrification" in London, which has ruined many areas. Superficially they are better, but it is just a veneer of higher house prices. With it comes the cost to the local society. Pubs, real pubs, have been changed into gastro-nonentities with no soul. They are usually owned by a chain company with several other once-were-pubs under its belt.

In South Kensington, an area I am intimate with, there were 1, The Admiral Codrington, 2, The Australian, 3, The Shuckburgh Arms, 4, The (can't remember now). The Admiral Cod became a gastro pub years ago. The Aussie closed and is now a interior design place. The Shuck closed and is now a food shop (of sorts). The 4th pub is now a restaurant.

It's funny how before all the bankers and money-men moved in, all the pubs survived and thrived as pubs. But then the not-posh-but-pretend
-to-be-cos-I'm-rich idiots moved in and changed the area.

So I know all about your newly-monied non-local mover-inner who has "found" your pub.


jay316 says...
7:25pm Mon 4 May 09

churchst wrote:
jay316 wrote:
s8814548 wrote:
It surprizes me that a defence company can't deal with some vermin. These vermin were prepaired to damage business and attack inocent people. And I understand from Reuters were chanting give us our streets back. Which is funny when they arn't from brighton.

Why didn't edo help the police and supply a few stinger missles to help deal with these protesters. And if they don't like our country they can leave they always have that choice.

David
Because they don't make missles.. they make parts for missles.. same as intel make CPUS :)
Maybe the protesters feel as patriotic as you do. Maybe they feel responsible for the UK as a whole and not just the city/town they live in.

Maybe they didn't attack innocent people, maybe you made that up.

Maybe you just an angry old man.

Where did I say they attacked innocent people. !!!!!!!??????!!!!!!

bibble says...
7:25pm Mon 4 May 09

Osama bin there wrote:
bibble wrote:
Osama bin there wrote:
bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
brightonneil wrote: having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?
section 5 public order at least, possibly Afray. But surely as the organisers didn't supply information (and I thought any lawful protest had to be sorted with police) as required.. this could be seens as an unlawful gathering.. Maybe there are some lawyers on line that can clarify this.!!
Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law, completely trumps any mistaken ideas you may have about "illegal gatherings". There is a RIGHT to gather, not just a freedom to do so.
Could you show me the statute, in law, that allows violent protest and distruction of property? Thought not. As someone else so eloquently put it - f**k off back to London.
Will you please stop using your foul language? What is wrong with you? If some people are beiong violent that does NOT take away the rights of other people to demonstrate. When you have fully digested and understood that you may rejoin the real world.
I was quoting someone else, and am still waiting for you to quote the chapter and verse on the legal statute that allows violent protest.
Go and look up the European convention on human rights. It has been incorporated into English law. English law is subsidiary to it, i.e. the Charter takes precedence.

getreal1 says...
7:25pm Mon 4 May 09

brightoncore wrote:
I am not surprised at the conservative contingent here in Brighton. Having been born and bred in Brighton this influx of wealthy Bourgeois only seeks to whittle out the Bohemian heart of Brighton which I think is now sadly dead. Listening to a wealthy family in a pub talking about how they were planning to buy another property in London while on another table people were worried about jobs clearly provided me with a classic example of how the pubs, attitudes and people in Brighton are now more like Surrey conservatives than the greater 'left' leaning of real Brightonians over the years. After being sniped at by the father of this family (who is a day trader, and to which he wanted to tell everyone in a very loud voice how much stock he was dealing in) in the pub as being ‘not a local’ and taking his ‘favorite spot’, I feel my anger burning at these usurpers of Brighton who’s money and attitudes are killing its creative heart. Police powers have now gone too far, liberty and your rights are at threat, but for the Daily Mail (and Argus Readers) images such as those on this website and the coverage will only fuel anger at what are a small minority of people who are doing what many of us are too hypocritical or scared to do. So I guess you people didn’t realise that the Bankers have caused more damage to this country than any terrorist has ever done, they are the one’s who are traitors. Over half a trillion debt, and they walk scot free. Get your priorities right and don’t believe conservative backed newspapers, go see for yourself.
Crikey - I don't agree with all you've said but as a Brighton man born and bred, you'll have to find another boozer! I don't think that Brighton's been that left-leaning otherwise Juliam Amery would not have survived as an MP with his attendance record as bad as it was for the years, for the time that he did. As a city I think it has always been willing to accept a mixture of cultures and peoples, probably more than any other in Britain. If it had not then I personally do not think that the area would have become home to as many queer boys as it has. As to the principle of today's protest, this is the protester's prerogative to pursue even though I personally do not agree with the protest. As to the appalling behaviour I have witnessed in its name, no way. It's wrong.

churchst says...
7:26pm Mon 4 May 09

Stu wrote:
It's extremely sad to see other people's property damaged by so called grown adults acting like children.

By all means protest but please don't come back again cos we aren't interested in your cause here.
Thankfully what you want isn't important as we live in a democracy where dissent and protest are integral components.

brightoncore says...
7:28pm Mon 4 May 09

More property is damaged as a result of students in the town more than anyone, I suppose you should close the Universities. Obviously not as its a tiny minority of students.

The point is even though some tiny minority resort to violence their point is valid, and you should be ashamed at not protesting not just against the military linked company (which I think is less important) than the obscene Banker fraud which has scammed our children out of a secure future.

No just sit there and complain and let the rich and elite suck the life out of you, your family and your friends.

It sickens me that not only the coverage but also the reactions are completely out of proportion related to the true exploitation you have all been exposed to. But hey let's not rock the boat eh? No revolution here please, we are 'British'.

Bog Vern says...
7:28pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
stickman wrote:
bibble wrote:
spuldge wrote: When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.
You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote. Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.
No - you're wrong. The suffragettes backed off during WW1 and used peaceful protest only. Women then proved themselves in the war and won the vote that way. Violent acts only provoke a natural reaction against them, read these comments if you dont believe me, and never succeed in a democracy.
It is you who is wrong. You've obviously been reading a goody-two-shoes version of history where everything is milk and honey if only people ask nicely for things.

Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust.
Bibble,

Your comments are ill thought out, factually incorrect and provocative.

Whatever the circumstances of this 'protest' and the freedom of people to protest, what about those who don't want to protest and merely wish to live their life in a normal, well meaning way?

Why should they be expected to have their lives compromised by these selfish self serving publicists who are disguising this 'protest' in order to fit into their anarchistic, violent and destructive political objectives.

Grow up and realise that this is not about the EDO factory, this is about violence, intimidation and anarchy.

Stop reading goody-two-shoes versions of EDO and start thinking in a more mature, real world and realistic manner.


stickman says...
7:30pm Mon 4 May 09

brightoncore wrote:
I am not surprised at the conservative contingent here in Brighton. Having been born and bred in Brighton this influx of wealthy Bourgeois only seeks to whittle out the Bohemian heart of Brighton which I think is now sadly dead.
Listening to a wealthy family in a pub talking about how they were planning to buy another property in London while on another table people were worried about jobs clearly provided me with a classic example of how the pubs, attitudes and people in Brighton are now more like Surrey conservatives than the greater 'left' leaning of real Brightonians over the years. After being sniped at by the father of this family (who is a day trader, and to which he wanted to tell everyone in a very loud voice how much stock he was dealing in) in the pub as being ‘not a local’ and taking his ‘favorite spot’, I feel my anger burning at these usurpers of Brighton who’s money and attitudes are killing its creative heart.
Police powers have now gone too far, liberty and your rights are at threat, but for the Daily Mail (and Argus Readers) images such as those on this website and the coverage will only fuel anger at what are a small minority of people who are doing what many of us are too hypocritical or scared to do.
So I guess you people didn’t realise that the Bankers have caused more damage to this country than any terrorist has ever done, they are the one’s who are traitors. Over half a trillion debt, and they walk scot free. Get your priorities right and don’t believe conservative backed newspapers, go see for yourself.
Sorry but I was born in the old Royal Alex and lived here pretty much all my life so don't start telling me what my opinions should be.

Brightonians are typically open-minded which I am too, but all this is not about EDO/weapons/banking/
terrorism. If it was you would find a lot less disagreement. Its about a group of people who have come to Brighton to cause trouble and try to pretend they are doing it for a just cause.

I don't get it - I would have thought true supporters would have been angrier at these drunk idiots who have hijacked your cause.

bibble says...
7:30pm Mon 4 May 09

Stu wrote:
It's extremely sad to see other people's property damaged by so called grown adults acting like children. By all means protest but please don't come back again cos we aren't interested in your cause here.
Perhaps if you saw the damage caused by the bombs release by EDO-made components you would change your tune.

SimonS says...
7:31pm Mon 4 May 09

The police win the moral battle here. It's unfortunate that more arrests weren't made, but I can see why they weren't as that could have provoked violence, and would have achieved nothing as the protesters would have taken police off the street to deal with them, only to be let off anyway.

So, 'a minority' of protestors have today:

Graffitied on a police van
Swarmed around a police van and rocked it dangerously
Pelted police with bottles/cans/misiles

Tried ramming police lines with wheely bins
Clambered on buildings, breaking signs/lights
Injured someone by throwing some object
Closed most of Brighton off during what should have been a busy tourist weekend

Also, if the majority are not trouble-makers, why are the majority wearing balaclavas or scarves across their faces?

Disgraceful.

IKDRF says...
7:32pm Mon 4 May 09

churchst wrote:
jay316 wrote:
s8814548 wrote: It surprizes me that a defence company can't deal with some vermin. These vermin were prepaired to damage business and attack inocent people. And I understand from Reuters were chanting give us our streets back. Which is funny when they arn't from brighton. Why didn't edo help the police and supply a few stinger missles to help deal with these protesters. And if they don't like our country they can leave they always have that choice. David
Because they don't make missles.. they make parts for missles.. same as intel make CPUS :)
Maybe the protesters feel as patriotic as you do. Maybe they feel responsible for the UK as a whole and not just the city/town they live in. Maybe they didn't attack innocent people, maybe you made that up. Maybe you just an angry old man.
Got to say I have been in town and found the protesters a little irksome but did not feel at all threatened by them.
However late in the evening i do feel threatened by the neanderthals who roam the city centre.the said same neanderthals probably take a dim view of the protesters s they lack the intelligence to understand them.So whilst i do not condone vandelism i know which group of people id rather be around

churchst says...
7:34pm Mon 4 May 09

jay316 wrote:
churchst wrote:
jay316 wrote:
s8814548 wrote:
It surprizes me that a defence company can't deal with some vermin. These vermin were prepaired to damage business and attack inocent people. And I understand from Reuters were chanting give us our streets back. Which is funny when they arn't from brighton.

Why didn't edo help the police and supply a few stinger missles to help deal with these protesters. And if they don't like our country they can leave they always have that choice.

David
Because they don't make missles.. they make parts for missles.. same as intel make CPUS :)
Maybe the protesters feel as patriotic as you do. Maybe they feel responsible for the UK as a whole and not just the city/town they live in.

Maybe they didn't attack innocent people, maybe you made that up.

Maybe you just an angry old man.

Where did I say they attacked innocent people. !!!!!!!??????!!!!!!
you didn't - s8814548 did - i was just continuing the thread...

brightonneil says...
7:35pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
Stu wrote: It's extremely sad to see other people's property damaged by so called grown adults acting like children. By all means protest but please don't come back again cos we aren't interested in your cause here.
Perhaps if you saw the damage caused by the bombs release by EDO-made components you would change your tune.
bible
as i pointed out before edo are entitled by law to make whatever they like as long as it is legal.the behaviour of the protesters was not legal, you talk a load of rubbish and are not even local.

johnsmith48 says...
7:35pm Mon 4 May 09

The Police were always in a 'no-win' position. The extent of protestor agression and criminal damage, balanced against the lack of arrests clearly highlights real Police restraint and control. There will be claims of Police Agression, compaints that the Police let Protestors go too far, Protestors will say the sheer volume of Police 'created' a hostile atmospere. Members of the public will say there we too little Police and a lack of control - lets hope the media present images from both sides of the battle lines, not just the Police Officer with a batton raised in self defence. From what i saw, the Policing was considered and appropriate.

bibble says...
7:35pm Mon 4 May 09

Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
stickman wrote:
bibble wrote:
spuldge wrote: When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.
You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote. Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.
No - you're wrong. The suffragettes backed off during WW1 and used peaceful protest only. Women then proved themselves in the war and won the vote that way. Violent acts only provoke a natural reaction against them, read these comments if you dont believe me, and never succeed in a democracy.
It is you who is wrong. You've obviously been reading a goody-two-shoes version of history where everything is milk and honey if only people ask nicely for things. Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust.
Bibble, Your comments are ill thought out, factually incorrect and provocative. Whatever the circumstances of this 'protest' and the freedom of people to protest, what about those who don't want to protest and merely wish to live their life in a normal, well meaning way? Why should they be expected to have their lives compromised by these selfish self serving publicists who are disguising this 'protest' in order to fit into their anarchistic, violent and destructive political objectives. Grow up and realise that this is not about the EDO factory, this is about violence, intimidation and anarchy. Stop reading goody-two-shoes versions of EDO and start thinking in a more mature, real world and realistic manner.
Alas, you just don't get it. Whatever you think your entitlements are to a quiet and peaceful life, there is a RIGHT to protest. You will just have to put up with it. It's too bad you disagree with it, but there is nothing to stop you having a protest either. It's for your good as well as other protestors. Who is to say that you are right and they are wrong?

Do you deny that EDO makes bomb-release components? Yes or no?

As far as I can see this is very much about EDO. The violence and intimidation appears to be coming from the police, not the protestors.

brightoncore says...
7:36pm Mon 4 May 09

They do it as they are monitored and regularly harrassed by the police.

Remember the poll tax riots? Remember how important they were, this is hardly violence today of the same proporition yet compared the the Poll Tax the Bankers fraud and police 'anti-terrorist' laws are a drop in the ocean.

Some scuffling and missiles from a minority is nothing compared the to damage the state has caused you.

But hey it's terrible to see people disrupting your day, just remember that when you have no pension, no health care, and no work, no rights to protest and with the country and the brink of ecenomic disaster. Wait till the wars truly start from this obscenity that capitalism has thrown at us then say this minorities actions will look like kindergarden.

Bog Vern says...
7:37pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
Stu wrote:
It's extremely sad to see other people's property damaged by so called grown adults acting like children. By all means protest but please don't come back again cos we aren't interested in your cause here.
Perhaps if you saw the damage caused by the bombs release by EDO-made components you would change your tune.
Bibble,

Oh please.

PLEASE come out with something original that befits your level of intelligence (or so you tell us)

jay316 says...
7:39pm Mon 4 May 09

The way I see today.

Regardless of EDO/MBM's role in any aledged activities.. Everyone has a legal right to protest. What I don't think is good is mindless vandalism of property by a few mindless persons. It does not do the real protestors any favours.

As I said I don't think anyone had any real issues with people expressing their views on this situation or for that matter protesting, but have condoned the violence (except 3 people who appeared to be in favour).

From the reports I have seen most people said the police were very restrained, and with only 1 arrest and 4 minor injuries (I think 1 of these injuried was my colleague).

Brighton Pier closed it gates earlier today, which they do not do lightly due to it being a bank holiday.

Be interesting to see how the media cover it.. (Sky News from what I saw didn't even mention today, not sure about BBC as don't have BBC news)

brightoncore says...
7:40pm Mon 4 May 09

Hehe that's a but incoherent (getting angry).

What I meant was that the 'poll tax' was a drop in the ocean compared to the outrages of the Bankers actions.

Just remember at least half a trillion gone and we have foot the bill and the economic fallout not the rich.

brightoncore says...
7:40pm Mon 4 May 09

Hehe that's a but incoherent (getting angry).

What I meant was that the 'poll tax' was a drop in the ocean compared to the outrages of the Bankers actions.

Just remember at least half a trillion gone and we have foot the bill and the economic fallout not the rich.

yearman says...
7:41pm Mon 4 May 09

I am not a long haired herbert etc but a good middle class teacher and the only aggression i witnessed was from the large amount of police. the use of horses was over the top as the protesters were carrying out a very well behaved legal protest.

jay316 says...
7:41pm Mon 4 May 09

One protester fell from roof... that must have really hurt. 20" drop on to concrete groin

Bog Vern says...
7:41pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
stickman wrote:
bibble wrote:
spuldge wrote: When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.
You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote. Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.
No - you're wrong. The suffragettes backed off during WW1 and used peaceful protest only. Women then proved themselves in the war and won the vote that way. Violent acts only provoke a natural reaction against them, read these comments if you dont believe me, and never succeed in a democracy.
It is you who is wrong. You've obviously been reading a goody-two-shoes version of history where everything is milk and honey if only people ask nicely for things. Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust.
Bibble, Your comments are ill thought out, factually incorrect and provocative. Whatever the circumstances of this 'protest' and the freedom of people to protest, what about those who don't want to protest and merely wish to live their life in a normal, well meaning way? Why should they be expected to have their lives compromised by these selfish self serving publicists who are disguising this 'protest' in order to fit into their anarchistic, violent and destructive political objectives. Grow up and realise that this is not about the EDO factory, this is about violence, intimidation and anarchy. Stop reading goody-two-shoes versions of EDO and start thinking in a more mature, real world and realistic manner.
Alas, you just don't get it. Whatever you think your entitlements are to a quiet and peaceful life, there is a RIGHT to protest. You will just have to put up with it. It's too bad you disagree with it, but there is nothing to stop you having a protest either. It's for your good as well as other protestors. Who is to say that you are right and they are wrong?

Do you deny that EDO makes bomb-release components? Yes or no?

As far as I can see this is very much about EDO. The violence and intimidation appears to be coming from the police, not the protestors.
Justify the comment 'appears to be coming from the police' - evidence that for this particular protest - go one - give me specific fact to justify your comments. What did you see or hear or is this a comment that is as valid as others - eg - you read it somewhere!!

Secondly - you spout about ECHR - and the articles - that is just as factual that dont want their lives ruined by the protesters.

NOW - GIVE ME EVIDENCE THAT THE POLICE were the protagonists of violence and intimidation here today!!

Come on - I am waiting.

churchst says...
7:42pm Mon 4 May 09

SimonS wrote:
The police win the moral battle here. It's unfortunate that more arrests weren't made, but I can see why they weren't as that could have provoked violence, and would have achieved nothing as the protesters would have taken police off the street to deal with them, only to be let off anyway.

So, 'a minority' of protestors have today:

Graffitied on a police van
Swarmed around a police van and rocked it dangerously
Pelted police with bottles/cans/misiles


Tried ramming police lines with wheely bins
Clambered on buildings, breaking signs/lights
Injured someone by throwing some object
Closed most of Brighton off during what should have been a busy tourist weekend

Also, if the majority are not trouble-makers, why are the majority wearing balaclavas or scarves across their faces?

Disgraceful.
Your ignorance is disgraceful.

Ever been to Gaza when it gets dangerous there.

With missiles raining down killing families, missiles with components that are made in your city...

...and you talk of wheelie bins, broken lights and graffiti?

Truly Disgraceful.

bibble says...
7:42pm Mon 4 May 09

brightonneil wrote:
bibble wrote:
Stu wrote: It's extremely sad to see other people's property damaged by so called grown adults acting like children. By all means protest but please don't come back again cos we aren't interested in your cause here.
Perhaps if you saw the damage caused by the bombs release by EDO-made components you would change your tune.
bible as i pointed out before edo are entitled by law to make whatever they like as long as it is legal.the behaviour of the protesters was not legal, you talk a load of rubbish and are not even local.
A certificate from this government to make arms should be treated with contempt.

You are also mistaken that just because something is "legal" that the protestors action is illegal. Go and look up the history of a case where some demonstrators took some rather more serious action against BAe. They damaged a Hawk aircraft, but were found not guilty at their trial. The demonstrators admitted causing the damage, but the jury found them not guilty. All that matters is the verdict, don't try and say the jury was wrong.

DWho says...
7:43pm Mon 4 May 09

churchst wrote:
DWho wrote:
churchst wrote: The Argus seems to have a relatively neutral approach to today's reporting, but judging by the comments on this page, they have to appease there target audience. Which, with all due respect, seem to be ignorant of the issues. My problem is the front page picture, which speaks a million words. It's obvious where the paper stands and with whom.
issues brought up by today: name: "smash EDO" issue: EDO not smashed; various other parts of Brighton, and some poor lady's face smashed instead. name: "protester" issue: complete failure to distance themselves from the violent loutish behaviour started by a few inane individuals and conduct themselves in a proper manner. name: "police violence" issue: Police (whom I have been watching for the afternoon) very restrained and to be applauded, especially with the baiting tactics of "protesters" (see issue 2) and with Police personnel being the subjects of violence and attacks themselves. How am I doing so far?
Not very good. Your points are reactionary and incoherent. Maybe it's all the preservatives and E numbers in your 'Big Tasty® with Bacon'
sorry, I don't eat at McDonalds...

...however, after today's pathetic display by some morons with masks on to prove to me how evil me and my life are, I may well start.

ipaymytaxes says...
7:43pm Mon 4 May 09

Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
stickman wrote:
bibble wrote:
spuldge wrote: When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.
You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote. Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.
No - you're wrong. The suffragettes backed off during WW1 and used peaceful protest only. Women then proved themselves in the war and won the vote that way. Violent acts only provoke a natural reaction against them, read these comments if you dont believe me, and never succeed in a democracy.
It is you who is wrong. You've obviously been reading a goody-two-shoes version of history where everything is milk and honey if only people ask nicely for things. Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust.
Bibble, Your comments are ill thought out, factually incorrect and provocative. Whatever the circumstances of this 'protest' and the freedom of people to protest, what about those who don't want to protest and merely wish to live their life in a normal, well meaning way? Why should they be expected to have their lives compromised by these selfish self serving publicists who are disguising this 'protest' in order to fit into their anarchistic, violent and destructive political objectives. Grow up and realise that this is not about the EDO factory, this is about violence, intimidation and anarchy. Stop reading goody-two-shoes versions of EDO and start thinking in a more mature, real world and realistic manner.
Quote Bibble:

'Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust'

I am shocked at your attitude. There is nothing that excuses violence. If your statement is correct then you also fully support terroists, football hooligans and war. All fuelled by people who use violence, malice and crime as an excuse for things they supposedly support/believe in. Disgusting.

stickman says...
7:44pm Mon 4 May 09

brightoncore wrote:
Hehe that's a but incoherent (getting angry).

What I meant was that the 'poll tax' was a drop in the ocean compared to the outrages of the Bankers actions.

Just remember at least half a trillion gone and we have foot the bill and the economic fallout not the rich.
The poll tax got binned because votes would be lost - the "riot" was a side show. Our great democracy at work again.

brightonneil says...
7:45pm Mon 4 May 09

yearman wrote:
I am not a long haired herbert etc but a good middle class teacher and the only aggression i witnessed was from the large amount of police. the use of horses was over the top as the protesters were carrying out a very well behaved legal protest.
if the organisers had coperated with the police they would have known what reponse to make as they didnt they had to ensure that there was an adequate response available if needed.Take that up with the organisers and p**s off back to worthing

donitababy says...
7:47pm Mon 4 May 09

brightoncore wrote:
More property is damaged as a result of students in the town more than anyone, I suppose you should close the Universities. Obviously not as its a tiny minority of students. The point is even though some tiny minority resort to violence their point is valid, and you should be ashamed at not protesting not just against the military linked company (which I think is less important) than the obscene Banker fraud which has scammed our children out of a secure future. No just sit there and complain and let the rich and elite suck the life out of you, your family and your friends. It sickens me that not only the coverage but also the reactions are completely out of proportion related to the true exploitation you have all been exposed to. But hey let's not rock the boat eh? No revolution here please, we are 'British'.
i agree the protest was valid but i dont feel ashamed for not taking part i watched and walked with them as they went up north street and as im new to brighton it opened my eyes as i didnt know there was such a thing in brighton
but that still doesnt make the voilence right it doesnt give people the right do destroy property shout abuse and get wasted in the streets how is that protesting against EDO and i agree britain is in a mess thanks to bankers and a ill run goverment and would be happy to protest about such issues but voilence is not needed cant we find a way to get are voices heard without resulting in fighting and drinking

sugarhorse says...
7:48pm Mon 4 May 09

churchst wrote:
SimonS wrote:
The police win the moral battle here. It's unfortunate that more arrests weren't made, but I can see why they weren't as that could have provoked violence, and would have achieved nothing as the protesters would have taken police off the street to deal with them, only to be let off anyway.

So, 'a minority' of protestors have today:

Graffitied on a police van
Swarmed around a police van and rocked it dangerously
Pelted police with bottles/cans/misiles



Tried ramming police lines with wheely bins
Clambered on buildings, breaking signs/lights
Injured someone by throwing some object
Closed most of Brighton off during what should have been a busy tourist weekend

Also, if the majority are not trouble-makers, why are the majority wearing balaclavas or scarves across their faces?

Disgraceful.
Your ignorance is disgraceful.

Ever been to Gaza when it gets dangerous there.

With missiles raining down killing families, missiles with components that are made in your city...

...and you talk of wheelie bins, broken lights and graffiti?

Truly Disgraceful.
Idiot

Some-one Else! says...
7:49pm Mon 4 May 09

Its "nice" to see that most ignorant bigoted people are out in force on here ranting on about "unemployed soap dodging crusties and smelling tramps taking over the city not even knowing what they are going on about ".....well today is May Day...which traditionally through-out history is a day of revolution! And has been too! I think the days events have gone peacefully...and would have gone even more peacefully if people were allowed to exercise their right to demonstrate and freedom of speech....(mmm which by the looks of you lot your excercing them very freely!!) The people protesting today come from all walks of life. I myself am a working professional (and in case you are wondering I also shower daily.) I think its a shame to see so many negative and xenophobic comments in a city like Brighton. Its you xenophobes that should "showered with water cannons to eradicate the filth"

jay316 says...
7:49pm Mon 4 May 09

churchst wrote:
SimonS wrote:
The police win the moral battle here. It's unfortunate that more arrests weren't made, but I can see why they weren't as that could have provoked violence, and would have achieved nothing as the protesters would have taken police off the street to deal with them, only to be let off anyway.

So, 'a minority' of protestors have today:

Graffitied on a police van
Swarmed around a police van and rocked it dangerously
Pelted police with bottles/cans/misiles



Tried ramming police lines with wheely bins
Clambered on buildings, breaking signs/lights
Injured someone by throwing some object
Closed most of Brighton off during what should have been a busy tourist weekend

Also, if the majority are not trouble-makers, why are the majority wearing balaclavas or scarves across their faces?

Disgraceful.
Your ignorance is disgraceful.

Ever been to Gaza when it gets dangerous there.

With missiles raining down killing families, missiles with components that are made in your city...

...and you talk of wheelie bins, broken lights and graffiti?

Truly Disgraceful.
I am not gonna get drawn into any issues on the rights or wrongs of war or killing people. As I am not there nor am I firing any missiles.

Everyone has a view on this matter, and if people feel that protesting with violence is good, then you are no better than those who commit such violence be it in the street or by firing a missle.

Violence IMHO doesn't solve anything.

SimonS says...
7:49pm Mon 4 May 09

churchst wrote:
SimonS wrote:
The police win the moral battle here. It's unfortunate that more arrests weren't made, but I can see why they weren't as that could have provoked violence, and would have achieved nothing as the protesters would have taken police off the street to deal with them, only to be let off anyway.

So, 'a minority' of protestors have today:

Graffitied on a police van
Swarmed around a police van and rocked it dangerously
Pelted police with bottles/cans/misiles



Tried ramming police lines with wheely bins
Clambered on buildings, breaking signs/lights
Injured someone by throwing some object
Closed most of Brighton off during what should have been a busy tourist weekend

Also, if the majority are not trouble-makers, why are the majority wearing balaclavas or scarves across their faces?

Disgraceful.
Your ignorance is disgraceful.

Ever been to Gaza when it gets dangerous there.

With missiles raining down killing families, missiles with components that are made in your city...

...and you talk of wheelie bins, broken lights and graffiti?

Truly Disgraceful.
Oh, was that the point they were trying to make today? I just thought they wanted a good old ruck in the city and to antagonise police.

bibble says...
7:50pm Mon 4 May 09

ipaymytaxes wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
stickman wrote:
bibble wrote:
spuldge wrote: When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.
You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote. Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.
No - you're wrong. The suffragettes backed off during WW1 and used peaceful protest only. Women then proved themselves in the war and won the vote that way. Violent acts only provoke a natural reaction against them, read these comments if you dont believe me, and never succeed in a democracy.
It is you who is wrong. You've obviously been reading a goody-two-shoes version of history where everything is milk and honey if only people ask nicely for things. Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust.
Bibble, Your comments are ill thought out, factually incorrect and provocative. Whatever the circumstances of this 'protest' and the freedom of people to protest, what about those who don't want to protest and merely wish to live their life in a normal, well meaning way? Why should they be expected to have their lives compromised by these selfish self serving publicists who are disguising this 'protest' in order to fit into their anarchistic, violent and destructive political objectives. Grow up and realise that this is not about the EDO factory, this is about violence, intimidation and anarchy. Stop reading goody-two-shoes versions of EDO and start thinking in a more mature, real world and realistic manner.
Quote Bibble: 'Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust' I am shocked at your attitude. There is nothing that excuses violence. If your statement is correct then you also fully support terroists, football hooligans and war. All fuelled by people who use violence, malice and crime as an excuse for things they supposedly support/believe in. Disgusting.
Actually there is plenty that excuses violence.

Would Hitler have stopped without being treated to a lot of violence in the form of invading armies? No. Would Napoleon have been stopped with words? No, it took armies.

There is little difference between violence on the part of a state when it it is "necessary", and violence from protestors when it is "necessary".

I will not condemn violence from protestors when they are acting against a violent organisation. Nor will I condemn protestors who use violence to protect themselves from police brutality.


brightonneil says...
7:52pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
brightonneil wrote: bibble wrote: Stu wrote: It's extremely sad to see other people's property damaged by so called grown adults acting like children. By all means protest but please don't come back again cos we aren't interested in your cause here.Perhaps if you saw the damage caused by the bombs release by EDO-made components you would change your tune. bible as i pointed out before edo are entitled by law to make whatever they like as long as it is legal.the behaviour of the protesters was not legal, you talk a load of rubbish and are not even local. A certificate from this government to make arms should be treated with contempt. You are also mistaken that just because something is so if a certifacate from the government should be treated with contempt so should that verdict then, you cannot have it both ways or are you bi?

bibble says...
7:55pm Mon 4 May 09

brightonneil wrote:
bibble wrote: brightonneil wrote: bibble wrote: Stu wrote: It's extremely sad to see other people's property damaged by so called grown adults acting like children. By all means protest but please don't come back again cos we aren't interested in your cause here.Perhaps if you saw the damage caused by the bombs release by EDO-made components you would change your tune. bible as i pointed out before edo are entitled by law to make whatever they like as long as it is legal.the behaviour of the protesters was not legal, you talk a load of rubbish and are not even local. A certificate from this government to make arms should be treated with contempt. You are also mistaken that just because something is so if a certifacate from the government should be treated with contempt so should that verdict then, you cannot have it both ways or are you bi? You are confusing the weasel words of a politician deciding what is right and wrong by issuing cerificates, with the verdict of a jury, the people of this country.

It is another reason why politicians want to do away with jury trials.

churchst says...
7:57pm Mon 4 May 09

brightonneil wrote:
yearman wrote:
I am not a long haired herbert etc but a good middle class teacher and the only aggression i witnessed was from the large amount of police. the use of horses was over the top as the protesters were carrying out a very well behaved legal protest.
if the organisers had coperated with the police they would have known what reponse to make as they didnt they had to ensure that there was an adequate response available if needed.Take that up with the organisers and p**s off back to worthing
So brightonneil agrees the police we're violent, but had the protesters been more co-operative it wouldn't have been like that....???

Unprovable vitriol targeted at a genuine statement from a schoolteacher.

My prediction is more protesters were violently assaulted today than police or bystanders.

Bog Vern says...
7:57pm Mon 4 May 09

Bibble

Answer the point I raised at 741pm
NOW - GIVE ME EVIDENCE THAT THE POLICE were the protagonists of violence and intimidation here today!!

Or are you avoiding the question????

I want SPECIFICS not throw away remarks. FACTS please.

Joe Average says...
7:58pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble you are one sad muppet. Luckily that shines through your posts.

stickman says...
7:58pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
ipaymytaxes wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
stickman wrote:
bibble wrote:
spuldge wrote: When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.
You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote. Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.
No - you're wrong. The suffragettes backed off during WW1 and used peaceful protest only. Women then proved themselves in the war and won the vote that way. Violent acts only provoke a natural reaction against them, read these comments if you dont believe me, and never succeed in a democracy.
It is you who is wrong. You've obviously been reading a goody-two-shoes version of history where everything is milk and honey if only people ask nicely for things. Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust.
Bibble, Your comments are ill thought out, factually incorrect and provocative. Whatever the circumstances of this 'protest' and the freedom of people to protest, what about those who don't want to protest and merely wish to live their life in a normal, well meaning way? Why should they be expected to have their lives compromised by these selfish self serving publicists who are disguising this 'protest' in order to fit into their anarchistic, violent and destructive political objectives. Grow up and realise that this is not about the EDO factory, this is about violence, intimidation and anarchy. Stop reading goody-two-shoes versions of EDO and start thinking in a more mature, real world and realistic manner.
Quote Bibble: 'Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust' I am shocked at your attitude. There is nothing that excuses violence. If your statement is correct then you also fully support terroists, football hooligans and war. All fuelled by people who use violence, malice and crime as an excuse for things they supposedly support/believe in. Disgusting.
Actually there is plenty that excuses violence.

Would Hitler have stopped without being treated to a lot of violence in the form of invading armies? No. Would Napoleon have been stopped with words? No, it took armies.

There is little difference between violence on the part of a state when it it is "necessary", and violence from protestors when it is "necessary".

I will not condemn violence from protestors when they are acting against a violent organisation. Nor will I condemn protestors who use violence to protect themselves from police brutality.

Great response but violence from Hitler was met by violence against Hitler i.e. they got to the heart of the problem. The Allies didn't get drunk and smash up the nearest ice cream shop.

Whilst all this is going on there is fragile peace right now in Gaza - I want to see Western and Middle Eastern governments working hard to build on it and then it really doesn't matter what EDO makes because there will never be an opportunity to use them.

brightonneil says...
7:59pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble
you are confusing democracy and anarchy

Joe Average says...
8:00pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble you are one sad muppet. Luckily that shines through your posts.

churchst says...
8:05pm Mon 4 May 09

SimonS wrote:
churchst wrote:
SimonS wrote:
The police win the moral battle here. It's unfortunate that more arrests weren't made, but I can see why they weren't as that could have provoked violence, and would have achieved nothing as the protesters would have taken police off the street to deal with them, only to be let off anyway.

So, 'a minority' of protestors have today:

Graffitied on a police van
Swarmed around a police van and rocked it dangerously
Pelted police with bottles/cans/misiles




Tried ramming police lines with wheely bins
Clambered on buildings, breaking signs/lights
Injured someone by throwing some object
Closed most of Brighton off during what should have been a busy tourist weekend

Also, if the majority are not trouble-makers, why are the majority wearing balaclavas or scarves across their faces?

Disgraceful.
Your ignorance is disgraceful.

Ever been to Gaza when it gets dangerous there.

With missiles raining down killing families, missiles with components that are made in your city...

...and you talk of wheelie bins, broken lights and graffiti?

Truly Disgraceful.
Oh, was that the point they were trying to make today? I just thought they wanted a good old ruck in the city and to antagonise police.
sarcasm, very clever.

brightonneil says...
8:07pm Mon 4 May 09

churchst wrote:
brightonneil wrote:
yearman wrote: I am not a long haired herbert etc but a good middle class teacher and the only aggression i witnessed was from the large amount of police. the use of horses was over the top as the protesters were carrying out a very well behaved legal protest.
if the organisers had coperated with the police they would have known what reponse to make as they didnt they had to ensure that there was an adequate response available if needed.Take that up with the organisers and p**s off back to worthing
So brightonneil agrees the police we're violent, but had the protesters been more co-operative it wouldn't have been like that....??? Unprovable vitriol targeted at a genuine statement from a schoolteacher. My prediction is more protesters were violently assaulted today than police or bystanders.
i didnt see any police violence, and i didnt say i had i was in town i saw protesters throwimg rocks at ncdonalds windows and heard lots of abusive shouting and vitriol coming from the protesters, not the police(who i dont particularly like having fallen foulm of them several times previously). just because someone is a schoolteacher does that make them special. i see that quite a few get arrested when i read the paper.

bibble says...
8:09pm Mon 4 May 09

Bog Vern wrote:
Bibble Answer the point I raised at 741pm NOW - GIVE ME EVIDENCE THAT THE POLICE were the protagonists of violence and intimidation here today!! Or are you avoiding the question???? I want SPECIFICS not throw away remarks. FACTS please.
I feel no compulsion to answer your questions put in such an impertinent manner, but I will do so.

Perhaps you haven't been keeping up with the news, but the police have been carefully briefing against this legal demonstration for the last few weeks. They have complained that the "organisers" would not meet with them, and that they would be on the lookout for "ringleaders".

Even the chief constable was moved to warn his officers to behave. All this strongly suggests very strongly that there are thuggish elements in his force, and that some of them are looking for trouble.

Every time I see a policeman on a horse with a riot helmet I cannot help but think of Planet of the Apes, and the apes on horses were the oppressors. Today there were quite a few police on horses, leaving their dropppings all over the place (is it legal for a horse to foul the public highway - probably, but I'm asking as I don't know).

Outside McDonalds there was evidence of thuggery. Let's see what comes out in the wash. By that I mean photography by members of the public and not the now-instantly-discre
dited official reports from the police.

churchst says...
8:09pm Mon 4 May 09

sugarhorse wrote:
churchst wrote:
SimonS wrote:
The police win the moral battle here. It's unfortunate that more arrests weren't made, but I can see why they weren't as that could have provoked violence, and would have achieved nothing as the protesters would have taken police off the street to deal with them, only to be let off anyway.

So, 'a minority' of protestors have today:

Graffitied on a police van
Swarmed around a police van and rocked it dangerously
Pelted police with bottles/cans/misiles




Tried ramming police lines with wheely bins
Clambered on buildings, breaking signs/lights
Injured someone by throwing some object
Closed most of Brighton off during what should have been a busy tourist weekend

Also, if the majority are not trouble-makers, why are the majority wearing balaclavas or scarves across their faces?

Disgraceful.
Your ignorance is disgraceful.

Ever been to Gaza when it gets dangerous there.

With missiles raining down killing families, missiles with components that are made in your city...

...and you talk of wheelie bins, broken lights and graffiti?

Truly Disgraceful.
Idiot
care to extrapolate? or is it just one word at a time for you?

bibble says...
8:11pm Mon 4 May 09

stickman wrote:
bibble wrote:
ipaymytaxes wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
stickman wrote:
bibble wrote:
spuldge wrote: When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.
You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote. Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.
No - you're wrong. The suffragettes backed off during WW1 and used peaceful protest only. Women then proved themselves in the war and won the vote that way. Violent acts only provoke a natural reaction against them, read these comments if you dont believe me, and never succeed in a democracy.
It is you who is wrong. You've obviously been reading a goody-two-shoes version of history where everything is milk and honey if only people ask nicely for things. Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust.
Bibble, Your comments are ill thought out, factually incorrect and provocative. Whatever the circumstances of this 'protest' and the freedom of people to protest, what about those who don't want to protest and merely wish to live their life in a normal, well meaning way? Why should they be expected to have their lives compromised by these selfish self serving publicists who are disguising this 'protest' in order to fit into their anarchistic, violent and destructive political objectives. Grow up and realise that this is not about the EDO factory, this is about violence, intimidation and anarchy. Stop reading goody-two-shoes versions of EDO and start thinking in a more mature, real world and realistic manner.
Quote Bibble: 'Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust' I am shocked at your attitude. There is nothing that excuses violence. If your statement is correct then you also fully support terroists, football hooligans and war. All fuelled by people who use violence, malice and crime as an excuse for things they supposedly support/believe in. Disgusting.
Actually there is plenty that excuses violence. Would Hitler have stopped without being treated to a lot of violence in the form of invading armies? No. Would Napoleon have been stopped with words? No, it took armies. There is little difference between violence on the part of a state when it it is "necessary", and violence from protestors when it is "necessary". I will not condemn violence from protestors when they are acting against a violent organisation. Nor will I condemn protestors who use violence to protect themselves from police brutality.
Great response but violence from Hitler was met by violence against Hitler i.e. they got to the heart of the problem. The Allies didn't get drunk and smash up the nearest ice cream shop. Whilst all this is going on there is fragile peace right now in Gaza - I want to see Western and Middle Eastern governments working hard to build on it and then it really doesn't matter what EDO makes because there will never be an opportunity to use them.
Area bombing was not targetted directly against Hitler. Ever heard of Dresden? An overwhelmingly civilian city. Lots of ice cream shops destroyed there...


mummy of 2 says...
8:11pm Mon 4 May 09

I'm new at this so bear with me, but I'm really outraged by today's protests. I am from Brighton, born and bred, and although I was aware of the protests today, I made the decision to continue to support my town and take my children, 18 months and 4, into town for lunch and a visit to the sea life centre. I too had thought this protest was meant to be peaceful, but I and my 2 small children were petrified as we left the sea life centre at tea time today. I'm all for freedom of speech, but surely I, as a Brighton resident, have the freedom to take my kids out without feeling intimidated, and dealing with questions from my eldest like why are these people pushing the police? The police have a job to do, many are taken away from what they should be doing to deal with days like this- ie my friend who works in child protection. Surely the time these protesters have spent today- if they are genuine- would be better spent writing to MP's etc. The majority of protesters I saw were either students who sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there, and crusties on benefits, who moan about capitalism, but seem more than happy to take the benefits that tax payers, and indeed these corporate capitalist companies, pay for! Sorry to go on but I am one of the few that is from Brighton and hate to see mindless people tring to destroy what should have been a busy and vibrant day in our beautiful city.

Bog Vern says...
8:14pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
Bibble Answer the point I raised at 741pm NOW - GIVE ME EVIDENCE THAT THE POLICE were the protagonists of violence and intimidation here today!! Or are you avoiding the question???? I want SPECIFICS not throw away remarks. FACTS please.
I feel no compulsion to answer your questions put in such an impertinent manner, but I will do so.

Perhaps you haven't been keeping up with the news, but the police have been carefully briefing against this legal demonstration for the last few weeks. They have complained that the "organisers" would not meet with them, and that they would be on the lookout for "ringleaders".

Even the chief constable was moved to warn his officers to behave. All this strongly suggests very strongly that there are thuggish elements in his force, and that some of them are looking for trouble.

Every time I see a policeman on a horse with a riot helmet I cannot help but think of Planet of the Apes, and the apes on horses were the oppressors. Today there were quite a few police on horses, leaving their dropppings all over the place (is it legal for a horse to foul the public highway - probably, but I'm asking as I don't know).

Outside McDonalds there was evidence of thuggery. Let's see what comes out in the wash. By that I mean photography by members of the public and not the now-instantly-discre

dited official reports from the police.
So you have no evidence at all.

Are you a Sun reporter??

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Top effort

brightonneil says...
8:15pm Mon 4 May 09

mummy of 2 wrote:
I'm new at this so bear with me, but I'm really outraged by today's protests. I am from Brighton, born and bred, and although I was aware of the protests today, I made the decision to continue to support my town and take my children, 18 months and 4, into town for lunch and a visit to the sea life centre. I too had thought this protest was meant to be peaceful, but I and my 2 small children were petrified as we left the sea life centre at tea time today. I'm all for freedom of speech, but surely I, as a Brighton resident, have the freedom to take my kids out without feeling intimidated, and dealing with questions from my eldest like why are these people pushing the police? The police have a job to do, many are taken away from what they should be doing to deal with days like this- ie my friend who works in child protection. Surely the time these protesters have spent today- if they are genuine- would be better spent writing to MP's etc. The majority of protesters I saw were either students who sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there, and crusties on benefits, who moan about capitalism, but seem more than happy to take the benefits that tax payers, and indeed these corporate capitalist companies, pay for! Sorry to go on but I am one of the few that is from Brighton and hate to see mindless people tring to destroy what should have been a busy and vibrant day in our beautiful city.
bibble

that is what i was trying to say only that lady said it much better


bibble says...
8:15pm Mon 4 May 09

brightonneil wrote:
bibble you are confusing democracy and anarchy
And you are confusing democracy with the regime that we live under.

churchst says...
8:18pm Mon 4 May 09

brightonneil wrote:
churchst wrote:
brightonneil wrote:
yearman wrote: I am not a long haired herbert etc but a good middle class teacher and the only aggression i witnessed was from the large amount of police. the use of horses was over the top as the protesters were carrying out a very well behaved legal protest.
if the organisers had coperated with the police they would have known what reponse to make as they didnt they had to ensure that there was an adequate response available if needed.Take that up with the organisers and p**s off back to worthing
So brightonneil agrees the police we're violent, but had the protesters been more co-operative it wouldn't have been like that....??? Unprovable vitriol targeted at a genuine statement from a schoolteacher. My prediction is more protesters were violently assaulted today than police or bystanders.
i didnt see any police violence, and i didnt say i had i was in town i saw protesters throwimg rocks at ncdonalds windows and heard lots of abusive shouting and vitriol coming from the protesters, not the police(who i dont particularly like having fallen foulm of them several times previously). just because someone is a schoolteacher does that make them special. i see that quite a few get arrested when i read the paper.
There's a video above that clearly shows police being aggressive towards protesters simply because they don't want them to go down the street...

McDonalds is a pet-hate of globalisation protesters, so if you stand outside one during a demo, your likely to see anger and damage to property (not to people)

Terrified families were inside McDs during today's demo and it's very wrong. On one hand I think the protesters should have refrained, but equally McDs should have been closed for the day.


pun master says...
8:20pm Mon 4 May 09

You are all missing the point here... my "Argus Liveblog" has the time as 8.53 am on Monday. I want to know what the hell has happened to Sunday night. I have a right to Sunday night, and yet someone at the Argus has seen fit to take it away. I suggest a protest, We all meet by the clock tower, and then go and smash up any shops or businesses that sell time pieces or supply part for timepieces. And cuckoos.

jay316 says...
8:21pm Mon 4 May 09

churchst wrote:
brightonneil wrote:
churchst wrote:
brightonneil wrote:
yearman wrote: I am not a long haired herbert etc but a good middle class teacher and the only aggression i witnessed was from the large amount of police. the use of horses was over the top as the protesters were carrying out a very well behaved legal protest.
if the organisers had coperated with the police they would have known what reponse to make as they didnt they had to ensure that there was an adequate response available if needed.Take that up with the organisers and p**s off back to worthing
So brightonneil agrees the police we're violent, but had the protesters been more co-operative it wouldn't have been like that....??? Unprovable vitriol targeted at a genuine statement from a schoolteacher. My prediction is more protesters were violently assaulted today than police or bystanders.
i didnt see any police violence, and i didnt say i had i was in town i saw protesters throwimg rocks at ncdonalds windows and heard lots of abusive shouting and vitriol coming from the protesters, not the police(who i dont particularly like having fallen foulm of them several times previously). just because someone is a schoolteacher does that make them special. i see that quite a few get arrested when i read the paper.
There's a video above that clearly shows police being aggressive towards protesters simply because they don't want them to go down the street...

McDonalds is a pet-hate of globalisation protesters, so if you stand outside one during a demo, your likely to see anger and damage to property (not to people)

Terrified families were inside McDs during today's demo and it's very wrong. On one hand I think the protesters should have refrained, but equally McDs should have been closed for the day.

Yep.. and who shot that video... suprise me.. a protestor who only shows what they want you to see... like wise with the police... who's EG teams got attacked as they are gathering evidence.

Why should McD close... the protestors shouldn't have attacked McD.

I am interested to know what Brighton Pier has to do with all this.. Maybe the Noble Brothers are financing the making of rockets.. or is it because they have a rocket ride... who knows??

anyone?

getreal1 says...
8:24pm Mon 4 May 09

mummy of 2 wrote:
I'm new at this so bear with me, but I'm really outraged by today's protests. I am from Brighton, born and bred, and although I was aware of the protests today, I made the decision to continue to support my town and take my children, 18 months and 4, into town for lunch and a visit to the sea life centre. I too had thought this protest was meant to be peaceful, but I and my 2 small children were petrified as we left the sea life centre at tea time today. I'm all for freedom of speech, but surely I, as a Brighton resident, have the freedom to take my kids out without feeling intimidated, and dealing with questions from my eldest like why are these people pushing the police? The police have a job to do, many are taken away from what they should be doing to deal with days like this- ie my friend who works in child protection. Surely the time these protesters have spent today- if they are genuine- would be better spent writing to MP's etc. The majority of protesters I saw were either students who sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there, and crusties on benefits, who moan about capitalism, but seem more than happy to take the benefits that tax payers, and indeed these corporate capitalist companies, pay for! Sorry to go on but I am one of the few that is from Brighton and hate to see mindless people tring to destroy what should have been a busy and vibrant day in our beautiful city.
Perhaps this person's comments might resonate through the tatty little bedsits that today's invaders return to. They cannot dismiss her comments as the rantings of xenophobes as others hostile to today's appalling behaviour have been labelled.

brightonneil says...
8:24pm Mon 4 May 09

churchst wrote:
brightonneil wrote:
churchst wrote:
brightonneil wrote:
yearman wrote: I am not a long haired herbert etc but a good middle class teacher and the only aggression i witnessed was from the large amount of police. the use of horses was over the top as the protesters were carrying out a very well behaved legal protest.
if the organisers had coperated with the police they would have known what reponse to make as they didnt they had to ensure that there was an adequate response available if needed.Take that up with the organisers and p**s off back to worthing
So brightonneil agrees the police we're violent, but had the protesters been more co-operative it wouldn't have been like that....??? Unprovable vitriol targeted at a genuine statement from a schoolteacher. My prediction is more protesters were violently assaulted today than police or bystanders.
i didnt see any police violence, and i didnt say i had i was in town i saw protesters throwimg rocks at ncdonalds windows and heard lots of abusive shouting and vitriol coming from the protesters, not the police(who i dont particularly like having fallen foulm of them several times previously). just because someone is a schoolteacher does that make them special. i see that quite a few get arrested when i read the paper.
There's a video above that clearly shows police being aggressive towards protesters simply because they don't want them to go down the street... McDonalds is a pet-hate of globalisation protesters, so if you stand outside one during a demo, your likely to see anger and damage to property (not to people) Terrified families were inside McDs during today's demo and it's very wrong. On one hand I think the protesters should have refrained, but equally McDs should have been closed for the day.
why close? we live in a democracy don't we? it was there right to open. were you ther? I am saying what i saw you are saying what you have seen on a video

sugarhorse says...
8:25pm Mon 4 May 09

mummy of 2 wrote:
I'm new at this so bear with me, but I'm really outraged by today's protests. I am from Brighton, born and bred, and although I was aware of the protests today, I made the decision to continue to support my town and take my children, 18 months and 4, into town for lunch and a visit to the sea life centre. I too had thought this protest was meant to be peaceful, but I and my 2 small children were petrified as we left the sea life centre at tea time today. I'm all for freedom of speech, but surely I, as a Brighton resident, have the freedom to take my kids out without feeling intimidated, and dealing with questions from my eldest like why are these people pushing the police? The police have a job to do, many are taken away from what they should be doing to deal with days like this- ie my friend who works in child protection. Surely the time these protesters have spent today- if they are genuine- would be better spent writing to MP's etc. The majority of protesters I saw were either students who sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there, and crusties on benefits, who moan about capitalism, but seem more than happy to take the benefits that tax payers, and indeed these corporate capitalist companies, pay for! Sorry to go on but I am one of the few that is from Brighton and hate to see mindless people tring to destroy what should have been a busy and vibrant day in our beautiful city.
Well done mummy of 2. I think you have hit the nail on the head and you echo what so many of us true Brightonians are thinking.
For somebody that's new to this, you've made a cracking start :)

Fight Back says...
8:29pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
stickman wrote:
bibble wrote:
spuldge wrote: When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.
You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote. Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.
No - you're wrong. The suffragettes backed off during WW1 and used peaceful protest only. Women then proved themselves in the war and won the vote that way. Violent acts only provoke a natural reaction against them, read these comments if you dont believe me, and never succeed in a democracy.
It is you who is wrong. You've obviously been reading a goody-two-shoes version of history where everything is milk and honey if only people ask nicely for things. Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust.
Bibble, Your comments are ill thought out, factually incorrect and provocative. Whatever the circumstances of this 'protest' and the freedom of people to protest, what about those who don't want to protest and merely wish to live their life in a normal, well meaning way? Why should they be expected to have their lives compromised by these selfish self serving publicists who are disguising this 'protest' in order to fit into their anarchistic, violent and destructive political objectives. Grow up and realise that this is not about the EDO factory, this is about violence, intimidation and anarchy. Stop reading goody-two-shoes versions of EDO and start thinking in a more mature, real world and realistic manner.
Alas, you just don't get it. Whatever you think your entitlements are to a quiet and peaceful life, there is a RIGHT to protest. You will just have to put up with it. It's too bad you disagree with it, but there is nothing to stop you having a protest either. It's for your good as well as other protestors. Who is to say that you are right and they are wrong?

Do you deny that EDO makes bomb-release components? Yes or no?

As far as I can see this is very much about EDO. The violence and intimidation appears to be coming from the police, not the protestors.
Idiot - EDO DO NOT MAKE BOMB RELEASE SYSTEMS - they make systems that PREVENT accidental release - but don't let the facts get in the way of a good ruck with the police.

sugarhorse says...
8:30pm Mon 4 May 09

pun master wrote:
You are all missing the point here... my "Argus Liveblog" has the time as 8.53 am on Monday. I want to know what the hell has happened to Sunday night. I have a right to Sunday night, and yet someone at the Argus has seen fit to take it away. I suggest a protest, We all meet by the clock tower, and then go and smash up any shops or businesses that sell time pieces or supply part for timepieces. And cuckoos.
...and any business that supply computers, have internet access, sell internet enabled mobiles, supply telephone lines oh the list is endless.. hey we could also call ourselves "Smash Time" and while we're at it pretend to be a peaceful organisation!

brightonneil says...
8:32pm Mon 4 May 09

lo enough of this im off to a good old brighton boozer for a couple, the hikers. wanna join me there bibble? now that would scare the **** out of you back to some poncy kensington saloon bar bar for nancy boys i expect

Fight Back says...
8:32pm Mon 4 May 09

jay316 wrote:
One protester fell from roof... that must have really hurt. 20" drop on to concrete groin
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - let's hope the authorities can't get him to hospital because of teh chaos caused by his / her fellow demonstrators !!!!!

jay316 says...
8:34pm Mon 4 May 09

Fight Back wrote:
jay316 wrote:
One protester fell from roof... that must have really hurt. 20" drop on to concrete groin
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - let's hope the authorities can't get him to hospital because of teh chaos caused by his / her fellow demonstrators !!!!!
They have a duty of care, so have no choice.. may take some time to get an ambulance to them, but hey thats life...

bibble says...
8:40pm Mon 4 May 09

brightonneil wrote:
mummy of 2 wrote: I'm new at this so bear with me, but I'm really outraged by today's protests. I am from Brighton, born and bred, and although I was aware of the protests today, I made the decision to continue to support my town and take my children, 18 months and 4, into town for lunch and a visit to the sea life centre. I too had thought this protest was meant to be peaceful, but I and my 2 small children were petrified as we left the sea life centre at tea time today. I'm all for freedom of speech, but surely I, as a Brighton resident, have the freedom to take my kids out without feeling intimidated, and dealing with questions from my eldest like why are these people pushing the police? The police have a job to do, many are taken away from what they should be doing to deal with days like this- ie my friend who works in child protection. Surely the time these protesters have spent today- if they are genuine- would be better spent writing to MP's etc. The majority of protesters I saw were either students who sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there, and crusties on benefits, who moan about capitalism, but seem more than happy to take the benefits that tax payers, and indeed these corporate capitalist companies, pay for! Sorry to go on but I am one of the few that is from Brighton and hate to see mindless people tring to destroy what should have been a busy and vibrant day in our beautiful city.
bibble that is what i was trying to say only that lady said it much better
Well, I will for two seconds grant "mummy of 2" the status of not being a police stooge and answer some of her points.

It is unfortunate and not a happy state of affairs when demonstrations turn ugly. I didn't see the demonstration outside Sea Life at tea time, so I can't comment on whether it was peaceful or not. If (again I qualify that by stating that I was not there, so am not a witness) protestors were pushing the police I have to ask the question "why?". Was the situation anything like that at the G20 demonstrations outside the Bank of England, with the police "kettling" people? Who started the pushing, was it the police or the demonstrators?

That police are taken away from other duties to be at demonstrations is entirely irrelevant. There is a right to protest; the level of policing is decided by the police themselves, usually based on whatever information (nowadays they flatter themselves and call it "intelligence")
they can gather beforehand. For the police to be at a demonstration is an absolutely legitimate use of their time, as legitimate as when they are on "child protection" duties.

I doubt very much if the crowd of demonstrators would attack a woman with two young children, so if "mummy of 2" felt intimidated I am not sure why. Certainly demonstrations can have an air of tension, but that does not mean that the demonstrators are suddenly turned into psychopaths intent on harming passers-by (or anyone else).

I would like to know how "mummy of 2" decided that the student-types "sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there". Were they singing (or chanting, or whatever it is student-types do) "we don't know why we are here"? Or was it that they were just making a noise, unpalatable to "mummy of 2"'s ears?

Writing to MPs achieves nothing. Absolutely nothing. Anyone who thinks is does is completely deluding themselves.

I am/was a capitalist, but I must admit my confidence in capitalism has taken a big dent. I have paid a huge amount of money in taxes over the years. I don't have a choice where my tax goes, and I certainly don't like it going to Fred the Shred. His payoff and pension I bet will add to a large proportion of those who were demonstrating today in Brighton. The argument that Fred's payoff was a contractually-bindin
g and lawful agreement shows the rottenness of the system in this country. If "mummy of 2" wrote to her MP and complained she would get a reply back that says "sorry, that's the way it is".

The demonstrators have a more reasonable view on this.


MoreMikey says...
8:44pm Mon 4 May 09

churchst wrote:
sugarhorse wrote:
churchst wrote:
SimonS wrote:
The police win the moral battle here. It's unfortunate that more arrests weren't made, but I can see why they weren't as that could have provoked violence, and would have achieved nothing as the protesters would have taken police off the street to deal with them, only to be let off anyway.

So, 'a minority' of protestors have today:

Graffitied on a police van
Swarmed around a police van and rocked it dangerously
Pelted police with bottles/cans/misiles





Tried ramming police lines with wheely bins
Clambered on buildings, breaking signs/lights
Injured someone by throwing some object
Closed most of Brighton off during what should have been a busy tourist weekend

Also, if the majority are not trouble-makers, why are the majority wearing balaclavas or scarves across their faces?

Disgraceful.
Your ignorance is disgraceful.

Ever been to Gaza when it gets dangerous there.

With missiles raining down killing families, missiles with components that are made in your city...

...and you talk of wheelie bins, broken lights and graffiti?

Truly Disgraceful.
Idiot
care to extrapolate? or is it just one word at a time for you?
FLICKING idiot.

Fight Back says...
8:46pm Mon 4 May 09

MoreMikey wrote:
churchst wrote:
sugarhorse wrote:
churchst wrote:
SimonS wrote:
The police win the moral battle here. It's unfortunate that more arrests weren't made, but I can see why they weren't as that could have provoked violence, and would have achieved nothing as the protesters would have taken police off the street to deal with them, only to be let off anyway.

So, 'a minority' of protestors have today:

Graffitied on a police van
Swarmed around a police van and rocked it dangerously
Pelted police with bottles/cans/misiles






Tried ramming police lines with wheely bins
Clambered on buildings, breaking signs/lights
Injured someone by throwing some object
Closed most of Brighton off during what should have been a busy tourist weekend

Also, if the majority are not trouble-makers, why are the majority wearing balaclavas or scarves across their faces?

Disgraceful.
Your ignorance is disgraceful.

Ever been to Gaza when it gets dangerous there.

With missiles raining down killing families, missiles with components that are made in your city...

...and you talk of wheelie bins, broken lights and graffiti?

Truly Disgraceful.
Idiot
care to extrapolate? or is it just one word at a time for you?
FLICKING idiot.
I'll go further - have YOU ever been to Gaza youy flicking idiot ?

TheInsider says...
8:47pm Mon 4 May 09

They may have a duty of care but someone might be getting an unnecessary anaema or a rather probing recta* examination just for forcing some nursing staff to leave a few hours earlier than usual to start their late shift tonight because of the disruption to public transport.
Trust me, my partner was none too happy to be working on Bank Holiday evening let alone being held up by a load of kids carrying cans of cider shouting about reclaiming the streets.
It's a long wait in A&E and rubber gloves at the rear for anyone who looks like they spent the day being pissful rather than peaceful.

jay316 says...
8:48pm Mon 4 May 09

"I doubt very much if the crowd of demonstrators would attack a woman with two young children, so if "mummy of 2" felt intimidated I am not sure why. "

Seeing a group of people rushing towards you be it a protest or any other such reason, is scary trust me. More so for children. A lot of people didn;t know the protests were coming into the town centre.... I think this is why it was kept hush hush by the organisers. To panic as many people as possible.

"Certainly demonstrations can have an air of tension, but that does not mean that the demonstrators are suddenly turned into psychopaths intent on harming passers-by (or anyone else)."

Really so why throw paint over property that has no involvement as I have said before with the companies that are protesting against.


"Writing to MPs achieves nothing. Absolutely nothing. Anyone who thinks is does is completely deluding themselves."

And smashing up property of people who are not involved with the company(ies) in question is the right thing to do.. what has the shops in the lanes done to any of the protesters...

Nobody seems able to answer this question do they?

Jo Wadsworth says...
8:49pm Mon 4 May 09

jay316 wrote:
churchst wrote:
brightonneil wrote:
churchst wrote:
brightonneil wrote:
yearman wrote: I am not a long haired herbert etc but a good middle class teacher and the only aggression i witnessed was from the large amount of police. the use of horses was over the top as the protesters were carrying out a very well behaved legal protest.
if the organisers had coperated with the police they would have known what reponse to make as they didnt they had to ensure that there was an adequate response available if needed.Take that up with the organisers and p**s off back to worthing
So brightonneil agrees the police we're violent, but had the protesters been more co-operative it wouldn't have been like that....??? Unprovable vitriol targeted at a genuine statement from a schoolteacher. My prediction is more protesters were violently assaulted today than police or bystanders.
i didnt see any police violence, and i didnt say i had i was in town i saw protesters throwimg rocks at ncdonalds windows and heard lots of abusive shouting and vitriol coming from the protesters, not the police(who i dont particularly like having fallen foulm of them several times previously). just because someone is a schoolteacher does that make them special. i see that quite a few get arrested when i read the paper.
There's a video above that clearly shows police being aggressive towards protesters simply because they don't want them to go down the street... McDonalds is a pet-hate of globalisation protesters, so if you stand outside one during a demo, your likely to see anger and damage to property (not to people) Terrified families were inside McDs during today's demo and it's very wrong. On one hand I think the protesters should have refrained, but equally McDs should have been closed for the day.
Yep.. and who shot that video... suprise me.. a protestor who only shows what they want you to see... like wise with the police... who's EG teams got attacked as they are gathering evidence. Why should McD close... the protestors shouldn't have attacked McD. I am interested to know what Brighton Pier has to do with all this.. Maybe the Noble Brothers are financing the making of rockets.. or is it because they have a rocket ride... who knows?? anyone?
jay316 - just to set the record straight, the video was shot by James Devonport, who is not a protester, but who happens to live in Trafalgar Street and captured the scene from his window.

BN3 says...
8:49pm Mon 4 May 09

I support peaceful protest. I abhor mindless damage and violence.

The line was crossed in my view when missiles were thrown (injuring a member of public) and criminal damage was caused to small local businesses - like the army surplus store or the cafe.

Instead of bringing attention to the issues the focus has been on their behaviour instead.

It's no answer to say this was down to 'a small minority' of protesters - the smashEDO website wanted people to come down to "fight".

OWN GOAL.

bibble says...
8:50pm Mon 4 May 09

brightonneil wrote:
lo enough of this im off to a good old brighton boozer for a couple, the hikers. wanna join me there bibble? now that would scare the **** out of you back to some poncy kensington saloon bar bar for nancy boys i expect
So where is The Hikers?

I thought I had made clear that the poncy pubs are not to my taste. Did you actually read what I wrote?

loopyblonde says...
8:53pm Mon 4 May 09

What a shame that EDO don't use their weapon making capability's to blow up this bunch of scum bag wasters and make the world a more peaceful place without them. I respect peoples right to peacefully protest but this was anything but and by harming and scaring innocent bystanders they have as much blood on their hands as the company that they're protesting about.

brightonneil says...
8:53pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
brightonneil wrote:
mummy of 2 wrote: I'm new at this so bear with me, but I'm really outraged by today's protests. I am from Brighton, born and bred, and although I was aware of the protests today, I made the decision to continue to support my town and take my children, 18 months and 4, into town for lunch and a visit to the sea life centre. I too had thought this protest was meant to be peaceful, but I and my 2 small children were petrified as we left the sea life centre at tea time today. I'm all for freedom of speech, but surely I, as a Brighton resident, have the freedom to take my kids out without feeling intimidated, and dealing with questions from my eldest like why are these people pushing the police? The police have a job to do, many are taken away from what they should be doing to deal with days like this- ie my friend who works in child protection. Surely the time these protesters have spent today- if they are genuine- would be better spent writing to MP's etc. The majority of protesters I saw were either students who sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there, and crusties on benefits, who moan about capitalism, but seem more than happy to take the benefits that tax payers, and indeed these corporate capitalist companies, pay for! Sorry to go on but I am one of the few that is from Brighton and hate to see mindless people tring to destroy what should have been a busy and vibrant day in our beautiful city.
bibble that is what i was trying to say only that lady said it much better
Well, I will for two seconds grant "mummy of 2" the status of not being a police stooge and answer some of her points. It is unfortunate and not a happy state of affairs when demonstrations turn ugly. I didn't see the demonstration outside Sea Life at tea time, so I can't comment on whether it was peaceful or not. If (again I qualify that by stating that I was not there, so am not a witness) protestors were pushing the police I have to ask the question "why?". Was the situation anything like that at the G20 demonstrations outside the Bank of England, with the police "kettling" people? Who started the pushing, was it the police or the demonstrators? That police are taken away from other duties to be at demonstrations is entirely irrelevant. There is a right to protest; the level of policing is decided by the police themselves, usually based on whatever information (nowadays they flatter themselves and call it "intelligence") they can gather beforehand. For the police to be at a demonstration is an absolutely legitimate use of their time, as legitimate as when they are on "child protection" duties. I doubt very much if the crowd of demonstrators would attack a woman with two young children, so if "mummy of 2" felt intimidated I am not sure why. Certainly demonstrations can have an air of tension, but that does not mean that the demonstrators are suddenly turned into psychopaths intent on harming passers-by (or anyone else). I would like to know how "mummy of 2" decided that the student-types "sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there". Were they singing (or chanting, or whatever it is student-types do) "we don't know why we are here"? Or was it that they were just making a noise, unpalatable to "mummy of 2"'s ears? Writing to MPs achieves nothing. Absolutely nothing. Anyone who thinks is does is completely deluding themselves. I am/was a capitalist, but I must admit my confidence in capitalism has taken a big dent. I have paid a huge amount of money in taxes over the years. I don't have a choice where my tax goes, and I certainly don't like it going to Fred the Shred. His payoff and pension I bet will add to a large proportion of those who were demonstrating today in Brighton. The argument that Fred's payoff was a contractually-bindin g and lawful agreement shows the rottenness of the system in this country. If "mummy of 2" wrote to her MP and complained she would get a reply back that says "sorry, that's the way it is". The demonstrators have a more reasonable view on this.
you are just so blind and ignorant, i felt intimidated today,i felt unable to protect my wife and children from the baying mob outside Mcds today,and if you say imagine what they feel like in gaza i dont live in gaza and from what i understand the israelis only respond to attacks, i have a human right to wander round my home town on a bank holiday without a bunch of w*****s scareing my family.as i said to you before F**K off back to poncy south kensington and leave us to get on with our lives. im off down the hikers now . see you ther if you fancy a real discussion you W*****r

bibble says...
8:55pm Mon 4 May 09

jay316 wrote:
"I doubt very much if the crowd of demonstrators would attack a woman with two young children, so if "mummy of 2" felt intimidated I am not sure why. " Seeing a group of people rushing towards you be it a protest or any other such reason, is scary trust me. More so for children. A lot of people didn;t know the protests were coming into the town centre.... I think this is why it was kept hush hush by the organisers. To panic as many people as possible. "Certainly demonstrations can have an air of tension, but that does not mean that the demonstrators are suddenly turned into psychopaths intent on harming passers-by (or anyone else)." Really so why throw paint over property that has no involvement as I have said before with the companies that are protesting against. "Writing to MPs achieves nothing. Absolutely nothing. Anyone who thinks is does is completely deluding themselves." And smashing up property of people who are not involved with the company(ies) in question is the right thing to do.. what has the shops in the lanes done to any of the protesters... Nobody seems able to answer this question do they?
"mummy of 2" did not say that a group of people rushed towards her.

The protests have been in the newspapers for weeks. There were posters around town today indicating the protest. It would also be hard to miss the large police presence in Brighton today.

Throwing a bit of paint over property is not an attack on a person.

therat says...
8:57pm Mon 4 May 09

GRAET REPORTING VERY WELL DONE & THANK YOU

bibble says...
8:58pm Mon 4 May 09

Fight Back wrote:
bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
stickman wrote:
bibble wrote:
spuldge wrote: When the Suffragettes protested in this country they were also outcast by society and the media and look what eventually happened, women got the vote. They had to break a few windows and be very 'antisocial' to do it." No, it was not the actions of the Suffragettes that won the vote for women. It was the vital role that women played in the War effort that made the establishment recognise their role in society and so led to a change in attitude, which led in turn to the vote being given to women. Violence just leads to more violence. These so-called protestors perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms. Who was it who said "you never solve a problem with the same mind-set that created the problem.
You are completely mistaken about the role of sufragettes and the vote for women. It was precisely due to their non-peaceful demonstrations that women got the vote. Your point about how these protestors "perpetuate a violent society, and with it the creation of arms" is also a load of rubbish. Does it not strike you as odd that the protestors, and indeed society at large, do not have arms but the "forces of law and order" do? THEY, that is the police, the "authorities", the government, parliament, are afraid of Joe Public. Make no mistake, the police will shoot you if you are unarmed and they will get away with it.
No - you're wrong. The suffragettes backed off during WW1 and used peaceful protest only. Women then proved themselves in the war and won the vote that way. Violent acts only provoke a natural reaction against them, read these comments if you dont believe me, and never succeed in a democracy.
It is you who is wrong. You've obviously been reading a goody-two-shoes version of history where everything is milk and honey if only people ask nicely for things. Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust.
Bibble, Your comments are ill thought out, factually incorrect and provocative. Whatever the circumstances of this 'protest' and the freedom of people to protest, what about those who don't want to protest and merely wish to live their life in a normal, well meaning way? Why should they be expected to have their lives compromised by these selfish self serving publicists who are disguising this 'protest' in order to fit into their anarchistic, violent and destructive political objectives. Grow up and realise that this is not about the EDO factory, this is about violence, intimidation and anarchy. Stop reading goody-two-shoes versions of EDO and start thinking in a more mature, real world and realistic manner.
Alas, you just don't get it. Whatever you think your entitlements are to a quiet and peaceful life, there is a RIGHT to protest. You will just have to put up with it. It's too bad you disagree with it, but there is nothing to stop you having a protest either. It's for your good as well as other protestors. Who is to say that you are right and they are wrong? Do you deny that EDO makes bomb-release components? Yes or no? As far as I can see this is very much about EDO. The violence and intimidation appears to be coming from the police, not the protestors.
Idiot - EDO DO NOT MAKE BOMB RELEASE SYSTEMS - they make systems that PREVENT accidental release - but don't let the facts get in the way of a good ruck with the police.
Paul Hills, Managing Director of EDO stated a few days ago "We make things that ensure the safe carriage and release of weapons from aircraft."

What is that if not bomb-release components?

jay316 says...
8:58pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
brightonneil wrote:
lo enough of this im off to a good old brighton boozer for a couple, the hikers. wanna join me there bibble? now that would scare the **** out of you back to some poncy kensington saloon bar bar for nancy boys i expect
So where is The Hikers?

I thought I had made clear that the poncy pubs are not to my taste. Did you actually read what I wrote?
The hikers is down in Coledean, Brighton... Bottom of Coledean Lane (I think)

bibble says...
9:00pm Mon 4 May 09

brightonneil wrote:
bibble wrote:
brightonneil wrote:
mummy of 2 wrote: I'm new at this so bear with me, but I'm really outraged by today's protests. I am from Brighton, born and bred, and although I was aware of the protests today, I made the decision to continue to support my town and take my children, 18 months and 4, into town for lunch and a visit to the sea life centre. I too had thought this protest was meant to be peaceful, but I and my 2 small children were petrified as we left the sea life centre at tea time today. I'm all for freedom of speech, but surely I, as a Brighton resident, have the freedom to take my kids out without feeling intimidated, and dealing with questions from my eldest like why are these people pushing the police? The police have a job to do, many are taken away from what they should be doing to deal with days like this- ie my friend who works in child protection. Surely the time these protesters have spent today- if they are genuine- would be better spent writing to MP's etc. The majority of protesters I saw were either students who sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there, and crusties on benefits, who moan about capitalism, but seem more than happy to take the benefits that tax payers, and indeed these corporate capitalist companies, pay for! Sorry to go on but I am one of the few that is from Brighton and hate to see mindless people tring to destroy what should have been a busy and vibrant day in our beautiful city.
bibble that is what i was trying to say only that lady said it much better
Well, I will for two seconds grant "mummy of 2" the status of not being a police stooge and answer some of her points. It is unfortunate and not a happy state of affairs when demonstrations turn ugly. I didn't see the demonstration outside Sea Life at tea time, so I can't comment on whether it was peaceful or not. If (again I qualify that by stating that I was not there, so am not a witness) protestors were pushing the police I have to ask the question "why?". Was the situation anything like that at the G20 demonstrations outside the Bank of England, with the police "kettling" people? Who started the pushing, was it the police or the demonstrators? That police are taken away from other duties to be at demonstrations is entirely irrelevant. There is a right to protest; the level of policing is decided by the police themselves, usually based on whatever information (nowadays they flatter themselves and call it "intelligence") they can gather beforehand. For the police to be at a demonstration is an absolutely legitimate use of their time, as legitimate as when they are on "child protection" duties. I doubt very much if the crowd of demonstrators would attack a woman with two young children, so if "mummy of 2" felt intimidated I am not sure why. Certainly demonstrations can have an air of tension, but that does not mean that the demonstrators are suddenly turned into psychopaths intent on harming passers-by (or anyone else). I would like to know how "mummy of 2" decided that the student-types "sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there". Were they singing (or chanting, or whatever it is student-types do) "we don't know why we are here"? Or was it that they were just making a noise, unpalatable to "mummy of 2"'s ears? Writing to MPs achieves nothing. Absolutely nothing. Anyone who thinks is does is completely deluding themselves. I am/was a capitalist, but I must admit my confidence in capitalism has taken a big dent. I have paid a huge amount of money in taxes over the years. I don't have a choice where my tax goes, and I certainly don't like it going to Fred the Shred. His payoff and pension I bet will add to a large proportion of those who were demonstrating today in Brighton. The argument that Fred's payoff was a contractually-bindin g and lawful agreement shows the rottenness of the system in this country. If "mummy of 2" wrote to her MP and complained she would get a reply back that says "sorry, that's the way it is". The demonstrators have a more reasonable view on this.
you are just so blind and ignorant, i felt intimidated today,i felt unable to protect my wife and children from the baying mob outside Mcds today,and if you say imagine what they feel like in gaza i dont live in gaza and from what i understand the israelis only respond to attacks, i have a human right to wander round my home town on a bank holiday without a bunch of w*****s scareing my family.as i said to you before F**K off back to poncy south kensington and leave us to get on with our lives. im off down the hikers now . see you ther if you fancy a real discussion you W*****r
Oh dear, it sounds like you want to resort to violence.

rudechris says...
9:01pm Mon 4 May 09

Watch the video it's hilarious. I have seen worse trouble in a playground! LOSERS

brightonneil says...
9:01pm Mon 4 May 09

jay316 wrote:
bibble wrote:
brightonneil wrote: lo enough of this im off to a good old brighton boozer for a couple, the hikers. wanna join me there bibble? now that would scare the **** out of you back to some poncy kensington saloon bar bar for nancy boys i expect
So where is The Hikers? I thought I had made clear that the poncy pubs are not to my taste. Did you actually read what I wrote?
The hikers is down in Coledean, Brighton... Bottom of Coledean Lane (I think)
so you are local then? cant evan spell coldean

jay316 says...
9:02pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
"I doubt very much if the crowd of demonstrators would attack a woman with two young children, so if "mummy of 2" felt intimidated I am not sure why. " Seeing a group of people rushing towards you be it a protest or any other such reason, is scary trust me. More so for children. A lot of people didn;t know the protests were coming into the town centre.... I think this is why it was kept hush hush by the organisers. To panic as many people as possible. "Certainly demonstrations can have an air of tension, but that does not mean that the demonstrators are suddenly turned into psychopaths intent on harming passers-by (or anyone else)." Really so why throw paint over property that has no involvement as I have said before with the companies that are protesting against. "Writing to MPs achieves nothing. Absolutely nothing. Anyone who thinks is does is completely deluding themselves." And smashing up property of people who are not involved with the company(ies) in question is the right thing to do.. what has the shops in the lanes done to any of the protesters... Nobody seems able to answer this question do they?
"mummy of 2" did not say that a group of people rushed towards her.

The protests have been in the newspapers for weeks. There were posters around town today indicating the protest. It would also be hard to miss the large police presence in Brighton today.

Throwing a bit of paint over property is not an attack on a person.
And if you read what I said correctly, I didn't say she said that.. I was stating that if you had a group (maybe I should have PUT FOR EXAMPLE).

The protest have been in the papers yes, I am aware of that.. but it didn't say "they would be going to the sealife centre area".

Regards the paint, its an attack on somebody who in all cases probably didn't have any involvement at any stage with any of the alledged companies involved.

Nobody has yet said why the pier was involved.. and more to the point why the company that was at the centre of the protest wasn't even approuched!!!..

All seems a bit bizarre... We are protesting about xyz and xyz1 yet we haven;'t been there to protest.!!

TheInsider says...
9:03pm Mon 4 May 09

These poncy uni kids covering their faces and scaring children might have run the other way if they had bothered to walk far enough up the Lewes Road to get to the Hikers.
God help them if they has dared to interrupt a day's drinking in that good old fashioned British boozer. The brats would have wished they were in Gaza.

jay316 says...
9:04pm Mon 4 May 09

TheInsider wrote:
These poncy uni kids covering their faces and scaring children might have run the other way if they had bothered to walk far enough up the Lewes Road to get to the Hikers.
God help them if they has dared to interrupt a day's drinking in that good old fashioned British boozer. The brats would have wished they were in Gaza.
Happy Days.. Happy Days.. :)

bibble says...
9:04pm Mon 4 May 09

loopyblonde wrote:
What a shame that EDO don't use their weapon making capability's to blow up this bunch of scum bag wasters and make the world a more peaceful place without them. I respect peoples right to peacefully protest but this was anything but and by harming and scaring innocent bystanders they have as much blood on their hands as the company that they're protesting about.
nutcaseblonde, I was a bystander. I was not scared.

Perhaps some bystanders need to get either a bit more backbone or a bit more of a grasp on reality.

MzEden says...
9:08pm Mon 4 May 09

If the protestors had been using some of EDO's guidance systems their missle may have hit the copper they were aiming for instead of the poor woman who actually got hit in the face. Ironic!

stickman says...
9:09pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
brightonneil wrote:
bibble you are confusing democracy and anarchy
And you are confusing democracy with the regime that we live under.
Sounds like brightonneil will be getting closer to EDO than any protestors today.

brightonneil says...
9:09pm Mon 4 May 09

TheInsider wrote:
These poncy uni kids covering their faces and scaring children might have run the other way if they had bothered to walk far enough up the Lewes Road to get to the Hikers. God help them if they has dared to interrupt a day's drinking in that good old fashioned British boozer. The brats would have wished they were in Gaza.
thats the 1 didnt know i could do this on a mobile, bibble if you are brave enough?

Acheron says...
9:10pm Mon 4 May 09

OK, right, I've had my BBQ (in the rain) and now have my fat belly, so feel ready to return to the fray.

A couple of points really (though one has just been said).

First, ChurchSt, as Fightback has just said, the devices are Safe Release Mechanisms, not Release Mechanisms. There is a big difference as one is used to ensure that unused bombs can be safely disposed of and not cause further threat to life. I appreciate you are against the bombs per se, but it small word Safe is important and totally changes the impression of what EDO are making. I'll be generous and assume that you weren't fully aware of the correct term, rather than purposfully trying to mislead people by missing out the important word. (If you want to know the physics of why these devices are needed I'm happy to dig out a link for you).

Second point, Bibble, referring to your arguement about freedoms. I think you'll find that what is really considered in UK law under freedoms is that you are free to do whatever you like, including protest, which I have made clear I support as a right in previous posts, providing (and providing is the important word here) you do not infringe on anyone elses right. So yes you're allowed to protest but that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you like on that protest, as violence against person or property is infringing on someone elses right. (Of course if you genuinely believe that should not be the case, let us all know where in London you are and we'll protest outside your place and see whether you feel it is right for us to infringe on your 'rights'. I suspect you won't!)

bibble says...
9:12pm Mon 4 May 09

brightonneil wrote:
TheInsider wrote: These poncy uni kids covering their faces and scaring children might have run the other way if they had bothered to walk far enough up the Lewes Road to get to the Hikers. God help them if they has dared to interrupt a day's drinking in that good old fashioned British boozer. The brats would have wished they were in Gaza.
thats the 1 didnt know i could do this on a mobile, bibble if you are brave enough?
I'm back in The Smoke now. Maybe some other time.

BN1 says...
9:13pm Mon 4 May 09

Acheron wrote:
OK, right, I've had my BBQ (in the rain) and now have my fat belly, so feel ready to return to the fray.

A couple of points really (though one has just been said).

First, ChurchSt, as Fightback has just said, the devices are Safe Release Mechanisms, not Release Mechanisms. There is a big difference as one is used to ensure that unused bombs can be safely disposed of and not cause further threat to life. I appreciate you are against the bombs per se, but it small word Safe is important and totally changes the impression of what EDO are making. I'll be generous and assume that you weren't fully aware of the correct term, rather than purposfully trying to mislead people by missing out the important word. (If you want to know the physics of why these devices are needed I'm happy to dig out a link for you).

Second point, Bibble, referring to your arguement about freedoms. I think you'll find that what is really considered in UK law under freedoms is that you are free to do whatever you like, including protest, which I have made clear I support as a right in previous posts, providing (and providing is the important word here) you do not infringe on anyone elses right. So yes you're allowed to protest but that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you like on that protest, as violence against person or property is infringing on someone elses right. (Of course if you genuinely believe that should not be the case, let us all know where in London you are and we'll protest outside your place and see whether you feel it is right for us to infringe on your 'rights'. I suspect you won't!)
Best post of the day.

brightonneil says...
9:13pm Mon 4 May 09

and you have to walk past home farm business park were edo is based on the way

brightonneil says...
9:16pm Mon 4 May 09

BN1 wrote:
Acheron wrote: OK, right, I've had my BBQ (in the rain) and now have my fat belly, so feel ready to return to the fray. A couple of points really (though one has just been said). First, ChurchSt, as Fightback has just said, the devices are Safe Release Mechanisms, not Release Mechanisms. There is a big difference as one is used to ensure that unused bombs can be safely disposed of and not cause further threat to life. I appreciate you are against the bombs per se, but it small word Safe is important and totally changes the impression of what EDO are making. I'll be generous and assume that you weren't fully aware of the correct term, rather than purposfully trying to mislead people by missing out the important word. (If you want to know the physics of why these devices are needed I'm happy to dig out a link for you). Second point, Bibble, referring to your arguement about freedoms. I think you'll find that what is really considered in UK law under freedoms is that you are free to do whatever you like, including protest, which I have made clear I support as a right in previous posts, providing (and providing is the important word here) you do not infringe on anyone elses right. So yes you're allowed to protest but that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you like on that protest, as violence against person or property is infringing on someone elses right. (Of course if you genuinely believe that should not be the case, let us all know where in London you are and we'll protest outside your place and see whether you feel it is right for us to infringe on your 'rights'. I suspect you won't!)
Best post of the day.
how i wish i was clever enough to write a comment like that and not just be an argumentative old **** who knows right from wrong

Osama bin there says...
9:18pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
Bibble Answer the point I raised at 741pm NOW - GIVE ME EVIDENCE THAT THE POLICE were the protagonists of violence and intimidation here today!! Or are you avoiding the question???? I want SPECIFICS not throw away remarks. FACTS please.
I feel no compulsion to answer your questions put in such an impertinent manner, but I will do so.

Perhaps you haven't been keeping up with the news, but the police have been carefully briefing against this legal demonstration for the last few weeks. They have complained that the "organisers" would not meet with them, and that they would be on the lookout for "ringleaders".

Even the chief constable was moved to warn his officers to behave. All this strongly suggests very strongly that there are thuggish elements in his force, and that some of them are looking for trouble.

Every time I see a policeman on a horse with a riot helmet I cannot help but think of Planet of the Apes, and the apes on horses were the oppressors. Today there were quite a few police on horses, leaving their dropppings all over the place (is it legal for a horse to foul the public highway - probably, but I'm asking as I don't know).

Outside McDonalds there was evidence of thuggery. Let's see what comes out in the wash. By that I mean photography by members of the public and not the now-instantly-discre

dited official reports from the police.
As far as I have heard, people were throwing missiles at the window of MacDonalds.
What are police to do? Let them carry on or stop them - which may involve some physical coercion.
If anyone got a hiding there they asked for it.


Vampyre Phaedrus says...
9:25pm Mon 4 May 09

As a minimum wage earner making clothes in this country my non gas guzzling car had its wing mirror forcibaly removed by these protesters. This will now cost me half a weeks wages; thank you class warriors.

Osama bin there says...
9:27pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
Osama bin there wrote:
bibble wrote:
Osama bin there wrote:
bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
brightonneil wrote: having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?
section 5 public order at least, possibly Afray. But surely as the organisers didn't supply information (and I thought any lawful protest had to be sorted with police) as required.. this could be seens as an unlawful gathering.. Maybe there are some lawyers on line that can clarify this.!!
Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law, completely trumps any mistaken ideas you may have about "illegal gatherings". There is a RIGHT to gather, not just a freedom to do so.
Could you show me the statute, in law, that allows violent protest and distruction of property? Thought not. As someone else so eloquently put it - f**k off back to London.
Will you please stop using your foul language? What is wrong with you? If some people are beiong violent that does NOT take away the rights of other people to demonstrate. When you have fully digested and understood that you may rejoin the real world.
I was quoting someone else, and am still waiting for you to quote the chapter and verse on the legal statute that allows violent protest.
Go and look up the European convention on human rights. It has been incorporated into English law. English law is subsidiary to it, i.e. the Charter takes precedence.
WHAT? VIOLENT protest is legal in the UK?
Don't be such an ar5e. Of course it isn't.

brightonneil says...
9:29pm Mon 4 May 09

Osama bin there wrote:
bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote: Bibble Answer the point I raised at 741pm NOW - GIVE ME EVIDENCE THAT THE POLICE were the protagonists of violence and intimidation here today!! Or are you avoiding the question???? I want SPECIFICS not throw away remarks. FACTS please.
I feel no compulsion to answer your questions put in such an impertinent manner, but I will do so. Perhaps you haven't been keeping up with the news, but the police have been carefully briefing against this legal demonstration for the last few weeks. They have complained that the "organisers" would not meet with them, and that they would be on the lookout for "ringleaders". Even the chief constable was moved to warn his officers to behave. All this strongly suggests very strongly that there are thuggish elements in his force, and that some of them are looking for trouble. Every time I see a policeman on a horse with a riot helmet I cannot help but think of Planet of the Apes, and the apes on horses were the oppressors. Today there were quite a few police on horses, leaving their dropppings all over the place (is it legal for a horse to foul the public highway - probably, but I'm asking as I don't know). Outside McDonalds there was evidence of thuggery. Let's see what comes out in the wash. By that I mean photography by members of the public and not the now-instantly-discre dited official reports from the police.
As far as I have heard, people were throwing missiles at the window of MacDonalds. What are police to do? Let them carry on or stop them - which may involve some physical coercion. If anyone got a hiding there they asked for it.
sorry Osama , there were too many police there , and i was with my family,and i ham already doing community service, so i couldnt give anyone a good hiding , but if i had they would have cried they were all a bunch of twats

unclesam says...
9:33pm Mon 4 May 09

sugarhorse wrote:
mummy of 2 wrote: I'm new at this so bear with me, but I'm really outraged by today's protests. I am from Brighton, born and bred, and although I was aware of the protests today, I made the decision to continue to support my town and take my children, 18 months and 4, into town for lunch and a visit to the sea life centre. I too had thought this protest was meant to be peaceful, but I and my 2 small children were petrified as we left the sea life centre at tea time today. I'm all for freedom of speech, but surely I, as a Brighton resident, have the freedom to take my kids out without feeling intimidated, and dealing with questions from my eldest like why are these people pushing the police? The police have a job to do, many are taken away from what they should be doing to deal with days like this- ie my friend who works in child protection. Surely the time these protesters have spent today- if they are genuine- would be better spent writing to MP's etc. The majority of protesters I saw were either students who sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there, and crusties on benefits, who moan about capitalism, but seem more than happy to take the benefits that tax payers, and indeed these corporate capitalist companies, pay for! Sorry to go on but I am one of the few that is from Brighton and hate to see mindless people tring to destroy what should have been a busy and vibrant day in our beautiful city.
Well done mummy of 2. I think you have hit the nail on the head and you echo what so many of us true Brightonians are thinking. For somebody that's new to this, you've made a cracking start :)
spot on mummy of 2

bibble says...
9:35pm Mon 4 May 09

Acheron wrote:
OK, right, I've had my BBQ (in the rain) and now have my fat belly, so feel ready to return to the fray. A couple of points really (though one has just been said). First, ChurchSt, as Fightback has just said, the devices are Safe Release Mechanisms, not Release Mechanisms. There is a big difference as one is used to ensure that unused bombs can be safely disposed of and not cause further threat to life. I appreciate you are against the bombs per se, but it small word Safe is important and totally changes the impression of what EDO are making. I'll be generous and assume that you weren't fully aware of the correct term, rather than purposfully trying to mislead people by missing out the important word. (If you want to know the physics of why these devices are needed I'm happy to dig out a link for you). Second point, Bibble, referring to your arguement about freedoms. I think you'll find that what is really considered in UK law under freedoms is that you are free to do whatever you like, including protest, which I have made clear I support as a right in previous posts, providing (and providing is the important word here) you do not infringe on anyone elses right. So yes you're allowed to protest but that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you like on that protest, as violence against person or property is infringing on someone elses right. (Of course if you genuinely believe that should not be the case, let us all know where in London you are and we'll protest outside your place and see whether you feel it is right for us to infringe on your 'rights'. I suspect you won't!)
You have a slightly simplistic and naive sense of rights.

Your point that the right to demonstrate should not impose on other peoples' rights is, at first glance, reasonable and fair. But the law on this is rather more complex, as numerous cases have shown.

Take, for example, the law against highway obstruction. Anybody today who was blocking the roads might be considered to be causing an obstruction. They would interfere with the rights of others to use the highways.

But there have been judgements in the High Court (forget the magistrates, they're too friendly to the police and their decisions do not make case law anyway), that the right to public assembly is "unduly restricted" unless it can be on the public highway in some circumstances.

The law recognises that public demonstrations DO interfere with the rights of others, and there is a balance to be struck. But that balance is not equitable at all times. In other words, sometimes some people will just have to put up with demonstrations even if it interferes with their rights.


unclesam says...
9:37pm Mon 4 May 09

can anyone tell me why you load of soap dodgers bypassed the level ? it would have been such a great day seeing you all get a good kickin by the pikeys at the fair it would have made it all worth while .

jobarnes2000 says...
9:38pm Mon 4 May 09

I was working in poole valley all day today right by the so called peace protest was going on. I think the police deserve medals for what they dealt with today. These people were scaring residents and visitors and not portraying the image of PEACE whatsoever!I think its a shame that the police cant arrest more people for the vandalism and violence they have caused today. There were 8 police horses and they were only doing what theyNEEDED to do keep the crowds back. When you saw the amount of people there were and the numbers of police you CANNOT say they were over reacting. They were doing a bliming good job and i am proud of these people for risking their safety to try their hardest to protect the publics. If you want to protest for peace don't go and DISRUPT the peace yourselves. Also if it was a peace protest why be worries to show your faces by wearing black balaclavas and bandanners. I felt safer knowing i was surrounded by police then not having any.Well done Sussex Police you should be proud of what you have done today and thankyou for protecting workers like me,right in the midst of it all.

bibble says...
9:39pm Mon 4 May 09

Osama bin there wrote:
bibble wrote:
Osama bin there wrote:
bibble wrote:
Osama bin there wrote:
bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
brightonneil wrote: having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?
section 5 public order at least, possibly Afray. But surely as the organisers didn't supply information (and I thought any lawful protest had to be sorted with police) as required.. this could be seens as an unlawful gathering.. Maybe there are some lawyers on line that can clarify this.!!
Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law, completely trumps any mistaken ideas you may have about "illegal gatherings". There is a RIGHT to gather, not just a freedom to do so.
Could you show me the statute, in law, that allows violent protest and distruction of property? Thought not. As someone else so eloquently put it - f**k off back to London.
Will you please stop using your foul language? What is wrong with you? If some people are beiong violent that does NOT take away the rights of other people to demonstrate. When you have fully digested and understood that you may rejoin the real world.
I was quoting someone else, and am still waiting for you to quote the chapter and verse on the legal statute that allows violent protest.
Go and look up the European convention on human rights. It has been incorporated into English law. English law is subsidiary to it, i.e. the Charter takes precedence.
WHAT? VIOLENT protest is legal in the UK? Don't be such an ar5e. Of course it isn't.
It's you who used the word violent, I didn't. I was referring to the right to protest.

I will not accept any policeman's word that the protests were violent today. The police have demonstrated far too many times in the past and recently that they lie to suit themselves.

bibble says...
9:42pm Mon 4 May 09

jobarnes2000 wrote:
I was working in poole valley all day today right by the so called peace protest was going on. I think the police deserve medals for what they dealt with today. These people were scaring residents and visitors and not portraying the image of PEACE whatsoever!I think its a shame that the police cant arrest more people for the vandalism and violence they have caused today. There were 8 police horses and they were only doing what theyNEEDED to do keep the crowds back. When you saw the amount of people there were and the numbers of police you CANNOT say they were over reacting. They were doing a bliming good job and i am proud of these people for risking their safety to try their hardest to protect the publics. If you want to protest for peace don't go and DISRUPT the peace yourselves. Also if it was a peace protest why be worries to show your faces by wearing black balaclavas and bandanners. I felt safer knowing i was surrounded by police then not having any.Well done Sussex Police you should be proud of what you have done today and thankyou for protecting workers like me,right in the midst of it all.
If the police are peaceful, why were they wearing riot helmets and (some of them) balaclavas?

You seem to have a "one rule for the police, one rule for the demonstrators" mentality.

bibble says...
9:42pm Mon 4 May 09

jobarnes2000 wrote:
I was working in poole valley all day today right by the so called peace protest was going on. I think the police deserve medals for what they dealt with today. These people were scaring residents and visitors and not portraying the image of PEACE whatsoever!I think its a shame that the police cant arrest more people for the vandalism and violence they have caused today. There were 8 police horses and they were only doing what theyNEEDED to do keep the crowds back. When you saw the amount of people there were and the numbers of police you CANNOT say they were over reacting. They were doing a bliming good job and i am proud of these people for risking their safety to try their hardest to protect the publics. If you want to protest for peace don't go and DISRUPT the peace yourselves. Also if it was a peace protest why be worries to show your faces by wearing black balaclavas and bandanners. I felt safer knowing i was surrounded by police then not having any.Well done Sussex Police you should be proud of what you have done today and thankyou for protecting workers like me,right in the midst of it all.
If the police are peaceful, why were they wearing riot helmets and (some of them) balaclavas?

You seem to have a "one rule for the police, one rule for the demonstrators" mentality.

getreal1 says...
9:42pm Mon 4 May 09

unclesam wrote:
can anyone tell me why you load of soap dodgers bypassed the level ? it would have been such a great day seeing you all get a good kickin by the pikeys at the fair it would have made it all worth while .
As they're gutless stink pits, they had advance intelligence and decided that two hundred of them couldn't take five good pikeys.

Acheron says...
9:43pm Mon 4 May 09

Bibble,

You'll not that I didn't include the issue of roads being blocked in post. I didn't because I didn't want the post to go on too long and I wanted to make a point about issues to the person and property rather than anything else. Yes you are absolutely right in what you say about demonstrations interferring with the right of others, but that the same time I am sure you will concede that we are talking about very different scales here. The police have the ability to limit peoples rights for their own, or others safety, which is what happens with demonstrations (for both the general public and the protestors). However, as said, that is very different from the case that I cited. I appreciate that my initial post may have seemed simplistic, but I wanted to be brief, I trust you will now (1) acknowledge that I'm not as naive as you may feel and (2) comment on the issue of violence in demonstations that I was pointing out and challenging you on!

SimonS says...
9:43pm Mon 4 May 09

I've seen pictures of flares under police vans, police vans being rocked dangerously, someone was injured by some flying object, all violent in my opinion. If I did any of those normally I would be arrested and so I should be.

brightonneil says...
9:45pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
Osama bin there wrote:
bibble wrote:
Osama bin there wrote:
bibble wrote:
Osama bin there wrote:
bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
brightonneil wrote: having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?
section 5 public order at least, possibly Afray. But surely as the organisers didn't supply information (and I thought any lawful protest had to be sorted with police) as required.. this could be seens as an unlawful gathering.. Maybe there are some lawyers on line that can clarify this.!!
Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law, completely trumps any mistaken ideas you may have about "illegal gatherings". There is a RIGHT to gather, not just a freedom to do so.
Could you show me the statute, in law, that allows violent protest and distruction of property? Thought not. As someone else so eloquently put it - f**k off back to London.
Will you please stop using your foul language? What is wrong with you? If some people are beiong violent that does NOT take away the rights of other people to demonstrate. When you have fully digested and understood that you may rejoin the real world.
I was quoting someone else, and am still waiting for you to quote the chapter and verse on the legal statute that allows violent protest.
Go and look up the European convention on human rights. It has been incorporated into English law. English law is subsidiary to it, i.e. the Charter takes precedence.
WHAT? VIOLENT protest is legal in the UK? Don't be such an ar5e. Of course it isn't.
It's you who used the word violent, I didn't. I was referring to the right to protest. I will not accept any policeman's word that the protests were violent today. The police have demonstrated far too many times in the past and recently that they lie to suit themselves.
i saw the "partygoers"today they were violent.
if you dont understand the meaning of violent look at the videoes on this site

jay316 says...
9:45pm Mon 4 May 09

SimonS wrote:
I've seen pictures of flares under police vans, police vans being rocked dangerously, someone was injured by some flying object, all violent in my opinion. If I did any of those normally I would be arrested and so I should be.
I thought that was normal behavour for people now adays... you missed paint being throw over police and vehicles, and also their tires being let down...

Also the protester and the car at Harry Ramsdons...

Bog Vern says...
9:49pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
Acheron wrote:
OK, right, I've had my BBQ (in the rain) and now have my fat belly, so feel ready to return to the fray. A couple of points really (though one has just been said). First, ChurchSt, as Fightback has just said, the devices are Safe Release Mechanisms, not Release Mechanisms. There is a big difference as one is used to ensure that unused bombs can be safely disposed of and not cause further threat to life. I appreciate you are against the bombs per se, but it small word Safe is important and totally changes the impression of what EDO are making. I'll be generous and assume that you weren't fully aware of the correct term, rather than purposfully trying to mislead people by missing out the important word. (If you want to know the physics of why these devices are needed I'm happy to dig out a link for you). Second point, Bibble, referring to your arguement about freedoms. I think you'll find that what is really considered in UK law under freedoms is that you are free to do whatever you like, including protest, which I have made clear I support as a right in previous posts, providing (and providing is the important word here) you do not infringe on anyone elses right. So yes you're allowed to protest but that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you like on that protest, as violence against person or property is infringing on someone elses right. (Of course if you genuinely believe that should not be the case, let us all know where in London you are and we'll protest outside your place and see whether you feel it is right for us to infringe on your 'rights'. I suspect you won't!)
You have a slightly simplistic and naive sense of rights.

Your point that the right to demonstrate should not impose on other peoples' rights is, at first glance, reasonable and fair. But the law on this is rather more complex, as numerous cases have shown.

Take, for example, the law against highway obstruction. Anybody today who was blocking the roads might be considered to be causing an obstruction. They would interfere with the rights of others to use the highways.

But there have been judgements in the High Court (forget the magistrates, they're too friendly to the police and their decisions do not make case law anyway), that the right to public assembly is "unduly restricted" unless it can be on the public highway in some circumstances.

The law recognises that public demonstrations DO interfere with the rights of others, and there is a balance to be struck. But that balance is not equitable at all times. In other words, sometimes some people will just have to put up with demonstrations even if it interferes with their rights.

Bibble sorry

You contradict yourself again.

'Go and look up the European convention on human rights. It has been incorporated into English law. English law is subsidiary to it, i.e. the Charter takes precedence.'

This was your post at 927pm.

Your post at 935pm then goes on to intimate that a High Court ruling over rules a European ruling based upon the ECHR - everyone has rights.


Therefore - why did those 'protesting' today have more rights than those who wanted to go about their business lawfully? What gave them a right, over and above the victims to this 'protest' to go ahead and do it?

To quote you once more 'You have a slightly simplistic and naive sense of rights'.

Who has more rights and what is more powerful - European Law or our common/statute law? Sorry you are very confused and therefore confusing me?

Answer please?




brightonneil says...
9:49pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble
or next time you come to brighton come and have a look in the hikers lol. you may get a clue

loopyblonde says...
9:50pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
loopyblonde wrote: What a shame that EDO don't use their weapon making capability's to blow up this bunch of scum bag wasters and make the world a more peaceful place without them. I respect peoples right to peacefully protest but this was anything but and by harming and scaring innocent bystanders they have as much blood on their hands as the company that they're protesting about.
nutcaseblonde, I was a bystander. I was not scared. Perhaps some bystanders need to get either a bit more backbone or a bit more of a grasp on reality.
Ok bibble, you are obviously not a parent. Please tell me how you tell a 3 or 4 year old to 'get a bit more backbone or a bit more of a grasp on reality'. Because I'd love to know so that I can explain things to my children before the next time the bunch of crusty thugs arrive.

I hope that the police DID kick the sh*t out of the lot of them.

If they don't want the police to be violent then they shouldn't act with violence themselves or take part in a protest with a history of violence.

I hope you stay well out of Brighton because believe me, you are not wanted here.

Osama bin there says...
9:54pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
Osama bin there wrote:
bibble wrote:
Osama bin there wrote:
bibble wrote:
Osama bin there wrote:
bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
brightonneil wrote: having seen the videos and read the comments surely the "partygoers"as poor misguided marina pepper calls them are liable to be arrested for behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace?
section 5 public order at least, possibly Afray. But surely as the organisers didn't supply information (and I thought any lawful protest had to be sorted with police) as required.. this could be seens as an unlawful gathering.. Maybe there are some lawyers on line that can clarify this.!!
Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law, completely trumps any mistaken ideas you may have about "illegal gatherings". There is a RIGHT to gather, not just a freedom to do so.
Could you show me the statute, in law, that allows violent protest and distruction of property? Thought not. As someone else so eloquently put it - f**k off back to London.
Will you please stop using your foul language? What is wrong with you? If some people are beiong violent that does NOT take away the rights of other people to demonstrate. When you have fully digested and understood that you may rejoin the real world.
I was quoting someone else, and am still waiting for you to quote the chapter and verse on the legal statute that allows violent protest.
Go and look up the European convention on human rights. It has been incorporated into English law. English law is subsidiary to it, i.e. the Charter takes precedence.
WHAT? VIOLENT protest is legal in the UK? Don't be such an ar5e. Of course it isn't.
It's you who used the word violent, I didn't. I was referring to the right to protest.

I will not accept any policeman's word that the protests were violent today. The police have demonstrated far too many times in the past and recently that they lie to suit themselves.
Right, so vandalising Barclays, MacDonalds and other shops and the pier aren't violent acts then? And letting down a police vehicles tyres as well? Photographic evidence on this site.
Come on, grow up. It was violent. Just read the posting from the mum on this thread.
Stop hiding behind your police paranoia and open your eyes.
IT WAS A VIOLENT PROTEST. Probably alright with you though, as long as it wasn't the police banging heads together. Fine if it was the protestors though.

steeleysmith says...
9:55pm Mon 4 May 09

Obviously a day of thwarted hopes- either the organisers are rueing the ineffectual quality of their protest or basking in the glory of the gratuitous violence- i hope it is the former or their cause loses all credence

jobarnes2000 says...
9:57pm Mon 4 May 09

I think youll find the police HAD to wear riot gear to protect themselves from the missiles , bricks and bins that the protesters were throwing at them and they wouldnt need to wear it if this group didnt have a reputation to cause violence which they so clearly did today. The riot gear is made of things PROTECTING their bodies!So when they get hit etc, by protecting us, it doesnt cause them too much damage.They were calm this morning and were well back until the protesters starting causing violences they had to use force, THE protesters left them NO choic i was there all day.

Dave At Home says...
10:01pm Mon 4 May 09

IF SmashEDO feel so strongly that they HAVE the people of Brighton behind them and their cause let's see them stand at the next election. This IS the place to make yourself known, the place to make decisions, the place to make things happen.

Let's see how many of them turn up on my doorstep for my vote?

I very doubt if one of them has the guts (or the money) to stand in ANY of the Wards for election. Therefore it is my conclusion that these so called legally entitled protesters of peace are merely trouble makers looking to make trouble.

STAND UP and be counted at the next election and lets see how big you are and how big your followers are... I doubt if you could get a 100 votes let alone retain your deposit.

The ballot box is the place to make your protest and there are going to be a few major changes in this City next time around, same names and same people seem to forget we have memories that span longer than one week ago.

King Alfred, i360, Brighton Marina, Brighton Ice Rink, City Clean, the Council, Strip Clubs, the road works, mindless protests that shut parts of the City and makes it a no go area to residents ...... we've had enough of this.

bibble says...
10:04pm Mon 4 May 09

Acheron wrote:
Bibble, You'll not that I didn't include the issue of roads being blocked in post. I didn't because I didn't want the post to go on too long and I wanted to make a point about issues to the person and property rather than anything else. Yes you are absolutely right in what you say about demonstrations interferring with the right of others, but that the same time I am sure you will concede that we are talking about very different scales here. The police have the ability to limit peoples rights for their own, or others safety, which is what happens with demonstrations (for both the general public and the protestors). However, as said, that is very different from the case that I cited. I appreciate that my initial post may have seemed simplistic, but I wanted to be brief, I trust you will now (1) acknowledge that I'm not as naive as you may feel and (2) comment on the issue of violence in demonstations that I was pointing out and challenging you on!
I mentioned highway obstruction because there was much of that today (note, I'm not conceding that offences were committed - just stating a fact).

The police have all sorts of powers to police demonstrations. But the police have very limited powers (and such cases usually end up in the House of Lords or European Court) to limit statutory rights, i.e. those rights enshrined in the Charter. That is why they are "rights", after all.

I think that in far too many cases the police have abused their powers to limit legitimate protest, and the courts have woken up.

This does the police no good in the long run. It causes antagonism towards them (even from those who do not take part in demonstrations), it costs them money, and it makes them seem foolish or inefficient. There was a case last week at the High Court whereby the Met paid out £85,000 to 5 protestors falsely arrested (and assaulted) three years ago. So misuse of police powers does happen, and the police need to be aware that they must protect demonstrators' rights as much as those who are demonstrated against.

Perhaps I was a bit cheeky towards you with my comment about naivety. I found your argument simplistic, but you have now said that you were being brief.

Violence is not usually to be condoned, but there are precedents for using violence which make it hard to say it's always bad. If the democratic masters (I mean representatives) of the people have closed ears, demonstrators will find other avenues to vent their spleen.

bibble says...
10:12pm Mon 4 May 09

Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
Acheron wrote: OK, right, I've had my BBQ (in the rain) and now have my fat belly, so feel ready to return to the fray. A couple of points really (though one has just been said). First, ChurchSt, as Fightback has just said, the devices are Safe Release Mechanisms, not Release Mechanisms. There is a big difference as one is used to ensure that unused bombs can be safely disposed of and not cause further threat to life. I appreciate you are against the bombs per se, but it small word Safe is important and totally changes the impression of what EDO are making. I'll be generous and assume that you weren't fully aware of the correct term, rather than purposfully trying to mislead people by missing out the important word. (If you want to know the physics of why these devices are needed I'm happy to dig out a link for you). Second point, Bibble, referring to your arguement about freedoms. I think you'll find that what is really considered in UK law under freedoms is that you are free to do whatever you like, including protest, which I have made clear I support as a right in previous posts, providing (and providing is the important word here) you do not infringe on anyone elses right. So yes you're allowed to protest but that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you like on that protest, as violence against person or property is infringing on someone elses right. (Of course if you genuinely believe that should not be the case, let us all know where in London you are and we'll protest outside your place and see whether you feel it is right for us to infringe on your 'rights'. I suspect you won't!)
You have a slightly simplistic and naive sense of rights. Your point that the right to demonstrate should not impose on other peoples' rights is, at first glance, reasonable and fair. But the law on this is rather more complex, as numerous cases have shown. Take, for example, the law against highway obstruction. Anybody today who was blocking the roads might be considered to be causing an obstruction. They would interfere with the rights of others to use the highways. But there have been judgements in the High Court (forget the magistrates, they're too friendly to the police and their decisions do not make case law anyway), that the right to public assembly is "unduly restricted" unless it can be on the public highway in some circumstances. The law recognises that public demonstrations DO interfere with the rights of others, and there is a balance to be struck. But that balance is not equitable at all times. In other words, sometimes some people will just have to put up with demonstrations even if it interferes with their rights.
Bibble sorry You contradict yourself again. 'Go and look up the European convention on human rights. It has been incorporated into English law. English law is subsidiary to it, i.e. the Charter takes precedence.' This was your post at 927pm. Your post at 935pm then goes on to intimate that a High Court ruling over rules a European ruling based upon the ECHR - everyone has rights. Therefore - why did those 'protesting' today have more rights than those who wanted to go about their business lawfully? What gave them a right, over and above the victims to this 'protest' to go ahead and do it? To quote you once more 'You have a slightly simplistic and naive sense of rights'. Who has more rights and what is more powerful - European Law or our common/statute law? Sorry you are very confused and therefore confusing me? Answer please?
There is no contradiction in what I have written. I never wrote anywhere that the High Court ruling takes precedence over the Charter (now incorporated).

I have said, quite rightly, that the law recognises that protest sometimes does interfere with the rights of others. There is a RIGHT to protest. That other people also have other RIGHTS is also true. There is NO RIGHT NOT to be demonstrated against in the Charter.

So that is why cases come to court to determine if demonstrator Bob's rights have been interfered with TOO MUCH in comparison with Dave the passer by or business owner.

And the courts have regularly shown that OFTEN (but not always) a demonstrator's right to protest will take precedence.

bibble says...
10:14pm Mon 4 May 09

loopyblonde wrote:
bibble wrote:
loopyblonde wrote: What a shame that EDO don't use their weapon making capability's to blow up this bunch of scum bag wasters and make the world a more peaceful place without them. I respect peoples right to peacefully protest but this was anything but and by harming and scaring innocent bystanders they have as much blood on their hands as the company that they're protesting about.
nutcaseblonde, I was a bystander. I was not scared. Perhaps some bystanders need to get either a bit more backbone or a bit more of a grasp on reality.
Ok bibble, you are obviously not a parent. Please tell me how you tell a 3 or 4 year old to 'get a bit more backbone or a bit more of a grasp on reality'. Because I'd love to know so that I can explain things to my children before the next time the bunch of crusty thugs arrive. I hope that the police DID kick the sh*t out of the lot of them. If they don't want the police to be violent then they shouldn't act with violence themselves or take part in a protest with a history of violence. I hope you stay well out of Brighton because believe me, you are not wanted here.
Oh loopy, I hope you are not teaching your children that it is OK blow up "scum bag wasters", or that you falsely claim that demonstrators have "as much blood on their hands" as bomb-release suppliers.

Acheron says...
10:16pm Mon 4 May 09

Bibble,

Thank you for the additional comment.

Think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the issue of violence sometimes being right. Personally I have always felt that if you have to resort to violence to proove a point (outside the boxing ring!) then you've lost the arguement already even if the end result is that you achieve what you have set out, purely on the grounds that you alienate too many people. (I think particularly of the Poll Tax riot which I was very nearly caught up in. I got out of Leicester Sq about 10 mins before trouble hit! It may have lead to the Poll Tax being dumped, but it was on its way out anyway. I additonally had to make several phone calls (pre mobile era for most) to reassure people that I was ok and out of the area).

I guess my view is that the ageuement of the ends justifying the means is not enough. But I realise you don't go with that!

andyelevator says...
10:27pm Mon 4 May 09

All these sad little people are scared of democracy.If THEY REALLY BELIEVE their cause is just stand in a local election and see how many people support you!!!

I love these so called people who want to smash the system with one hand and stick out the other for their benefits!!

If you were so sure of your cause show your faces and stop being cowards hiding behind a mask!!!

If you don't like how things are in this country leave it and its democracy behind and try going to live somewhere like china where democracy is only an expectation and not a right you take for granted here!!!

YOU MAKE ME SICK!!!

Bog Vern says...
10:28pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
Acheron wrote: OK, right, I've had my BBQ (in the rain) and now have my fat belly, so feel ready to return to the fray. A couple of points really (though one has just been said). First, ChurchSt, as Fightback has just said, the devices are Safe Release Mechanisms, not Release Mechanisms. There is a big difference as one is used to ensure that unused bombs can be safely disposed of and not cause further threat to life. I appreciate you are against the bombs per se, but it small word Safe is important and totally changes the impression of what EDO are making. I'll be generous and assume that you weren't fully aware of the correct term, rather than purposfully trying to mislead people by missing out the important word. (If you want to know the physics of why these devices are needed I'm happy to dig out a link for you). Second point, Bibble, referring to your arguement about freedoms. I think you'll find that what is really considered in UK law under freedoms is that you are free to do whatever you like, including protest, which I have made clear I support as a right in previous posts, providing (and providing is the important word here) you do not infringe on anyone elses right. So yes you're allowed to protest but that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you like on that protest, as violence against person or property is infringing on someone elses right. (Of course if you genuinely believe that should not be the case, let us all know where in London you are and we'll protest outside your place and see whether you feel it is right for us to infringe on your 'rights'. I suspect you won't!)
You have a slightly simplistic and naive sense of rights. Your point that the right to demonstrate should not impose on other peoples' rights is, at first glance, reasonable and fair. But the law on this is rather more complex, as numerous cases have shown. Take, for example, the law against highway obstruction. Anybody today who was blocking the roads might be considered to be causing an obstruction. They would interfere with the rights of others to use the highways. But there have been judgements in the High Court (forget the magistrates, they're too friendly to the police and their decisions do not make case law anyway), that the right to public assembly is "unduly restricted" unless it can be on the public highway in some circumstances. The law recognises that public demonstrations DO interfere with the rights of others, and there is a balance to be struck. But that balance is not equitable at all times. In other words, sometimes some people will just have to put up with demonstrations even if it interferes with their rights.
Bibble sorry You contradict yourself again. 'Go and look up the European convention on human rights. It has been incorporated into English law. English law is subsidiary to it, i.e. the Charter takes precedence.' This was your post at 927pm. Your post at 935pm then goes on to intimate that a High Court ruling over rules a European ruling based upon the ECHR - everyone has rights. Therefore - why did those 'protesting' today have more rights than those who wanted to go about their business lawfully? What gave them a right, over and above the victims to this 'protest' to go ahead and do it? To quote you once more 'You have a slightly simplistic and naive sense of rights'. Who has more rights and what is more powerful - European Law or our common/statute law? Sorry you are very confused and therefore confusing me? Answer please?
There is no contradiction in what I have written. I never wrote anywhere that the High Court ruling takes precedence over the Charter (now incorporated).

I have said, quite rightly, that the law recognises that protest sometimes does interfere with the rights of others. There is a RIGHT to protest. That other people also have other RIGHTS is also true. There is NO RIGHT NOT to be demonstrated against in the Charter.

So that is why cases come to court to determine if demonstrator Bob's rights have been interfered with TOO MUCH in comparison with Dave the passer by or business owner.

And the courts have regularly shown that OFTEN (but not always) a demonstrator's right to protest will take precedence.
'The law recognises that demonstrations do interfere with the rights of others'

Then you say that the ECHR is of the utmost importance and you said that the rights of any person are vital.

So I say again - using the ECHR as the vanguard of law - what gives a group of people the right over and above another group - to destroy their property, interupt people going their business and frightening children?

Morally what gives someone the right to do that? In law what right do they have to frighten, intimidate and bully others to change their plans due to actions and events in their City?

I agree that writing to MPs are useless. Direct action is the way forward and I think that I should dig deep into my pockets to help you.

Would you go to Israel and protest about this human suffering? Would you go to China to protest about their human rights? Would you go to Burma, Nepal or Zimbabwe to do the same? I will gladly pay some of the cost for you to do so.

No you wouldn't. Why - because you are a 'safe' radical who is as prepared to do that as give up all the wonderful facets of life you hold so dear - nice home, telly, too much food in the fridge, cable telly, nice restaurants, fantastic holidays, money on the hip.

And you waffle on about injustices in the world.

What about famine in Africa? What about the elderly not being looked after in the UK?

What are you doing about CO2 emissions? What are you doing to assist with the fight against cancer. heart disease?

What are you doing about child protection issues in the UK?

Tea time expert. Worse than that a selective tea time expert.




getreal1 says...
10:30pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
loopyblonde wrote:
bibble wrote:
loopyblonde wrote: What a shame that EDO don't use their weapon making capability's to blow up this bunch of scum bag wasters and make the world a more peaceful place without them. I respect peoples right to peacefully protest but this was anything but and by harming and scaring innocent bystanders they have as much blood on their hands as the company that they're protesting about.
nutcaseblonde, I was a bystander. I was not scared. Perhaps some bystanders need to get either a bit more backbone or a bit more of a grasp on reality.
Ok bibble, you are obviously not a parent. Please tell me how you tell a 3 or 4 year old to 'get a bit more backbone or a bit more of a grasp on reality'. Because I'd love to know so that I can explain things to my children before the next time the bunch of crusty thugs arrive. I hope that the police DID kick the sh*t out of the lot of them. If they don't want the police to be violent then they shouldn't act with violence themselves or take part in a protest with a history of violence. I hope you stay well out of Brighton because believe me, you are not wanted here.
Oh loopy, I hope you are not teaching your children that it is OK blow up "scum bag wasters", or that you falsely claim that demonstrators have "as much blood on their hands" as bomb-release suppliers.
LoopyBlonde - a quote from an earlier post from Bibble. He's not in a position to lecture to you or anyone else given this stance. Truth be known he knew there'd be trouble as well as the rest of us and became an innocent bystander and bottled it when his comrades were out and about... probably now retreating to a watering hole in Kensington where his views will be about as welcome as they are on here. Quote Bibble:- "Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust." What a prize waster.

yoyoman says...
10:36pm Mon 4 May 09

it is nice to see people standing up for what they beleive in...
the robo cops of today invented BY THE EVIL THATCHER were bashing peaceful demonstrators AGAIN..

bibble says...
10:39pm Mon 4 May 09

Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
Acheron wrote: OK, right, I've had my BBQ (in the rain) and now have my fat belly, so feel ready to return to the fray. A couple of points really (though one has just been said). First, ChurchSt, as Fightback has just said, the devices are Safe Release Mechanisms, not Release Mechanisms. There is a big difference as one is used to ensure that unused bombs can be safely disposed of and not cause further threat to life. I appreciate you are against the bombs per se, but it small word Safe is important and totally changes the impression of what EDO are making. I'll be generous and assume that you weren't fully aware of the correct term, rather than purposfully trying to mislead people by missing out the important word. (If you want to know the physics of why these devices are needed I'm happy to dig out a link for you). Second point, Bibble, referring to your arguement about freedoms. I think you'll find that what is really considered in UK law under freedoms is that you are free to do whatever you like, including protest, which I have made clear I support as a right in previous posts, providing (and providing is the important word here) you do not infringe on anyone elses right. So yes you're allowed to protest but that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you like on that protest, as violence against person or property is infringing on someone elses right. (Of course if you genuinely believe that should not be the case, let us all know where in London you are and we'll protest outside your place and see whether you feel it is right for us to infringe on your 'rights'. I suspect you won't!)
You have a slightly simplistic and naive sense of rights. Your point that the right to demonstrate should not impose on other peoples' rights is, at first glance, reasonable and fair. But the law on this is rather more complex, as numerous cases have shown. Take, for example, the law against highway obstruction. Anybody today who was blocking the roads might be considered to be causing an obstruction. They would interfere with the rights of others to use the highways. But there have been judgements in the High Court (forget the magistrates, they're too friendly to the police and their decisions do not make case law anyway), that the right to public assembly is "unduly restricted" unless it can be on the public highway in some circumstances. The law recognises that public demonstrations DO interfere with the rights of others, and there is a balance to be struck. But that balance is not equitable at all times. In other words, sometimes some people will just have to put up with demonstrations even if it interferes with their rights.
Bibble sorry You contradict yourself again. 'Go and look up the European convention on human rights. It has been incorporated into English law. English law is subsidiary to it, i.e. the Charter takes precedence.' This was your post at 927pm. Your post at 935pm then goes on to intimate that a High Court ruling over rules a European ruling based upon the ECHR - everyone has rights. Therefore - why did those 'protesting' today have more rights than those who wanted to go about their business lawfully? What gave them a right, over and above the victims to this 'protest' to go ahead and do it? To quote you once more 'You have a slightly simplistic and naive sense of rights'. Who has more rights and what is more powerful - European Law or our common/statute law? Sorry you are very confused and therefore confusing me? Answer please?
There is no contradiction in what I have written. I never wrote anywhere that the High Court ruling takes precedence over the Charter (now incorporated). I have said, quite rightly, that the law recognises that protest sometimes does interfere with the rights of others. There is a RIGHT to protest. That other people also have other RIGHTS is also true. There is NO RIGHT NOT to be demonstrated against in the Charter. So that is why cases come to court to determine if demonstrator Bob's rights have been interfered with TOO MUCH in comparison with Dave the passer by or business owner. And the courts have regularly shown that OFTEN (but not always) a demonstrator's right to protest will take precedence.
'The law recognises that demonstrations do interfere with the rights of others' Then you say that the ECHR is of the utmost importance and you said that the rights of any person are vital. So I say again - using the ECHR as the vanguard of law - what gives a group of people the right over and above another group - to destroy their property, interupt people going their business and frightening children? Morally what gives someone the right to do that? In law what right do they have to frighten, intimidate and bully others to change their plans due to actions and events in their City? I agree that writing to MPs are useless. Direct action is the way forward and I think that I should dig deep into my pockets to help you. Would you go to Israel and protest about this human suffering? Would you go to China to protest about their human rights? Would you go to Burma, Nepal or Zimbabwe to do the same? I will gladly pay some of the cost for you to do so. No you wouldn't. Why - because you are a 'safe' radical who is as prepared to do that as give up all the wonderful facets of life you hold so dear - nice home, telly, too much food in the fridge, cable telly, nice restaurants, fantastic holidays, money on the hip. And you waffle on about injustices in the world. What about famine in Africa? What about the elderly not being looked after in the UK? What are you doing about CO2 emissions? What are you doing to assist with the fight against cancer. heart disease? What are you doing about child protection issues in the UK? Tea time expert. Worse than that a selective tea time expert.
You really are a nutcase.

The Charter is incorporated into English law, and it does provide rights to demonstrate. Incidentally, those rights are in addition to our old common law rights.

I have never said it provides a right to destroy other people's property. Please show me a post where I have said that.

The rest of your post is a load of waffle.

Ommakeyas says...
10:40pm Mon 4 May 09

I was a peacefull demonstarter at this event today, after i was told i was threatening fellow police (which is not in my nature) i was thrown to the ground by an officer (who was not showing his numbers)after having my hands up and shouting for him to stop. I was nearly trampled by backing riot police, i was not offered any medical support by police medics, although protesters who saw this attack offered what they could to help, i have sustained a few minor injuries and after this, i feel as though i cannot trust any officer again.

Bog Vern says...
10:45pm Mon 4 May 09

Bibble

'The rest of your post is a load of waffle.'

No I don't think it is actually.

Tell me about the other aspects of my post?

When someone moralises about their superior stance then they have a right to be challenged - it is called democracy.

What are your views on going to Israel and taking direct action/demonstration over there?

Oh - when someone has made a comment to you that has been rude on previous posts - you have been the first to throw you teddy out of the pram and then go on and moralise about the fact that when you swear you lose the argument, you have nothing to say therefore you resort to insults etc.

What have you got to say about that then?





bibble says...
10:47pm Mon 4 May 09

getreal1 wrote:
bibble wrote:
loopyblonde wrote:
bibble wrote:
loopyblonde wrote: What a shame that EDO don't use their weapon making capability's to blow up this bunch of scum bag wasters and make the world a more peaceful place without them. I respect peoples right to peacefully protest but this was anything but and by harming and scaring innocent bystanders they have as much blood on their hands as the company that they're protesting about.
nutcaseblonde, I was a bystander. I was not scared. Perhaps some bystanders need to get either a bit more backbone or a bit more of a grasp on reality.
Ok bibble, you are obviously not a parent. Please tell me how you tell a 3 or 4 year old to 'get a bit more backbone or a bit more of a grasp on reality'. Because I'd love to know so that I can explain things to my children before the next time the bunch of crusty thugs arrive. I hope that the police DID kick the sh*t out of the lot of them. If they don't want the police to be violent then they shouldn't act with violence themselves or take part in a protest with a history of violence. I hope you stay well out of Brighton because believe me, you are not wanted here.
Oh loopy, I hope you are not teaching your children that it is OK blow up "scum bag wasters", or that you falsely claim that demonstrators have "as much blood on their hands" as bomb-release suppliers.
LoopyBlonde - a quote from an earlier post from Bibble. He's not in a position to lecture to you or anyone else given this stance. Truth be known he knew there'd be trouble as well as the rest of us and became an innocent bystander and bottled it when his comrades were out and about... probably now retreating to a watering hole in Kensington where his views will be about as welcome as they are on here. Quote Bibble:- "Violent protests are, in my view, fully justified if the system they are rebelling or demonstrating about is in itself bad or violent or unjust." What a prize waster.
"prize waster"? Not at all. My position is very moral. If you are not prepared to stand up and do something you are unhappy about you basically have no back bone.

I came down to Brighton to watch, and that is exactly what I did. I didn't take part at all in the demonstrations.

It's a bit late to retire to a pub now. Maybe tomorrow. I'll raise a toast to some of the dreadlocked student-types I saw today.

Ommakeyas says...
10:50pm Mon 4 May 09

I have just veiwed a video, and it says my fellow protesters where using missiles against the police. that is not true, use common sence we were protesting against a company that makes those things, so why would WE use them? what world are you in??????

theoryofevolution says...
10:51pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
jobarnes2000 wrote:
I was working in poole valley all day today right by the so called peace protest was going on. I think the police deserve medals for what they dealt with today. These people were scaring residents and visitors and not portraying the image of PEACE whatsoever!I think its a shame that the police cant arrest more people for the vandalism and violence they have caused today. There were 8 police horses and they were only doing what theyNEEDED to do keep the crowds back. When you saw the amount of people there were and the numbers of police you CANNOT say they were over reacting. They were doing a bliming good job and i am proud of these people for risking their safety to try their hardest to protect the publics. If you want to protest for peace don't go and DISRUPT the peace yourselves. Also if it was a peace protest why be worries to show your faces by wearing black balaclavas and bandanners. I felt safer knowing i was surrounded by police then not having any.Well done Sussex Police you should be proud of what you have done today and thankyou for protecting workers like me,right in the midst of it all.
If the police are peaceful, why were they wearing riot helmets and (some of them) balaclavas?

You seem to have a "one rule for the police, one rule for the demonstrators" mentality.
The police have to wear 'balacalvas' as you refer to them as because they filter out the smell coming from the people that spent their night in someone elses property claiming 'squatters rights'. It's nice to know some bunch of hooligans broke into a church, barrackading themselves in last night. That sort of behaviour is disgusting and it's a shame God was not on top form last night because maybe a lightening bolt would have solved some problems. Maybe some people need to start reading up on the law and, in particular, PACE, COPS and the human rights act which the residents and workers of Brighton today were clearly not benefitting from. I wonder if all your theories of 'anarchy' should be put into practice. 'Anarchy Day' may test the theory of evolution - bring on survival of the fitness - then we will see if your 'points of view' work. I'm guessing Lord of the Flies is not something you people have read because you clearly don't understand it. I'd love to be able to live in a world which didn't require policing and the armed forces however the country would fall apart without rules. You all live in idealistic worlds, the rest of us live in reality. When you have finished smoking cannabis maybe you will come back down to earth and join in the with the real world.

bibble says...
10:55pm Mon 4 May 09

Ommakeyas wrote:
I was a peacefull demonstarter at this event today, after i was told i was threatening fellow police (which is not in my nature) i was thrown to the ground by an officer (who was not showing his numbers)after having my hands up and shouting for him to stop. I was nearly trampled by backing riot police, i was not offered any medical support by police medics, although protesters who saw this attack offered what they could to help, i have sustained a few minor injuries and after this, i feel as though i cannot trust any officer again.
Well, Ommakeyas, some commentators here will say you got exactly what you deserved. They will say that protestors are scum and the soap-dodgers, and that the police should run you out of town. And that the police who assaulted you should be given medals.

But those people are nutcases. They think that everything with the word "police" on is peachy. And that rights don't mean anything.

Fight the good fight.

worthinglad says...
10:58pm Mon 4 May 09

I haven’t had the time to read anywhere near all the posts on this thread and the Argus is providing a service by having this forum to have all views expressed

I spent only 40 mins outside the palace pier at about 5.15pm. I doubt there were more than 350 active protesters there, granted as it was such a cold day the others may have decided to adjourn to the pub or to the Offie of which a good majority looked very familiar with. Even my 12 year old son asked me why there were so many beer cans in the road

I Have read these posts before and read all the right wing and populist rants about soap dodgers, dole scroungers. I was prepared to give these people the benefit of the doubt, but I am afraid the majority of the peace protesters seemed to fall into these categories. They were the usual dog on string Dreadlocks, I think they are called Crusties. I think there were some kids probably no more than 15/16, yes Kids and for that matter Crusties are entitled to have opinions, they are entitled to demonstrate peacefully. I for one would think that their demonstration would have far more validity had they chosen to participate fully in the Society that the rest of us find satisfactory ie by paying taxes,attempting to raise families etc, not sitting (or often lying) on the fringes of Society, taking but not contributing.

As` for the tactics and behaviour of the protesters they were juvenile, adolescent and provactive. Dancing on the roof of the Café on the pier, may be enjoyable for them not so enjoyable for the owner of the cafe

That’s what the Smash EDO campaign fail to \understand in their the deluded world they inhabit their Tactics and supporters alienate the vast majority of the population of Brighton, Sussex and the UK. Most people never look beyond the tactics or the people involved, but I get the impression that the organisers don’t really care who they alienate. They play to their own small audience not to the larger audience, so by their own lights they will probably regard to day as an enormous success.

I can’t say I find the comments like come down the Hikers and you will meet the real working class, who will give you a good pasting very helpful or intelligent.

These people will continue to shoot themselves in the foot, the police/ Courts will have to be firm as legally possible with them and eventually the majority of the protesters will grow up, get jobs and see the futility of their tactics if not their cause. In the meantime the ratepayers of Brighton will have unfortunately to pay the cost. Of the policing



stickman says...
10:59pm Mon 4 May 09

Ommakeyas wrote:
I have just veiwed a video, and it says my fellow protesters where using missiles against the police. that is not true, use common sence we were protesting against a company that makes those things, so why would WE use them? what world are you in??????
How shocking someone could have suggested such a thing. I also saw a photo where they were drunk and dancing on the roof of the Beach House Cafe. And throwing paint at buildings.

Clever use of photoshop by police and BAe stooges most likely!

They're such a lovely bunch of caring, dedicated people committed to the cause of the Palestinians or something - what a ridiculous suggestion!!!!!

bibble says...
11:01pm Mon 4 May 09

Bog Vern wrote:
Bibble 'The rest of your post is a load of waffle.' No I don't think it is actually. Tell me about the other aspects of my post? When someone moralises about their superior stance then they have a right to be challenged - it is called democracy. What are your views on going to Israel and taking direct action/demonstration over there? Oh - when someone has made a comment to you that has been rude on previous posts - you have been the first to throw you teddy out of the pram and then go on and moralise about the fact that when you swear you lose the argument, you have nothing to say therefore you resort to insults etc. What have you got to say about that then?
I will happily argue with anybody who has a different opinion to me, as long as that person will listen to my arguments as I have listened to theirs.

There is enough trouble in this country without going overseas to demonstrate.

And there are so many problems in the world thanks to people like you, who don't lift a finger, who look the other way.

I don't need to be reminded about Burma or Zimbabwe. What have you ever done about them? Anything? Read a one inch article in a national rag? Then quickly moved on to more interesting articles like David Beckham's latest haircut?

Mel Shock says...
11:01pm Mon 4 May 09

I do have to say that when walking into town ealier when the police were holding back protestors at the bottom of Trafalgar street) that all seemed well behaved, there was a large group also on the lawns of St Peters church........all was happy looking and unthreatening.......
.but what i did see was a largish group of "chavs" heading towards the protest with hoods up and fists clenched looking as if they were "up for it" it is these people and a small minority of others that just want to latch on and cause trouble giving the legitimate peaceful protesters a bad name.............it was the same with the " new age travellers" back in the 90's with the public at times laying blame at the wrong door step..............
i can see a good few points of view here but what I do disagree with is the people brandishing the protesters as "unwashed, jobless scum" good honest hard working people have opinions and protest as well, does that make them Scum ??

getreal1 says...
11:02pm Mon 4 May 09

Ommakeyas wrote:
I was a peacefull demonstarter at this event today, after i was told i was threatening fellow police (which is not in my nature) i was thrown to the ground by an officer (who was not showing his numbers)after having my hands up and shouting for him to stop. I was nearly trampled by backing riot police, i was not offered any medical support by police medics, although protesters who saw this attack offered what they could to help, i have sustained a few minor injuries and after this, i feel as though i cannot trust any officer again.
Oh well, perhaps next time since you have no confidence in the police, you won't be looking for treatment foc. Hope that your hurt pride's recovered quickly... certainly quickly enough for you and your comrades to peacefully frighten the wits out of small children in McDonalds who were quietly supporting EDO.

weaverfish says...
11:03pm Mon 4 May 09

Give them all a bath and a job. It'll scare the hell out of them!!!

yoyoman says...
11:05pm Mon 4 May 09

i wish those trouble makers would get offthere horses and put there truncheons down!!!

Guerrero says...
11:05pm Mon 4 May 09

Wouldn't it be nice if the people of the world could learn to get along?
Within the next four generations or so it is almost certain that some nutter somewhere will put paid to the human race.
Violence is a way to prevent that???
Peace is the only way forward.
Not peace when it suits you or your cause.
Not peace when it only involves people of the same skin colour and views that you have.Not peace because someone is smashing up your town rather than someone elses,but peace because it's the only thing that can give mankind a future.
War won't do it,protesting against war by being violent won't do it,prejudice,from whatever side won't do it and blame won't do it.
Look inside,do your own bit,and for humanities sake and the sake of your grandchildren.
Have a go at peace.

Psychic-S says...
11:09pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote: "I doubt very much if the crowd of demonstrators would attack a woman with two young children, so if "mummy of 2" felt intimidated I am not sure why. " Seeing a group of people rushing towards you be it a protest or any other such reason, is scary trust me. More so for children. A lot of people didn;t know the protests were coming into the town centre.... I think this is why it was kept hush hush by the organisers. To panic as many people as possible. "Certainly demonstrations can have an air of tension, but that does not mean that the demonstrators are suddenly turned into psychopaths intent on harming passers-by (or anyone else)." Really so why throw paint over property that has no involvement as I have said before with the companies that are protesting against. "Writing to MPs achieves nothing. Absolutely nothing. Anyone who thinks is does is completely deluding themselves." And smashing up property of people who are not involved with the company(ies) in question is the right thing to do.. what has the shops in the lanes done to any of the protesters... Nobody seems able to answer this question do they?
"mummy of 2" did not say that a group of people rushed towards her. The protests have been in the newspapers for weeks. There were posters around town today indicating the protest. It would also be hard to miss the large police presence in Brighton today. Throwing a bit of paint over property is not an attack on a person.
But surrounding and their vehicles as well as opening their car doors and shouting threats at them certainly is! Also have to agree at 'mummy of 2's point; the behaviour I witnessed on Preston Road was most definately that of intimidation. People really lost their argument against war and violence by behaving in that manner and in front of a number of children. The harm that can be done to a child by witnessing that kind of behaviour (think of those kids inside McD's) may not be immediate but can show up later in life, even from a one off incident! I hope, therefore, that those protesters who are so worried about the 'innocent' children affected by bombs / war are (which is definately something to protest against by the by) are proud of themselves and their bullying tactics today! More so, however, I really hope that those children who witnessed them are OK!

Ommakeyas says...
11:09pm Mon 4 May 09

I see much ignorance and apathy amoung some of you. Our country IS NOT UNDER ANY THREAT. so we make bombs anyway.

jay316 says...
11:10pm Mon 4 May 09

As there now seems to be some actual protestors in here... can you answer these questions which nobody today has been able to.

If you protest was against EDO/MBM.. why was Brighton Pier involed along with several shops in the laines.

Is it not the case that no protestors went to the EDO/MBM site to protest (or there wasn't whilst my colleague was there).

If this protest was peaceful, why the need for paintbomb against shops that had no involvement in EDO/MBM.

Finally why the need (and I was there when items were being thrown), did the protestors feel the need to scare poor children half to death.. children who I don't think would have shares, or even work for EDO.

Comments please!!?

bibble says...
11:10pm Mon 4 May 09

theoryofevolution wrote:
bibble wrote:
jobarnes2000 wrote: I was working in poole valley all day today right by the so called peace protest was going on. I think the police deserve medals for what they dealt with today. These people were scaring residents and visitors and not portraying the image of PEACE whatsoever!I think its a shame that the police cant arrest more people for the vandalism and violence they have caused today. There were 8 police horses and they were only doing what theyNEEDED to do keep the crowds back. When you saw the amount of people there were and the numbers of police you CANNOT say they were over reacting. They were doing a bliming good job and i am proud of these people for risking their safety to try their hardest to protect the publics. If you want to protest for peace don't go and DISRUPT the peace yourselves. Also if it was a peace protest why be worries to show your faces by wearing black balaclavas and bandanners. I felt safer knowing i was surrounded by police then not having any.Well done Sussex Police you should be proud of what you have done today and thankyou for protecting workers like me,right in the midst of it all.
If the police are peaceful, why were they wearing riot helmets and (some of them) balaclavas? You seem to have a "one rule for the police, one rule for the demonstrators" mentality.
The police have to wear 'balacalvas' as you refer to them as because they filter out the smell coming from the people that spent their night in someone elses property claiming 'squatters rights'. It's nice to know some bunch of hooligans broke into a church, barrackading themselves in last night. That sort of behaviour is disgusting and it's a shame God was not on top form last night because maybe a lightening bolt would have solved some problems. Maybe some people need to start reading up on the law and, in particular, PACE, COPS and the human rights act which the residents and workers of Brighton today were clearly not benefitting from. I wonder if all your theories of 'anarchy' should be put into practice. 'Anarchy Day' may test the theory of evolution - bring on survival of the fitness - then we will see if your 'points of view' work. I'm guessing Lord of the Flies is not something you people have read because you clearly don't understand it. I'd love to be able to live in a world which didn't require policing and the armed forces however the country would fall apart without rules. You all live in idealistic worlds, the rest of us live in reality. When you have finished smoking cannabis maybe you will come back down to earth and join in the with the real world.
You must look up to an Old Testament God. Whatever happened to forgiveness? Do you have any?

stay-back

Mel Shock says...
11:10pm Mon 4 May 09

weaverfish wrote:
Give them all a bath and a job. It'll scare the hell out of them!!!
oh horrendously intelligent. You must be so proud of that comment.

jay316 says...
11:13pm Mon 4 May 09

Ommakeyas wrote:
I see much ignorance and apathy amoung some of you. Our country IS NOT UNDER ANY THREAT. so we make bombs anyway.
Tell that to people who lost loved ones in the london bombing..

Deaths : 56

theoryofevolution says...
11:15pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
theoryofevolution wrote:
bibble wrote:
jobarnes2000 wrote: I was working in poole valley all day today right by the so called peace protest was going on. I think the police deserve medals for what they dealt with today. These people were scaring residents and visitors and not portraying the image of PEACE whatsoever!I think its a shame that the police cant arrest more people for the vandalism and violence they have caused today. There were 8 police horses and they were only doing what theyNEEDED to do keep the crowds back. When you saw the amount of people there were and the numbers of police you CANNOT say they were over reacting. They were doing a bliming good job and i am proud of these people for risking their safety to try their hardest to protect the publics. If you want to protest for peace don't go and DISRUPT the peace yourselves. Also if it was a peace protest why be worries to show your faces by wearing black balaclavas and bandanners. I felt safer knowing i was surrounded by police then not having any.Well done Sussex Police you should be proud of what you have done today and thankyou for protecting workers like me,right in the midst of it all.
If the police are peaceful, why were they wearing riot helmets and (some of them) balaclavas? You seem to have a "one rule for the police, one rule for the demonstrators" mentality.
The police have to wear 'balacalvas' as you refer to them as because they filter out the smell coming from the people that spent their night in someone elses property claiming 'squatters rights'. It's nice to know some bunch of hooligans broke into a church, barrackading themselves in last night. That sort of behaviour is disgusting and it's a shame God was not on top form last night because maybe a lightening bolt would have solved some problems. Maybe some people need to start reading up on the law and, in particular, PACE, COPS and the human rights act which the residents and workers of Brighton today were clearly not benefitting from. I wonder if all your theories of 'anarchy' should be put into practice. 'Anarchy Day' may test the theory of evolution - bring on survival of the fitness - then we will see if your 'points of view' work. I'm guessing Lord of the Flies is not something you people have read because you clearly don't understand it. I'd love to be able to live in a world which didn't require policing and the armed forces however the country would fall apart without rules. You all live in idealistic worlds, the rest of us live in reality. When you have finished smoking cannabis maybe you will come back down to earth and join in the with the real world.
You must look up to an Old Testament God. Whatever happened to forgiveness? Do you have any?

stay-back
So you don't deny it then? Let's hope there was no damage caused because you wouldn't want to be admitting to a burglary now...

bibble says...
11:23pm Mon 4 May 09

theoryofevolution wrote:
bibble wrote:
theoryofevolution wrote:
bibble wrote:
jobarnes2000 wrote: I was working in poole valley all day today right by the so called peace protest was going on. I think the police deserve medals for what they dealt with today. These people were scaring residents and visitors and not portraying the image of PEACE whatsoever!I think its a shame that the police cant arrest more people for the vandalism and violence they have caused today. There were 8 police horses and they were only doing what theyNEEDED to do keep the crowds back. When you saw the amount of people there were and the numbers of police you CANNOT say they were over reacting. They were doing a bliming good job and i am proud of these people for risking their safety to try their hardest to protect the publics. If you want to protest for peace don't go and DISRUPT the peace yourselves. Also if it was a peace protest why be worries to show your faces by wearing black balaclavas and bandanners. I felt safer knowing i was surrounded by police then not having any.Well done Sussex Police you should be proud of what you have done today and thankyou for protecting workers like me,right in the midst of it all.
If the police are peaceful, why were they wearing riot helmets and (some of them) balaclavas? You seem to have a "one rule for the police, one rule for the demonstrators" mentality.
The police have to wear 'balacalvas' as you refer to them as because they filter out the smell coming from the people that spent their night in someone elses property claiming 'squatters rights'. It's nice to know some bunch of hooligans broke into a church, barrackading themselves in last night. That sort of behaviour is disgusting and it's a shame God was not on top form last night because maybe a lightening bolt would have solved some problems. Maybe some people need to start reading up on the law and, in particular, PACE, COPS and the human rights act which the residents and workers of Brighton today were clearly not benefitting from. I wonder if all your theories of 'anarchy' should be put into practice. 'Anarchy Day' may test the theory of evolution - bring on survival of the fitness - then we will see if your 'points of view' work. I'm guessing Lord of the Flies is not something you people have read because you clearly don't understand it. I'd love to be able to live in a world which didn't require policing and the armed forces however the country would fall apart without rules. You all live in idealistic worlds, the rest of us live in reality. When you have finished smoking cannabis maybe you will come back down to earth and join in the with the real world.
You must look up to an Old Testament God. Whatever happened to forgiveness? Do you have any? stay-back
So you don't deny it then? Let's hope there was no damage caused because you wouldn't want to be admitting to a burglary now...
I don't know anything about some squatters in a church. I was simply referring to your lack of charity, calling on thunderbolts for people. It seems a bit extreme for a bit of criminal damage (if damage was done to gain entry).

You may not realise or appreciate it, but those demonstrators were helping you today. They stood up for THE right to protest. It is not THEIR right, it is OUR right.

If you wanted to, and could get enough soap-using keyboard warriors off their backsides or out of the pub, you could organise a protest. But you don't. It is people who DON'T protest who cause the loss of rights.

If you had any sense you would say something like this to the protestors: "I didn't agree with your protest today, but thank you for reminding me that we do have the right to protest. Thank you for exercising OUR rights."

bagsy67 says...
11:29pm Mon 4 May 09

I agree with a lot of the principles behind the protest, but, having inadvertently wandered through the route of the march i wonder at the mentality of the 'peaceful' protesters mindlessly shouting 'scum scum' at the police. It just reminded me of a bunch of footy hooligans up for a ruck.

theoryofevolution says...
11:38pm Mon 4 May 09

bibble wrote:
theoryofevolution wrote:
bibble wrote:
theoryofevolution wrote:
bibble wrote:
jobarnes2000 wrote: I was working in poole valley all day today right by the so called peace protest was going on. I think the police deserve medals for what they dealt with today. These people were scaring residents and visitors and not portraying the image of PEACE whatsoever!I think its a shame that the police cant arrest more people for the vandalism and violence they have caused today. There were 8 police horses and they were only doing what theyNEEDED to do keep the crowds back. When you saw the amount of people there were and the numbers of police you CANNOT say they were over reacting. They were doing a bliming good job and i am proud of these people for risking their safety to try their hardest to protect the publics. If you want to protest for peace don't go and DISRUPT the peace yourselves. Also if it was a peace protest why be worries to show your faces by wearing black balaclavas and bandanners. I felt safer knowing i was surrounded by police then not having any.Well done Sussex Police you should be proud of what you have done today and thankyou for protecting workers like me,right in the midst of it all.
If the police are peaceful, why were they wearing riot helmets and (some of them) balaclavas? You seem to have a "one rule for the police, one rule for the demonstrators" mentality.
The police have to wear 'balacalvas' as you refer to them as because they filter out the smell coming from the people that spent their night in someone elses property claiming 'squatters rights'. It's nice to know some bunch of hooligans broke into a church, barrackading themselves in last night. That sort of behaviour is disgusting and it's a shame God was not on top form last night because maybe a lightening bolt would have solved some problems. Maybe some people need to start reading up on the law and, in particular, PACE, COPS and the human rights act which the residents and workers of Brighton today were clearly not benefitting from. I wonder if all your theories of 'anarchy' should be put into practice. 'Anarchy Day' may test the theory of evolution - bring on survival of the fitness - then we will see if your 'points of view' work. I'm guessing Lord of the Flies is not something you people have read because you clearly don't understand it. I'd love to be able to live in a world which didn't require policing and the armed forces however the country would fall apart without rules. You all live in idealistic worlds, the rest of us live in reality. When you have finished smoking cannabis maybe you will come back down to earth and join in the with the real world.
You must look up to an Old Testament God. Whatever happened to forgiveness? Do you have any? stay-back
So you don't deny it then? Let's hope there was no damage caused because you wouldn't want to be admitting to a burglary now...
I don't know anything about some squatters in a church. I was simply referring to your lack of charity, calling on thunderbolts for people. It seems a bit extreme for a bit of criminal damage (if damage was done to gain entry).

You may not realise or appreciate it, but those demonstrators were helping you today. They stood up for THE right to protest. It is not THEIR right, it is OUR right.

If you wanted to, and could get enough soap-using keyboard warriors off their backsides or out of the pub, you could organise a protest. But you don't. It is people who DON'T protest who cause the loss of rights.

If you had any sense you would say something like this to the protestors: "I didn't agree with your protest today, but thank you for reminding me that we do have the right to protest. Thank you for exercising OUR rights."
Thanks for setting me straight on that one...You're very judgemental people. I was not sitting on my backside today, I was working - you know earning a living, doing something for the country, paying taxes so the police can at least try and prevent crime from occurring during 'peaceful protests'. I disagree with war and violence as much as the next person however I also think our armed forces do a brilliant job and, in the words of the Levellers, they are 'fighting for another man's cause'. My question to you is, would you still be anti the likes of EDO if this country came under attack? Do you agree with terrorism? If you feel so strongly about how other countries treat there people, get off your backside, stop terrorising the residents of Brighton, and get out there and sort it out.

JohnSmith47 says...
11:45pm Mon 4 May 09

2 Millionpeople protested peacefully against the war in Iraq and no notice was taken of the population that bothered to protest.

The FSA and Gordon Brown stood idely by whilst the Banks destroyed the UK economy, putting millions out of work, and hundreds of thousands of families losing their homes. The whole nation is saddled with overwhelming debt as a result.

What do people really expect in these circumstances?

I haven't seen a policeman or vehicle at 5ways since 2008 until today then they turn up in their thousands. Why cant they partol locally and keep things under control on a daily basis.

Atleast the protesters are getting out there whilst most moan on the Argus site instead. And have the nerve to call protesters work shy....

I hope nobody was seriously hurt.

Henfield Hovite says...
11:48pm Mon 4 May 09

I cant help reminiscing back to those halcyon days when there were just a few thousand mods and rockers trashing brighton during the may bank holidays. aah happy days!!

kkj says...
1:03am Tue 5 May 09

bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities.

While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed.

So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally.

For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include
* The date of the procession.
* The time it will start.
* The proposed route.
* The name and the address of the organiser

The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday.

As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed.

The organiser commits an offence if:

* Notice was not given as required.
* The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice.

Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants.

In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets.

The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front.

With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'

MoreMikey says...
1:10am Tue 5 May 09

bibble, London (but visit Brighton regularly) says...
11:23pm Mon 4 May 09

It is people who DON'T protest who cause the loss of rights.

OK, run that by me again. If people organise protests, disrupt a city for an entire day, frighten children, damage property, assault bystanders and attack policemen, they actually preserve the right to do that, but if people are quiet and stay at home, they lose the right to protest peacefully?

You're out of your friggin' mind. You have it completely backwards. It's disgraceful behaviour like that "demonstrated" today that will lose people the right to protest anything.



MoreMikey says...
1:12am Tue 5 May 09

Henfield Hovite wrote:
I cant help reminiscing back to those halcyon days when there were just a few thousand mods and rockers trashing brighton during the may bank holidays. aah happy days!!
Those were the days, weren't they?

MoreMikey says...
1:14am Tue 5 May 09

Nothing more to say, really, but I wasn't going to let a security word like "drug-band" go to waste.

brightongrappler says...
1:31am Tue 5 May 09

hope the left wing scum enjoyed it because it will be the last time they have this in brighton - i guarantee that.

jay316 says...
1:35am Tue 5 May 09

Its amazing that none of the protestors who where on here, replied to my questions..

Very Odd indeed :) - Maybe they don't know the answers - lol

Abrightonian says...
1:38am Tue 5 May 09

Protest is a right we enjoy. What a shame that the people who sought violnece today didn't think of it that way.

One business that wasn't inconvenienced was EDO. Well done, Smash EDO. FAIL.

Abrightonian says...
1:42am Tue 5 May 09

And I really hope that The Argus highlight how Green party city councillors supported this destructive demo. Some even attended it, I understand.

jooj says...
3:05am Tue 5 May 09

So after Monday we can classify these two entities as:

EDO = Weapons Manufacturer.

Smash EDO = Terrorist group.


Which is worse?

jay316 says...
3:11am Tue 5 May 09

jooj wrote:
So after Monday we can classify these two entities as:

EDO = Weapons Manufacturer.

Smash EDO = Terrorist group.


Which is worse?
EDO makes parts, not whole weapons...

bobbob94 says...
8:00am Tue 5 May 09

For anyone confused about why places other than the EDO arms component factory were targeted, did you look at the Smash EDO website or see any publicity for the event? It was billed as a demonstration against war and greed, with the line Smash EDO, Smash Capitalism on the posters in large letters. So its not exactly suprising that Barclays Bank, McDonalds and an army recruitment center might be targeted by protestors. Its clearly not just a single issue campaign but has a wider anti-capitalist view of things...

oyl says...
8:20am Tue 5 May 09

bobbob94 wrote:
For anyone confused about why places other than the EDO arms component factory were targeted, did you look at the Smash EDO website or see any publicity for the event? It was billed as a demonstration against war and greed, with the line Smash EDO, Smash Capitalism on the posters in large letters. So its not exactly suprising that Barclays Bank, McDonalds and an army recruitment center might be targeted by protestors. Its clearly not just a single issue campaign but has a wider anti-capitalist view of things...
You should rename the campaign to SmashEverything .... grrrrr

Osama bin there says...
8:25am Tue 5 May 09

bobbob94 wrote:
For anyone confused about why places other than the EDO arms component factory were targeted, did you look at the Smash EDO website or see any publicity for the event? It was billed as a demonstration against war and greed, with the line Smash EDO, Smash Capitalism on the posters in large letters. So its not exactly suprising that Barclays Bank, McDonalds and an army recruitment center might be targeted by protestors. Its clearly not just a single issue campaign but has a wider anti-capitalist view of things...
So, if that's the case, can you explain to me why the pier was targeted and damaged?
Hardly a huge capitalist target, is it? Or is it the case now that ANY property can be attacked?


Jaspurs says...
8:30am Tue 5 May 09

The low life who were involved in this yesterday do not know the meaning of peace! They target EDO because of their small involvement in producing arms and they do so with aggression and violence! These protesters are low life, 'soap dodging' a*** holes who ruined a bank holiday in a seaside town that families and residents (LIKE ME!) should have been enjoying! SCUM!

oyl says...
8:46am Tue 5 May 09

This bunch have always enjoyed kicking off - that's what it's about. All the self admiration around the right to protest is transparently silly.

bibble says...
9:01am Tue 5 May 09

kkj wrote:
bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'
You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long.

The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand.

If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have.

So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong.

Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.

bibble says...
9:03am Tue 5 May 09

MoreMikey wrote:
bibble, London (but visit Brighton regularly) says... 11:23pm Mon 4 May 09 It is people who DON'T protest who cause the loss of rights. OK, run that by me again. If people organise protests, disrupt a city for an entire day, frighten children, damage property, assault bystanders and attack policemen, they actually preserve the right to do that, but if people are quiet and stay at home, they lose the right to protest peacefully? You're out of your friggin' mind. You have it completely backwards. It's disgraceful behaviour like that "demonstrated" today that will lose people the right to protest anything.
It is you who is deluded, chum. If you don't use and exercise your rights, you lose them.

People who sit and home and congratulate themselves for doing nothing are sheep.

bibble says...
9:05am Tue 5 May 09

Abrightonian wrote:
Protest is a right we enjoy. What a shame that the people who sought violnece today didn't think of it that way. One business that wasn't inconvenienced was EDO. Well done, Smash EDO. FAIL.
If you have ever watched a demonstration it would be clear to you that the police have often been the ones to seek violence. It is telling that the chief constable of Sussex warned his officers against bad behaviour, because nowadays members of the public are filming them when they get up to no good.

bibble says...
9:07am Tue 5 May 09

jooj wrote:
So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?
In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud?

It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations.

Which is worse? Idiots like you.

oyl says...
9:16am Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
jooj wrote:
So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?
In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud?

It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations.

Which is worse? Idiots like you.
They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?

bibble says...
9:22am Tue 5 May 09

oyl wrote:
bibble wrote:
jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?
In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?
It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise".

If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.

yoyoman says...
9:31am Tue 5 May 09

IT TOOK ME AGES TO GET HOME FROM WORK YESTERDAY.... i was unhappy...but when i found out is was the anti-war brigade making a serious point...then my delay of 45 min utes seemed worth it...
we need stronger unions , stronger members of unions and politicians with a back bone...

yoyoman says...
9:31am Tue 5 May 09

IT TOOK ME AGES TO GET HOME FROM WORK YESTERDAY.... i was unhappy...but when i found out is was the anti-war brigade making a serious point...then my delay of 45 min utes seemed worth it...
we need stronger unions , stronger members of unions and politicians with a back bone...

Osama bin there says...
9:33am Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
kkj wrote:
bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'
You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long.

The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand.

If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have.

So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong.

Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
If you don't like the laws in this country, use legitimate channels to change them, or better still go and live somewhere else.
I recommend China for freedom for the individual to do exactly as they please.
Do let us know how you get on with challenging the police over there, won't you?
The British police are the 'softest' police force in the whole of western Europe. No rubber bullets, no tear gas, no water cannon.
Count your blessings.


Osama bin there says...
9:41am Tue 5 May 09

yoyoman wrote:
IT TOOK ME AGES TO GET HOME FROM WORK YESTERDAY.... i was unhappy...but when i found out is was the anti-war brigade making a serious point...then my delay of 45 min utes seemed worth it...
we need stronger unions , stronger members of unions and politicians with a back bone...
But they weren't making any kind of a 'serious point'.
They were just being hooligans. That's why you were delayed.
Don't give them the dignity of calling them the 'anti-war brigade'.

yoyoman says...
9:43am Tue 5 May 09

Osama bin there wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'
You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
If you don't like the laws in this country, use legitimate channels to change them, or better still go and live somewhere else. I recommend China for freedom for the individual to do exactly as they please. Do let us know how you get on with challenging the police over there, won't you? The British police are the 'softest' police force in the whole of western Europe. No rubber bullets, no tear gas, no water cannon. Count your blessings.
KKJ
go to china if you dont like it...PATHETIC COMENT

our police are the softest...
The family of john charles de menezes and the family of garry reynolds do not think that our police are 'soft'..
THE POLICE SHOULD POLICE AND NOT CONFRONT..
ever since 1984 the police have been confrontational..i wonder why?
could it be something to do with the pinochet lover leader we had !!!

kkj says...
9:53am Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
kkj wrote:
bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'
You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long.

The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand.

If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have.

So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong.

Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
But bibble, these are not MY 'police-state arguments'. I suggest you re-read Article 11 again and again until you understand that the ECRH allows this.

Otherwise how do you explain the clause in Article 11 that states the law may restrict the right of protest "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"?

As for your statement that "the legal requirements... may well be illegal themselves.", have you any evidence to support this?

bibble says...
9:54am Tue 5 May 09

Osama bin there wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'
You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
If you don't like the laws in this country, use legitimate channels to change them, or better still go and live somewhere else. I recommend China for freedom for the individual to do exactly as they please. Do let us know how you get on with challenging the police over there, won't you? The British police are the 'softest' police force in the whole of western Europe. No rubber bullets, no tear gas, no water cannon. Count your blessings.
Oh dear. You just don't get it.

Firstly, changing the law in this country by "legitimate channels" is an ambiguous statement. Firstly, laws that restrict freedom are, in my view, illegitimate. They have been brought in by the sames types of people, whichever party they happen to be in. So changing laws is actually very difficult.

It's funny you should mention China, a country with an appalling record on freedom. Yet what you are really urging, what you are walking into, is bringing Chinese-style policing to this country.

That is not what I want. I want to see the shackles that have been on freedom in this country, usually at the behest of the police, removed. It is something you would benefit from too.

kkj says...
9:58am Tue 5 May 09

yoyoman wrote:
Osama bin there wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'
You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
If you don't like the laws in this country, use legitimate channels to change them, or better still go and live somewhere else. I recommend China for freedom for the individual to do exactly as they please. Do let us know how you get on with challenging the police over there, won't you? The British police are the 'softest' police force in the whole of western Europe. No rubber bullets, no tear gas, no water cannon. Count your blessings.
KKJ
go to china if you dont like it...PATHETIC COMENT

our police are the softest...
The family of john charles de menezes and the family of garry reynolds do not think that our police are 'soft'..
THE POLICE SHOULD POLICE AND NOT CONFRONT..
ever since 1984 the police have been confrontational..i wonder why?
could it be something to do with the pinochet lover leader we had !!!
yoyoman, I suggest you read the entry you are commenting on FULLY before you make the comment.


yoyoman says...
10:01am Tue 5 May 09

kkj wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'
You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
But bibble, these are not MY 'police-state arguments'. I suggest you re-read Article 11 again and again until you understand that the ECRH allows this. Otherwise how do you explain the clause in Article 11 that states the law may restrict the right of protest "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"? As for your statement that "the legal requirements... may well be illegal themselves.", have you any evidence to support this?
IT WILL TAKE ANOTHER PC BLAKELOCK INCIDENT before the police review there VIOLENT tactics...
why do the police hate us so much ?
thatcher turned our police against us and we wonder why we now live in a fear generation....and tory blair has just rubber stamped her beliefs..

bibble says...
10:01am Tue 5 May 09

kkj wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'
You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
But bibble, these are not MY 'police-state arguments'. I suggest you re-read Article 11 again and again until you understand that the ECRH allows this. Otherwise how do you explain the clause in Article 11 that states the law may restrict the right of protest "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"? As for your statement that "the legal requirements... may well be illegal themselves.", have you any evidence to support this?
But they ARE your police-state arguments. I have read the Charter a long time ago, and know exactly what you are referring to.

Recent case law has made it clear that the police do not have a free hand to restrict protest in any way they like. The limits they may go to must be reasonable, and they must still allow protest.

Your last paragraph - yes. Look up the case at the High Court last week. Five protestors were falsely arrested (and beaten up) at a demonstration three years ago. The police overstepped their authority to limit protest. Result: an £85,000 payout to the protestors.

oyl says...
10:04am Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
oyl wrote:
bibble wrote:
jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?
In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?
It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise".

If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.
• verb create and maintain a feeling of terror in (a person or area).

I expect the van driver who was hi-jacked trying to deliver something to Home Farm Road was fairly terrified. I've been called a murderer by some red eyed dribbling idiot who was so filled with rage and his own self loathing that he failed to notice that I'm nothing to do with EDO or the police. I wasn't terrified, as it happened which annoyed him even more. Terrorists don't all blow up vans in London.

kkj says...
10:11am Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
kkj wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'
You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
But bibble, these are not MY 'police-state arguments'. I suggest you re-read Article 11 again and again until you understand that the ECRH allows this. Otherwise how do you explain the clause in Article 11 that states the law may restrict the right of protest "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"? As for your statement that "the legal requirements... may well be illegal themselves.", have you any evidence to support this?
But they ARE your police-state arguments. I have read the Charter a long time ago, and know exactly what you are referring to.

Recent case law has made it clear that the police do not have a free hand to restrict protest in any way they like. The limits they may go to must be reasonable, and they must still allow protest.

Your last paragraph - yes. Look up the case at the High Court last week. Five protestors were falsely arrested (and beaten up) at a demonstration three years ago. The police overstepped their authority to limit protest. Result: an £85,000 payout to the protestors.
No-one is suggesting that they have a free hand to restict protest any way they like but is it not reasonable for the police to know the date, time and route of any procession? Is it not reasonable that they know who the organiser is?

I'll look up your high court case later, must go to work now.

bibble says...
10:16am Tue 5 May 09

kkj wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'
You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
But bibble, these are not MY 'police-state arguments'. I suggest you re-read Article 11 again and again until you understand that the ECRH allows this. Otherwise how do you explain the clause in Article 11 that states the law may restrict the right of protest "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"? As for your statement that "the legal requirements... may well be illegal themselves.", have you any evidence to support this?
But they ARE your police-state arguments. I have read the Charter a long time ago, and know exactly what you are referring to. Recent case law has made it clear that the police do not have a free hand to restrict protest in any way they like. The limits they may go to must be reasonable, and they must still allow protest. Your last paragraph - yes. Look up the case at the High Court last week. Five protestors were falsely arrested (and beaten up) at a demonstration three years ago. The police overstepped their authority to limit protest. Result: an £85,000 payout to the protestors.
No-one is suggesting that they have a free hand to restict protest any way they like but is it not reasonable for the police to know the date, time and route of any procession? Is it not reasonable that they know who the organiser is? I'll look up your high court case later, must go to work now.
Yes, in my view, it is absolutely unreasonable for the police to know the route of a protest or who the organisers are. Because that is surrendering the right to protest to a policeman.

We are often told that we have policing by consent in this country. If a protestor doesn't give his consent to being policed then there is nothing wrong with that.

Let's be clear here. The police have a thoroughly bad history of policing demonstrations. It is no wonder that protestors want nothing to do with them.

oyl says...
10:19am Tue 5 May 09

SmashEDO have a thoroughly bad history of inconveniencing the public with their demonstrations. Now what?

worthinglad says...
10:24am Tue 5 May 09

Smash EDO have tiny publoc support, even by their own estimates of 2,500 attending their peurile, doped up\ adolescent so called carnival is only 1% of the population of Brighton and Hove and believe me there were a fifth of that number at the event.

They or some of their sympatheic posters talk about the illegitimate state and the laws passed. The arrogance and stupidity of these people is beyond my belief. Who exactly appointed you, elected you nobody, you are self appointed. tHE Government for all its failings was elected after literally 10 of millions voted. You were a blight on Brighton yesterday, thank God you've now gone home to your squats to sign on or smoke some more weed.

Unfortunately the police in their misguided over reaction to the colleagues at g20 didn't use the full power of the law, only three arrested ludicrous.

worthinglad says...
10:24am Tue 5 May 09

Smash EDO have tiny publoc support, even by their own estimates of 2,500 attending their peurile, doped up\ adolescent so called carnival is only 1% of the population of Brighton and Hove and believe me there were a fifth of that number at the event.

They or some of their sympatheic posters talk about the illegitimate state and the laws passed. The arrogance and stupidity of these people is beyond my belief. Who exactly appointed you, elected you nobody, you are self appointed. tHE Government for all its failings was elected after literally 10 of millions voted. You were a blight on Brighton yesterday, thank God you've now gone home to your squats to sign on or smoke some more weed.

Unfortunately the police in their misguided over reaction to the colleagues at g20 didn't use the full power of the law, only three arrested ludicrous.

churchst says...
11:37am Tue 5 May 09

Acheron wrote:
OK, right, I've had my BBQ (in the rain) and now have my fat belly, so feel ready to return to the fray.

A couple of points really (though one has just been said).

First, ChurchSt, as Fightback has just said, the devices are Safe Release Mechanisms, not Release Mechanisms. There is a big difference as one is used to ensure that unused bombs can be safely disposed of and not cause further threat to life. I appreciate you are against the bombs per se, but it small word Safe is important and totally changes the impression of what EDO are making. I'll be generous and assume that you weren't fully aware of the correct term, rather than purposfully trying to mislead people by missing out the important word. (If you want to know the physics of why these devices are needed I'm happy to dig out a link for you).

Second point, Bibble, referring to your arguement about freedoms. I think you'll find that what is really considered in UK law under freedoms is that you are free to do whatever you like, including protest, which I have made clear I support as a right in previous posts, providing (and providing is the important word here) you do not infringe on anyone elses right. So yes you're allowed to protest but that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you like on that protest, as violence against person or property is infringing on someone elses right. (Of course if you genuinely believe that should not be the case, let us all know where in London you are and we'll protest outside your place and see whether you feel it is right for us to infringe on your 'rights'. I suspect you won't!)
Lets get this straight...

Firstly, EDO/ITT manufacture defense products for the military - this makes them a symbolic target whatever it is they produce for the global military market but...

...a more detailed look into their product line reveals:

1)Custom designed antennas for military platforms and satellites

2)Communications and Countermeasures Systems

3)Electronic warfare systems, radar systems, embedded systems, RF/Microwave products, air quality monitoring, nuclear detection, and manufacturing services.

4)Weapon interfacing (carriage and release)

5)Intelligence and Information Warfare

5)Warfare experimentation and analysis and engineering services

6)Undersea Warfare

...and the list goes on if you want to get into the mother company ITT.

They are without doubt a legitimate target for anti-war demonstrators.

So whether one of their products has a safe or non-safe release mechanism is pedantic and irrelevant.

I'll be generous and assume that you weren't fully aware of the EDO's place in the military market, rather than purposefully trying to mislead people by focusing on one product to the exclusion of the many others.





churchst says...
11:59am Tue 5 May 09

loopyblonde wrote:
What a shame that EDO don't use their weapon making capability's to blow up this bunch of scum bag wasters and make the world a more peaceful place without them. I respect peoples right to peacefully protest but this was anything but and by harming and scaring innocent bystanders they have as much blood on their hands as the company that they're protesting about.
So peace comes when you kill everyone who doesn't agree with you.

But, hold on, you respect the right to protest.

The protesters have blood on their hands? Did they kill someone?

Didn't you already kill the protesters with EDO's products? Don't you have blood on your hands?

As usual, incoherent and unintelligible.

churchst says...
12:22pm Tue 5 May 09

jay316 wrote:
As there now seems to be some actual protestors in here... can you answer these questions which nobody today has been able to.

If you protest was against EDO/MBM.. why was Brighton Pier involed along with several shops in the laines.

Is it not the case that no protestors went to the EDO/MBM site to protest (or there wasn't whilst my colleague was there).

If this protest was peaceful, why the need for paintbomb against shops that had no involvement in EDO/MBM.

Finally why the need (and I was there when items were being thrown), did the protestors feel the need to scare poor children half to death.. children who I don't think would have shares, or even work for EDO.

Comments please!!?
ok jay316 I'll answer...

1)The pier and the rest of Brighton was 'involved' in the protest today because the protest was held in Brighton town centre... it's not that complicated.

2) The EDO factory was not targeted, because, again, the venue for the protest was Brighton town centre.

3)Throwing red paint in a symbolic act - to make a point. Not 100% peaceful, but not exactly dangerous. Most of the 'painted' businesses do have a connection to EDO, do your homework.

4)When the police start controlling a march, stopping protesters going the direction they want to, the police start hitting people, the protesters instinctively react by throwing stuff at them.

Violence is always regrettable, but don't forget to look at who got violent first, was it the protester with his hands in the air, of the officer with his truncheon in the air?

If I saw a march like that coming towards me and my kids, I would walk away. There are plenty of other McDonalds around.


jooj says...
12:43pm Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
oyl wrote:
bibble wrote:
jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?
In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?
It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise".

If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.
dear oh dear, name calling? whatever next... a peaceful protest maybe?

I was losely using the Academic Consensus Definition:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought"


Perhaps you so called know it alls may go study yourselves, terrorism is a fairly loose term anyway.

Then explain which oxford dictionary definition the following fall under:

Why "Kill cops" was spray painted onto a phone box.

Why a bunch of hoodies jumped on the palace pier and started smashing it up.

Hitting a bystander with a projectile.

Destruction of public/private property.

etc.. as already mentioned.

Happy hunting if you find those next to "peaceful protest"

jay316 says...
12:57pm Tue 5 May 09

churchst wrote:
jay316 wrote:
As there now seems to be some actual protestors in here... can you answer these questions which nobody today has been able to.

If you protest was against EDO/MBM.. why was Brighton Pier involed along with several shops in the laines.

Is it not the case that no protestors went to the EDO/MBM site to protest (or there wasn't whilst my colleague was there).

If this protest was peaceful, why the need for paintbomb against shops that had no involvement in EDO/MBM.

Finally why the need (and I was there when items were being thrown), did the protestors feel the need to scare poor children half to death.. children who I don't think would have shares, or even work for EDO.

Comments please!!?
ok jay316 I'll answer...

1)The pier and the rest of Brighton was 'involved' in the protest today because the protest was held in Brighton town centre... it's not that complicated.

2) The EDO factory was not targeted, because, again, the venue for the protest was Brighton town centre.

3)Throwing red paint in a symbolic act - to make a point. Not 100% peaceful, but not exactly dangerous. Most of the 'painted' businesses do have a connection to EDO, do your homework.

4)When the police start controlling a march, stopping protesters going the direction they want to, the police start hitting people, the protesters instinctively react by throwing stuff at them.

Violence is always regrettable, but don't forget to look at who got violent first, was it the protester with his hands in the air, of the officer with his truncheon in the air?

If I saw a march like that coming towards me and my kids, I would walk away. There are plenty of other McDonalds around.

Thanks for your comments

Firstly we did our homework.. I was merely after comments from people involved in this alledged Protest.

1) So the protest was against Brighton as a whole, not really EDO/MBM.

2) The EDO/MBM factory was not targetted mainly because you wanted to cause chaos to 1000's of people, many of which probably would agree with your cause (or do until you caused them issues).

3) I understand, so willfully distruction of property is okay... Right thats fine.. I understand now. Several Cars (I would like proof that these were involved with EDO/MBM) and 3 shops that are run by citizens were damaged, including the one ar the pier.. I did note the word "MOST".. not "ALL". Which I believe proves my point that it was damage caused to property that isn't involved in EDO/MBM.

4) The police have a job to do, to protest law abiding citizens. If the organizers had informed the police of the route, I am sure they would have got more stewards etc on the ground to help with the march as they have in the past. The videos footage we have seen clearly shows some protestors (and I mean some) starting the issues in trafalgar street..

With regards to violence, if so for arguement sake somebody assualted you as you walked down the street, what would you do.?? Smack them back or call the police?

McD.. why should somebody change their plans for the day just to suit you... I for one wouldn't.. is it cause you people think you are BETTER than everyone else.

jay316 says...
1:01pm Tue 5 May 09

jooj wrote:
bibble wrote:
oyl wrote:
bibble wrote:
jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?
In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?
It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise".

If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.
dear oh dear, name calling? whatever next... a peaceful protest maybe?

I was losely using the Academic Consensus Definition:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought"


Perhaps you so called know it alls may go study yourselves, terrorism is a fairly loose term anyway.

Then explain which oxford dictionary definition the following fall under:

Why "Kill cops" was spray painted onto a phone box.

Why a bunch of hoodies jumped on the palace pier and started smashing it up.

Hitting a bystander with a projectile.

Destruction of public/private property.

etc.. as already mentioned.

Happy hunting if you find those next to "peaceful protest"
The phone box must have been made by EDO/MBM...

So far I have seen no valid arguements from Protestors.

The only real reply clearly stated "Brighton was the target not EDO" and "MOST not ALL" property damage was cause they are involved in EDO"...

Richard Eastes says...
1:14pm Tue 5 May 09

Which caused the most disruption to Brighton; The Anti-Militarist Demo (attended by supposed anarchists and the like) or the Children's Parade (attended by my 5 year old son and his friends)?

It EDO demo was a poorly attended and organised shambles which achieved nothing!

jay316 says...
1:21pm Tue 5 May 09

The childrens parade had 100's of secuirty/stewards and very few police (actually I think they were all CSO's).

The roads were closed for 3 hour at the most, all off which were known about at least 2 weeks in advance, as all buses were successfully diverted, as was traffic.

Childrens Parade had no paint being thrown, people climbing on roofs on the pier. People having items thrown at them etc.

So its not a fair comparison

Osama bin there says...
2:34pm Tue 5 May 09

Forget every single other argument. Let's just focus one one thing only.
Before yesterday Smash EDO would have had some support within the local community, that is without doubt.
After yesterday's childish, juvenile and wanton destruction of private property, there is no doubt at all that they have considerably less support.
So how does that make yesterday's demo a success?

jay316 says...
2:40pm Tue 5 May 09

Osama bin there wrote:
Forget every single other argument. Let's just focus one one thing only.
Before yesterday Smash EDO would have had some support within the local community, that is without doubt.
After yesterday's childish, juvenile and wanton destruction of private property, there is no doubt at all that they have considerably less support.
So how does that make yesterday's demo a success?
As I said they seem to think they were in the right and that the police were the ones in the wrong.. of course thats always the case with Criminals :P

ipaymytaxes says...
3:25pm Tue 5 May 09

Although the peaceful protestors may have had a valid argument and most certainly have the right to free speech, the remainder of the campaigners used yesterday to cause damage, chaos and violence and are no more than criminals who cover their faces to avoid being identified. Those of you law abiding citizens should ignore the comments of biddle and churchst who a) quite clearly agree with breaking the law and endangering & disrupting the lives of innocent people and businesses and b)who are getting far to much attention.

bibble says...
3:27pm Tue 5 May 09

jooj wrote:
bibble wrote:
oyl wrote:
bibble wrote:
jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?
In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?
It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise". If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.
dear oh dear, name calling? whatever next... a peaceful protest maybe? I was losely using the Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" Perhaps you so called know it alls may go study yourselves, terrorism is a fairly loose term anyway. Then explain which oxford dictionary definition the following fall under: Why "Kill cops" was spray painted onto a phone box. Why a bunch of hoodies jumped on the palace pier and started smashing it up. Hitting a bystander with a projectile. Destruction of public/private property. etc.. as already mentioned. Happy hunting if you find those next to "peaceful protest"
I would describe the police action in which Jean Charles de Menezes was murdered as terrorism. It struck considerable fear into the bystanders.

bibble says...
3:29pm Tue 5 May 09

jay316 wrote:
jooj wrote:
bibble wrote:
oyl wrote:
bibble wrote:
jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?
In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?
It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise". If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.
dear oh dear, name calling? whatever next... a peaceful protest maybe? I was losely using the Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" Perhaps you so called know it alls may go study yourselves, terrorism is a fairly loose term anyway. Then explain which oxford dictionary definition the following fall under: Why "Kill cops" was spray painted onto a phone box. Why a bunch of hoodies jumped on the palace pier and started smashing it up. Hitting a bystander with a projectile. Destruction of public/private property. etc.. as already mentioned. Happy hunting if you find those next to "peaceful protest"
The phone box must have been made by EDO/MBM... So far I have seen no valid arguements from Protestors. The only real reply clearly stated "Brighton was the target not EDO" and "MOST not ALL" property damage was cause they are involved in EDO"...
I wouldn't be surprised if it was a policeman who sprayed the telephone box. It wouldn't be the first time that they have conducted false-flag operations to make protestors look bad.

Osama bin there says...
3:31pm Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
jooj wrote: bibble wrote: oyl wrote: bibble wrote: jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?In what way are Smash EDO a Try answering the question for once.

jay316 says...
3:34pm Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
jooj wrote:
bibble wrote:
oyl wrote:
bibble wrote:
jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?
In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?
It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise". If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.
dear oh dear, name calling? whatever next... a peaceful protest maybe? I was losely using the Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" Perhaps you so called know it alls may go study yourselves, terrorism is a fairly loose term anyway. Then explain which oxford dictionary definition the following fall under: Why "Kill cops" was spray painted onto a phone box. Why a bunch of hoodies jumped on the palace pier and started smashing it up. Hitting a bystander with a projectile. Destruction of public/private property. etc.. as already mentioned. Happy hunting if you find those next to "peaceful protest"
The phone box must have been made by EDO/MBM... So far I have seen no valid arguements from Protestors. The only real reply clearly stated "Brighton was the target not EDO" and "MOST not ALL" property damage was cause they are involved in EDO"...
I wouldn't be surprised if it was a policeman who sprayed the telephone box. It wouldn't be the first time that they have conducted false-flag operations to make protestors look bad.
Really I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier....

Oh yeah that right the police put all the protestors on the roof to make the protestors look bad...

The police forced a protestor to throw a missle that hit a by stander....

The police rocked their own van and let down tires..

All of which was filmed.

So I would guess that you are talking a lot of what one could only call "Bull ****" or are indeed one of the protestors (not a bystander as you allegdedly claimed)

bibble says...
3:37pm Tue 5 May 09

ipaymytaxes wrote:
Although the peaceful protestors may have had a valid argument and most certainly have the right to free speech, the remainder of the campaigners used yesterday to cause damage, chaos and violence and are no more than criminals who cover their faces to avoid being identified. Those of you law abiding citizens should ignore the comments of biddle and churchst who a) quite clearly agree with breaking the law and endangering &amp; disrupting the lives of innocent people and businesses and b)who are getting far to much attention.
Protestors hide their faces for very good reasons - the police gather "intelligence" on law-abiding people. You must have read how, a couple of weeks ago but also further back, they tried to bribe somebody inside a protest group to provide them with information. The police have stepped beyond law enforcement into the realm of political policing. That is wrong and should be resisted by any necessary measures by the public.

Please note that the police also often cover their faces at demonstrations. Are they too doing that to "aovid being identified"?

I pay my taxes too. Don't imagine that doing so provides you with greater rights than somebody else.

Where were lives endangered yesterday? What about the safe bomb release equipment that EDO makes? Does not that endanger lives?

jay316 says...
3:39pm Tue 5 May 09

ipaymytaxes wrote:
Although the peaceful protestors may have had a valid argument and most certainly have the right to free speech, the remainder of the campaigners used yesterday to cause damage, chaos and violence and are no more than criminals who cover their faces to avoid being identified. Those of you law abiding citizens should ignore the comments of biddle and churchst who a) quite clearly agree with breaking the law and endangering &amp; disrupting the lives of innocent people and businesses and b)who are getting far to much attention.
It would have made more sense to pull the police out and let the lawful citizens of brighton deal with these thugs.. We used to in the 1970's :)


ipaymytaxes says...
3:39pm Tue 5 May 09

jay316 wrote:
bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
jooj wrote:
bibble wrote:
oyl wrote:
bibble wrote:
jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?
In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?
It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise". If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.
dear oh dear, name calling? whatever next... a peaceful protest maybe? I was losely using the Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" Perhaps you so called know it alls may go study yourselves, terrorism is a fairly loose term anyway. Then explain which oxford dictionary definition the following fall under: Why "Kill cops" was spray painted onto a phone box. Why a bunch of hoodies jumped on the palace pier and started smashing it up. Hitting a bystander with a projectile. Destruction of public/private property. etc.. as already mentioned. Happy hunting if you find those next to "peaceful protest"
The phone box must have been made by EDO/MBM... So far I have seen no valid arguements from Protestors. The only real reply clearly stated "Brighton was the target not EDO" and "MOST not ALL" property damage was cause they are involved in EDO"...
I wouldn't be surprised if it was a policeman who sprayed the telephone box. It wouldn't be the first time that they have conducted false-flag operations to make protestors look bad.
Really I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier.... Oh yeah that right the police put all the protestors on the roof to make the protestors look bad... The police forced a protestor to throw a missle that hit a by stander.... The police rocked their own van and let down tires.. All of which was filmed. So I would guess that you are talking a lot of what one could only call "Bull ****" or are indeed one of the protestors (not a bystander as you allegdedly claimed)
Great response Jay316, could not have said it better myself!

south_coast says...
3:39pm Tue 5 May 09

Some of the protestor were quite obviously out to cause trouble and nothing else. Why else would they be wearing face scarfs and mask if they were going to have a peaceful demonstration. The ones starting the trouble would no doubt have been amongst the first people to go crying to the press when the police used force.

They lost a lot of public support yesterday and only have themselves to blame.

south_coast says...
3:39pm Tue 5 May 09

Some of the protestor were quite obviously out to cause trouble and nothing else. Why else would they be wearing face scarfs and mask if they were going to have a peaceful demonstration. The ones starting the trouble would no doubt have been amongst the first people to go crying to the press when the police used force.

They lost a lot of public support yesterday and only have themselves to blame.

bibble says...
3:40pm Tue 5 May 09

jay316 wrote:
bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
jooj wrote:
bibble wrote:
oyl wrote:
bibble wrote:
jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?
In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?
It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise". If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.
dear oh dear, name calling? whatever next... a peaceful protest maybe? I was losely using the Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" Perhaps you so called know it alls may go study yourselves, terrorism is a fairly loose term anyway. Then explain which oxford dictionary definition the following fall under: Why "Kill cops" was spray painted onto a phone box. Why a bunch of hoodies jumped on the palace pier and started smashing it up. Hitting a bystander with a projectile. Destruction of public/private property. etc.. as already mentioned. Happy hunting if you find those next to "peaceful protest"
The phone box must have been made by EDO/MBM... So far I have seen no valid arguements from Protestors. The only real reply clearly stated "Brighton was the target not EDO" and "MOST not ALL" property damage was cause they are involved in EDO"...
I wouldn't be surprised if it was a policeman who sprayed the telephone box. It wouldn't be the first time that they have conducted false-flag operations to make protestors look bad.
Really I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier.... Oh yeah that right the police put all the protestors on the roof to make the protestors look bad... The police forced a protestor to throw a missle that hit a by stander.... The police rocked their own van and let down tires.. All of which was filmed. So I would guess that you are talking a lot of what one could only call "Bull ****" or are indeed one of the protestors (not a bystander as you allegdedly claimed)
Perhaps you didn't see any policemen IN UNIFORM on the pier. They have been known to wear plain clothes from time to time...

And the police have also been known to act as agent provocateurs, egging people on.

It's obvious that you have a closed mind, and think that anything the police do is fine. Too bad. One day perhaps you will learn.

jay316 says...
3:42pm Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
ipaymytaxes wrote:
Although the peaceful protestors may have had a valid argument and most certainly have the right to free speech, the remainder of the campaigners used yesterday to cause damage, chaos and violence and are no more than criminals who cover their faces to avoid being identified. Those of you law abiding citizens should ignore the comments of biddle and churchst who a) quite clearly agree with breaking the law and endangering &amp; disrupting the lives of innocent people and businesses and b)who are getting far to much attention.
Protestors hide their faces for very good reasons - the police gather "intelligence" on law-abiding people. You must have read how, a couple of weeks ago but also further back, they tried to bribe somebody inside a protest group to provide them with information. The police have stepped beyond law enforcement into the realm of political policing. That is wrong and should be resisted by any necessary measures by the public.

Please note that the police also often cover their faces at demonstrations. Are they too doing that to "aovid being identified"?

I pay my taxes too. Don't imagine that doing so provides you with greater rights than somebody else.

Where were lives endangered yesterday? What about the safe bomb release equipment that EDO makes? Does not that endanger lives?
The release equipment on its own does not endanger anyones lives, as its only a part.

Did anyone protest against, RS or Farnell or even maplins all of which supply parts (such as caps, resisters etc) that are used in such equipment.

Nope they didn't.. simply because this whole alledged protest, much like the standstead incident, was to cause distruption.. nothing more nothing less.

bibble says...
3:46pm Tue 5 May 09

jay316 wrote:
bibble wrote:
ipaymytaxes wrote: Although the peaceful protestors may have had a valid argument and most certainly have the right to free speech, the remainder of the campaigners used yesterday to cause damage, chaos and violence and are no more than criminals who cover their faces to avoid being identified. Those of you law abiding citizens should ignore the comments of biddle and churchst who a) quite clearly agree with breaking the law and endangering &amp; disrupting the lives of innocent people and businesses and b)who are getting far to much attention.
Protestors hide their faces for very good reasons - the police gather "intelligence" on law-abiding people. You must have read how, a couple of weeks ago but also further back, they tried to bribe somebody inside a protest group to provide them with information. The police have stepped beyond law enforcement into the realm of political policing. That is wrong and should be resisted by any necessary measures by the public. Please note that the police also often cover their faces at demonstrations. Are they too doing that to "aovid being identified"? I pay my taxes too. Don't imagine that doing so provides you with greater rights than somebody else. Where were lives endangered yesterday? What about the safe bomb release equipment that EDO makes? Does not that endanger lives?
The release equipment on its own does not endanger anyones lives, as its only a part. Did anyone protest against, RS or Farnell or even maplins all of which supply parts (such as caps, resisters etc) that are used in such equipment. Nope they didn't.. simply because this whole alledged protest, much like the standstead incident, was to cause distruption.. nothing more nothing less.
Bomb release equipment has only one purpose - to release bombs.

How blinkered you are.

jay316 says...
3:50pm Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
jooj wrote:
bibble wrote:
oyl wrote:
bibble wrote:
jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?
In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?
It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise". If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.
dear oh dear, name calling? whatever next... a peaceful protest maybe? I was losely using the Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" Perhaps you so called know it alls may go study yourselves, terrorism is a fairly loose term anyway. Then explain which oxford dictionary definition the following fall under: Why "Kill cops" was spray painted onto a phone box. Why a bunch of hoodies jumped on the palace pier and started smashing it up. Hitting a bystander with a projectile. Destruction of public/private property. etc.. as already mentioned. Happy hunting if you find those next to "peaceful protest"
The phone box must have been made by EDO/MBM... So far I have seen no valid arguements from Protestors. The only real reply clearly stated "Brighton was the target not EDO" and "MOST not ALL" property damage was cause they are involved in EDO"...
I wouldn't be surprised if it was a policeman who sprayed the telephone box. It wouldn't be the first time that they have conducted false-flag operations to make protestors look bad.
Really I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier.... Oh yeah that right the police put all the protestors on the roof to make the protestors look bad... The police forced a protestor to throw a missle that hit a by stander.... The police rocked their own van and let down tires.. All of which was filmed. So I would guess that you are talking a lot of what one could only call "Bull ****" or are indeed one of the protestors (not a bystander as you allegdedly claimed)
Perhaps you didn't see any policemen IN UNIFORM on the pier. They have been known to wear plain clothes from time to time...

And the police have also been known to act as agent provocateurs, egging people on.

It's obvious that you have a closed mind, and think that anything the police do is fine. Too bad. One day perhaps you will learn.
It may help your case if you correctly read what people are saying. Where did I say I didn't see any police at the pier.

I said and I quote "I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier", not I didnt see any police.

I also never said at any time that the police were in the right or wrong, or for that matter that they egg or do not egg people on.

I was merely stating that the protestors always seem to thing they did right even if they break the law, and then wine like babies if they get arrested for such offenses.. And you need to remember that there are the rent a mob people who are there to cause problems be it as part of the offical protest or merely for their own needs.

One point I will stress is I don't find it clever to stop a person filming in the street, which happened twice yesterday.. Anyone is allowed to record anything in a public place.. but as this recording may have caught a protestor doing something wrong they get **** with the camera person. FACT!!

I don't have a closed mind, and there are good and bad in every industry. There are good and bad in protestors.. even though they all think they are squicky clean.


jay316 says...
3:54pm Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
bibble wrote:
ipaymytaxes wrote: Although the peaceful protestors may have had a valid argument and most certainly have the right to free speech, the remainder of the campaigners used yesterday to cause damage, chaos and violence and are no more than criminals who cover their faces to avoid being identified. Those of you law abiding citizens should ignore the comments of biddle and churchst who a) quite clearly agree with breaking the law and endangering &amp; disrupting the lives of innocent people and businesses and b)who are getting far to much attention.
Protestors hide their faces for very good reasons - the police gather "intelligence" on law-abiding people. You must have read how, a couple of weeks ago but also further back, they tried to bribe somebody inside a protest group to provide them with information. The police have stepped beyond law enforcement into the realm of political policing. That is wrong and should be resisted by any necessary measures by the public. Please note that the police also often cover their faces at demonstrations. Are they too doing that to "aovid being identified"? I pay my taxes too. Don't imagine that doing so provides you with greater rights than somebody else. Where were lives endangered yesterday? What about the safe bomb release equipment that EDO makes? Does not that endanger lives?
The release equipment on its own does not endanger anyones lives, as its only a part. Did anyone protest against, RS or Farnell or even maplins all of which supply parts (such as caps, resisters etc) that are used in such equipment. Nope they didn't.. simply because this whole alledged protest, much like the standstead incident, was to cause distruption.. nothing more nothing less.
Bomb release equipment has only one purpose - to release bombs.

How blinkered you are.
I know what it does..

It on its own doesn't do anything (same as the components that are used to make this item). It only does what it is designed to do, once its utilised along with other components that make the final product.

Same as a capactor/resistor does nothing until its either conneced to a wire or put in a PCB.... Its a component.

jay316 says...
4:00pm Tue 5 May 09

south_coast wrote:
Some of the protestor were quite obviously out to cause trouble and nothing else. Why else would they be wearing face scarfs and mask if they were going to have a peaceful demonstration. The ones starting the trouble would no doubt have been amongst the first people to go crying to the press when the police used force.

They lost a lot of public support yesterday and only have themselves to blame.
That is the case.. as many people who were bystanders Witnessed. But not according to the official sources from the alledged protestors.

Its the old saying isn't.. you get pulled by the police for speeding.. You saying "F****ing police", you get caught with illegal drugs, you say "f*****ing police", you get robbed and you say "can somebody call the F&&&&&ing police".

If you try and video a protest, they try and block you.. because they don't want anyone film their illegal activities.. As that would make them look bad..

bibble says...
4:00pm Tue 5 May 09

jay316 wrote:
bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
jooj wrote:
bibble wrote:
oyl wrote:
bibble wrote:
jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?
In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?
It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise". If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.
dear oh dear, name calling? whatever next... a peaceful protest maybe? I was losely using the Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" Perhaps you so called know it alls may go study yourselves, terrorism is a fairly loose term anyway. Then explain which oxford dictionary definition the following fall under: Why "Kill cops" was spray painted onto a phone box. Why a bunch of hoodies jumped on the palace pier and started smashing it up. Hitting a bystander with a projectile. Destruction of public/private property. etc.. as already mentioned. Happy hunting if you find those next to "peaceful protest"
The phone box must have been made by EDO/MBM... So far I have seen no valid arguements from Protestors. The only real reply clearly stated "Brighton was the target not EDO" and "MOST not ALL" property damage was cause they are involved in EDO"...
I wouldn't be surprised if it was a policeman who sprayed the telephone box. It wouldn't be the first time that they have conducted false-flag operations to make protestors look bad.
Really I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier.... Oh yeah that right the police put all the protestors on the roof to make the protestors look bad... The police forced a protestor to throw a missle that hit a by stander.... The police rocked their own van and let down tires.. All of which was filmed. So I would guess that you are talking a lot of what one could only call "Bull ****" or are indeed one of the protestors (not a bystander as you allegdedly claimed)
Perhaps you didn't see any policemen IN UNIFORM on the pier. They have been known to wear plain clothes from time to time... And the police have also been known to act as agent provocateurs, egging people on. It's obvious that you have a closed mind, and think that anything the police do is fine. Too bad. One day perhaps you will learn.
It may help your case if you correctly read what people are saying. Where did I say I didn't see any police at the pier. I said and I quote "I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier", not I didnt see any police. I also never said at any time that the police were in the right or wrong, or for that matter that they egg or do not egg people on. I was merely stating that the protestors always seem to thing they did right even if they break the law, and then wine like babies if they get arrested for such offenses.. And you need to remember that there are the rent a mob people who are there to cause problems be it as part of the offical protest or merely for their own needs. One point I will stress is I don't find it clever to stop a person filming in the street, which happened twice yesterday.. Anyone is allowed to record anything in a public place.. but as this recording may have caught a protestor doing something wrong they get **** with the camera person. FACT!! I don't have a closed mind, and there are good and bad in every industry. There are good and bad in protestors.. even though they all think they are squicky clean.
"Where did I say I didn't see any police at the pier"?

Your previous comment: "I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier...."

You are mistaken about filming in a public place now. Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act amended a previous Terrorim Act. It is an offence to take a photograph of a policeman. It has strict liability, i.e. the taking of the photograph is the offence. There is a statutory defence if the photographer can PROVE they have a reasonable excuse.

ANYONE who took photographs of the police yesterday has, according to the act, committed an offence. The fact that the police were in a public place is entirely irrelevant - the act makes no special allowance for that.

Unless, of course, you are referring to the police taking photographs. It doesn't, perhaps, cross your mind that it's wrong to elevate the police above ordinary members of the public in this way.

bibble says...
4:04pm Tue 5 May 09

Look at the main page of The Argus web site. Is that the face of a friendly policeman? Does that not strike fear into you?

jay316 says...
4:09pm Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
jooj wrote:
bibble wrote:
oyl wrote:
bibble wrote:
jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?
In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?
It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise". If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.
dear oh dear, name calling? whatever next... a peaceful protest maybe? I was losely using the Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" Perhaps you so called know it alls may go study yourselves, terrorism is a fairly loose term anyway. Then explain which oxford dictionary definition the following fall under: Why "Kill cops" was spray painted onto a phone box. Why a bunch of hoodies jumped on the palace pier and started smashing it up. Hitting a bystander with a projectile. Destruction of public/private property. etc.. as already mentioned. Happy hunting if you find those next to "peaceful protest"
The phone box must have been made by EDO/MBM... So far I have seen no valid arguements from Protestors. The only real reply clearly stated "Brighton was the target not EDO" and "MOST not ALL" property damage was cause they are involved in EDO"...
I wouldn't be surprised if it was a policeman who sprayed the telephone box. It wouldn't be the first time that they have conducted false-flag operations to make protestors look bad.
Really I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier.... Oh yeah that right the police put all the protestors on the roof to make the protestors look bad... The police forced a protestor to throw a missle that hit a by stander.... The police rocked their own van and let down tires.. All of which was filmed. So I would guess that you are talking a lot of what one could only call "Bull ****" or are indeed one of the protestors (not a bystander as you allegdedly claimed)
Perhaps you didn't see any policemen IN UNIFORM on the pier. They have been known to wear plain clothes from time to time... And the police have also been known to act as agent provocateurs, egging people on. It's obvious that you have a closed mind, and think that anything the police do is fine. Too bad. One day perhaps you will learn.
It may help your case if you correctly read what people are saying. Where did I say I didn't see any police at the pier. I said and I quote "I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier", not I didnt see any police. I also never said at any time that the police were in the right or wrong, or for that matter that they egg or do not egg people on. I was merely stating that the protestors always seem to thing they did right even if they break the law, and then wine like babies if they get arrested for such offenses.. And you need to remember that there are the rent a mob people who are there to cause problems be it as part of the offical protest or merely for their own needs. One point I will stress is I don't find it clever to stop a person filming in the street, which happened twice yesterday.. Anyone is allowed to record anything in a public place.. but as this recording may have caught a protestor doing something wrong they get **** with the camera person. FACT!! I don't have a closed mind, and there are good and bad in every industry. There are good and bad in protestors.. even though they all think they are squicky clean.
"Where did I say I didn't see any police at the pier"?

Your previous comment: "I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier...."

You are mistaken about filming in a public place now. Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act amended a previous Terrorim Act. It is an offence to take a photograph of a policeman. It has strict liability, i.e. the taking of the photograph is the offence. There is a statutory defence if the photographer can PROVE they have a reasonable excuse.

ANYONE who took photographs of the police yesterday has, according to the act, committed an offence. The fact that the police were in a public place is entirely irrelevant - the act makes no special allowance for that.

Unless, of course, you are referring to the police taking photographs. It doesn't, perhaps, cross your mind that it's wrong to elevate the police above ordinary members of the public in this way.
READ CAREFULLY... "any police on the roof of the pier.. "..

NOT AT THE PIER..

Its a different sentance.

....

You don't need legislation to ask someone a question. The police, police by consent, after all.

They can do a S.44 search, assuming that it is in force in the area in which the filming is being done. You obviously don't need a reason. . .

However, if your normal response is to quote Terror legislation at people and then search them as a matter of course then I am sure you would be making some piece of vermin in The Daily Toilet Paper press offices smile because they would have another anti-police story. That experience would probably also alienate a MOP for the rest of their lives.

Nonetheless, if there is intel for a particular area and someone does not answer questions satisfactorily as to why they are photographing I can see why a search might be considered. But I am not sure that I would be challenging people taking pictures anyway. A terrorist is hardly going to stand there that blatantly and take pictures of buildings. There are many more subtle ways to do that.

jay316 says...
4:14pm Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
Look at the main page of The Argus web site. Is that the face of a friendly policeman? Does that not strike fear into you?
Not unless I was standing right in front of him..

A photo as such can't really be used to tell the story of the situation there. I could take a photo of anyone and make it look bad.. The same works both ways.

Needless to say I would expect photos like that from the Argus, they are know for their "We love dossers" attitude, bit like Fox News ... (All Alledgedly so).

bibble says...
4:20pm Tue 5 May 09

jay316 wrote:
bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
jooj wrote:
bibble wrote:
oyl wrote:
bibble wrote:
jooj wrote: So after Monday we can classify these two entities as: EDO = Weapons Manufacturer. Smash EDO = Terrorist group. Which is worse?
In what way are Smash EDO a "terrorist group", for crying out loud? It is inflamatory talk, such as yours, that causes a lot of problems for legitimate demonstrations. Which is worse? Idiots like you.
They regularly terrorise the public. Haven't you noticed?
It depends on what you mean by "terrorise". You need to get a better dictionary, I suggest the Oxford series. Perhaps you are relying on the "Police Dictionary"; it probably defines "terrorist" as "people (sometimes scruffy) making a noise". If you equate a bit of noise with Tube bombings you are revealing just how ridiculous your argument is.
dear oh dear, name calling? whatever next... a peaceful protest maybe? I was losely using the Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" Perhaps you so called know it alls may go study yourselves, terrorism is a fairly loose term anyway. Then explain which oxford dictionary definition the following fall under: Why "Kill cops" was spray painted onto a phone box. Why a bunch of hoodies jumped on the palace pier and started smashing it up. Hitting a bystander with a projectile. Destruction of public/private property. etc.. as already mentioned. Happy hunting if you find those next to "peaceful protest"
The phone box must have been made by EDO/MBM... So far I have seen no valid arguements from Protestors. The only real reply clearly stated "Brighton was the target not EDO" and "MOST not ALL" property damage was cause they are involved in EDO"...
I wouldn't be surprised if it was a policeman who sprayed the telephone box. It wouldn't be the first time that they have conducted false-flag operations to make protestors look bad.
Really I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier.... Oh yeah that right the police put all the protestors on the roof to make the protestors look bad... The police forced a protestor to throw a missle that hit a by stander.... The police rocked their own van and let down tires.. All of which was filmed. So I would guess that you are talking a lot of what one could only call "Bull ****" or are indeed one of the protestors (not a bystander as you allegdedly claimed)
Perhaps you didn't see any policemen IN UNIFORM on the pier. They have been known to wear plain clothes from time to time... And the police have also been known to act as agent provocateurs, egging people on. It's obvious that you have a closed mind, and think that anything the police do is fine. Too bad. One day perhaps you will learn.
It may help your case if you correctly read what people are saying. Where did I say I didn't see any police at the pier. I said and I quote "I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier", not I didnt see any police. I also never said at any time that the police were in the right or wrong, or for that matter that they egg or do not egg people on. I was merely stating that the protestors always seem to thing they did right even if they break the law, and then wine like babies if they get arrested for such offenses.. And you need to remember that there are the rent a mob people who are there to cause problems be it as part of the offical protest or merely for their own needs. One point I will stress is I don't find it clever to stop a person filming in the street, which happened twice yesterday.. Anyone is allowed to record anything in a public place.. but as this recording may have caught a protestor doing something wrong they get **** with the camera person. FACT!! I don't have a closed mind, and there are good and bad in every industry. There are good and bad in protestors.. even though they all think they are squicky clean.
"Where did I say I didn't see any police at the pier"? Your previous comment: "I didn't see any police on the roof of the Pier...." You are mistaken about filming in a public place now. Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act amended a previous Terrorim Act. It is an offence to take a photograph of a policeman. It has strict liability, i.e. the taking of the photograph is the offence. There is a statutory defence if the photographer can PROVE they have a reasonable excuse. ANYONE who took photographs of the police yesterday has, according to the act, committed an offence. The fact that the police were in a public place is entirely irrelevant - the act makes no special allowance for that. Unless, of course, you are referring to the police taking photographs. It doesn't, perhaps, cross your mind that it's wrong to elevate the police above ordinary members of the public in this way.
READ CAREFULLY... "any police on the roof of the pier.. ".. NOT AT THE PIER.. Its a different sentance. .... You don't need legislation to ask someone a question. The police, police by consent, after all. They can do a S.44 search, assuming that it is in force in the area in which the filming is being done. You obviously don't need a reason. . . However, if your normal response is to quote Terror legislation at people and then search them as a matter of course then I am sure you would be making some piece of vermin in The Daily Toilet Paper press offices smile because they would have another anti-police story. That experience would probably also alienate a MOP for the rest of their lives. Nonetheless, if there is intel for a particular area and someone does not answer questions satisfactorily as to why they are photographing I can see why a search might be considered. But I am not sure that I would be challenging people taking pictures anyway. A terrorist is hardly going to stand there that blatantly and take pictures of buildings. There are many more subtle ways to do that.
You're trying to dig yourself out of a hole of your own making. I doubt many people would accept that being on the roof of the pier is not also being at the pier. If I am on the concourse at Brighton Station am I also not at the station?

We do NOT have policing by consent in this country. It is a myth.

I have never been asked for my consent to be policed, nor have you.

Instead, what we get is an arrogant person who thinks that wearing a blue uniform gives them unfettered authority over us. If a policeman stops you for any reason and you say "you do not have my consent to stop me" he will laugh at you, and quickly follow up with some violence no doubt.

I do wish the police would stop referring to their information as "intelligence". Intelligence is used against an enemy or in war, and should not be used against the public. The police have adopted sinister methods to control the population, and more and more people are waking up to that.

It doesn't matter what YOUR definition of a terrorist or terrorist act is, all that counts is the Act of parliament. So much for consent...

loopyblonde says...
4:36pm Tue 5 May 09

Ommakeyas wrote:
I was a peacefull demonstarter at this event today, after i was told i was threatening fellow police (which is not in my nature) i was thrown to the ground by an officer (who was not showing his numbers)after having my hands up and shouting for him to stop. I was nearly trampled by backing riot police, i was not offered any medical support by police medics, although protesters who saw this attack offered what they could to help, i have sustained a few minor injuries and after this, i feel as though i cannot trust any officer again.
Can you honestly say that you were just standing in the street making no noise or actions that may be construed as agressive and a Policeman attacked you completely unprovoked?

I'm sorry but, if you know that you're attending a protest with a history of violence then surely you are aware that their is a risk to your personal safety?

south_coast says...
4:36pm Tue 5 May 09

"If a policeman stops you for any reason and you say "you do not have my consent to stop me" he will laugh at you, and quickly follow up with some violence no doubt."

Nothing like a sweeping statement is there!

I would not have a problem with Police stopping me for any reason. The people that seem to have the problem with it are often those with someone to hide.

I'm sorry but any trouble that you had with the police yesterday was brought on by yourselves.

I think you'll find that very few people have any sympathy for those involved yesterday.

jay316 says...
4:37pm Tue 5 May 09

I am not dig out of any hole..

There may well have been police on the pier itself, that isn't the roof.. the cafe is outside the pier on the main road if my memory serves me right.. and is outside pier property (you can see the line on the pavement).

We vote in the govenment (I presume), who employ civil servents (be it police, tax man etc.).. as such we have given the government to act on our behalf.

You seem to be a police hater.. lets just hope one day you don't need their help.

With regards to the concent as I said "we vote in the govenment (even if you didn't vote directly for them) so that is our concent"

jay316 says...
4:41pm Tue 5 May 09

loopyblonde wrote:
Ommakeyas wrote:
I was a peacefull demonstarter at this event today, after i was told i was threatening fellow police (which is not in my nature) i was thrown to the ground by an officer (who was not showing his numbers)after having my hands up and shouting for him to stop. I was nearly trampled by backing riot police, i was not offered any medical support by police medics, although protesters who saw this attack offered what they could to help, i have sustained a few minor injuries and after this, i feel as though i cannot trust any officer again.
Can you honestly say that you were just standing in the street making no noise or actions that may be construed as agressive and a Policeman attacked you completely unprovoked?

I'm sorry but, if you know that you're attending a protest with a history of violence then surely you are aware that their is a risk to your personal safety?
Indeed.. why should the police put themselves and lawful members of public at risk..

you wanna play with fire, expect to get burnt.

loopyblonde says...
4:42pm Tue 5 May 09

Bibble, you've been saying in some of your posts that the people protesting were also protecting our right to protest.

I DO believe in peaceful protest and this is what I will teach my children.

But I DON'T believe in violent protests such as yesterday's one and I believe that violent protests such as yesterdays will eventually lead to the removal of our right to protest.

It breaks my heart that people came to my town and caused such terror among my family and friends.

Maybe one day if you ever have children of your own you will understand.

jay316 says...
4:43pm Tue 5 May 09

south_coast wrote:
"If a policeman stops you for any reason and you say "you do not have my consent to stop me" he will laugh at you, and quickly follow up with some violence no doubt."

Nothing like a sweeping statement is there!

I would not have a problem with Police stopping me for any reason. The people that seem to have the problem with it are often those with someone to hide.

I'm sorry but any trouble that you had with the police yesterday was brought on by yourselves.

I think you'll find that very few people have any sympathy for those involved yesterday.
Indeed. if you have done nothing wrong, why would the police stop you in the first place.. It seems that some people go out of their way to cause themselves issues with the police.

I actually know a few officers who do the local beat on st. james street in Brighton, and they have always been polite to me. Always stop and chat as well. Whilst I am working...

bibble says...
4:58pm Tue 5 May 09

loopyblonde wrote:
Ommakeyas wrote: I was a peacefull demonstarter at this event today, after i was told i was threatening fellow police (which is not in my nature) i was thrown to the ground by an officer (who was not showing his numbers)after having my hands up and shouting for him to stop. I was nearly trampled by backing riot police, i was not offered any medical support by police medics, although protesters who saw this attack offered what they could to help, i have sustained a few minor injuries and after this, i feel as though i cannot trust any officer again.
Can you honestly say that you were just standing in the street making no noise or actions that may be construed as agressive and a Policeman attacked you completely unprovoked? I'm sorry but, if you know that you're attending a protest with a history of violence then surely you are aware that their is a risk to your personal safety?
Can you make an allegation if you think Ommakayes was guilty of something? We don't have to prove innocence in this country, though some people, loopy people, seem to think that we do.

It is not unknown for the police to attack people. Perhaps you have heard of Ian Tomlinson?

kkj says...
5:05pm Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
kkj wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'
You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
But bibble, these are not MY 'police-state arguments'. I suggest you re-read Article 11 again and again until you understand that the ECRH allows this. Otherwise how do you explain the clause in Article 11 that states the law may restrict the right of protest "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"? As for your statement that "the legal requirements... may well be illegal themselves.", have you any evidence to support this?
But they ARE your police-state arguments. I have read the Charter a long time ago, and know exactly what you are referring to.

Recent case law has made it clear that the police do not have a free hand to restrict protest in any way they like. The limits they may go to must be reasonable, and they must still allow protest.

Your last paragraph - yes. Look up the case at the High Court last week. Five protestors were falsely arrested (and beaten up) at a demonstration three years ago. The police overstepped their authority to limit protest. Result: an £85,000 payout to the protestors.
I've now returned from work and looked up your High Court case. It appears that this was an out-of-court settlement, recorded at the High Court. I can find no reports of a court case. Neither can I find any evidence that they were beaten up.

Anyway as I stated earlier, I am not claiming the police have a free hand, but this 'case' does not indicate to me that the legal requirements may well be illegal, as you claim.

bibble says...
5:07pm Tue 5 May 09

south_coast wrote:
"If a policeman stops you for any reason and you say "you do not have my consent to stop me" he will laugh at you, and quickly follow up with some violence no doubt." Nothing like a sweeping statement is there! I would not have a problem with Police stopping me for any reason. The people that seem to have the problem with it are often those with someone to hide. I'm sorry but any trouble that you had with the police yesterday was brought on by yourselves. I think you'll find that very few people have any sympathy for those involved yesterday.
That you don't have a problem with a policeman stopping you for "any" reason does not mean you have given your consent. It means you are docile.

Standing up for one's rights has NOTHING to do with a person having something to hide.

It is a lie, and a lie that a lot of people fall for, that "having nothing to hide" is a legitimate reason for the police to stop you.

I really don't care if you or a lot of other people have no sympathy for the demonstrators yesterday. I know that there are a lot of extremely bigoted people in Brighton, who keep using emotive language to describe people you disagree with. We saw what people like you did in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. Calling people "scum" is the first step in dehumanisation, and we saw where that led.

The police have been shown to attack people without any justification. Perhaps you have heard of Ian Tomlinson? Perhaps you think he deserved to be killed.

I adhere strongly to rights, but I do wonder sometimes if people like you should have yours taken away. We'd soon see you hopping up and down. But then we would have to send in OUR police on horses and with dogs, wearing riot uniforms and give you a clubbing. But don't expect us to complain too much.

bibble says...
5:09pm Tue 5 May 09

jay316 wrote:
I am not dig out of any hole.. There may well have been police on the pier itself, that isn't the roof.. the cafe is outside the pier on the main road if my memory serves me right.. and is outside pier property (you can see the line on the pavement). We vote in the govenment (I presume), who employ civil servents (be it police, tax man etc.).. as such we have given the government to act on our behalf. You seem to be a police hater.. lets just hope one day you don't need their help. With regards to the concent as I said "we vote in the govenment (even if you didn't vote directly for them) so that is our concent"
Voting has nothing to do with policing by consent.

You may think it is, in which case you are deluded.

bibble says...
5:10pm Tue 5 May 09

loopyblonde wrote:
Bibble, you've been saying in some of your posts that the people protesting were also protecting our right to protest. I DO believe in peaceful protest and this is what I will teach my children. But I DON'T believe in violent protests such as yesterday's one and I believe that violent protests such as yesterdays will eventually lead to the removal of our right to protest. It breaks my heart that people came to my town and caused such terror among my family and friends. Maybe one day if you ever have children of your own you will understand.
Be prepared then if you ever go on a peaceful demonstration. No change will ever result of your being there.

bibble says...
5:13pm Tue 5 May 09

jay316 wrote:
south_coast wrote: "If a policeman stops you for any reason and you say "you do not have my consent to stop me" he will laugh at you, and quickly follow up with some violence no doubt." Nothing like a sweeping statement is there! I would not have a problem with Police stopping me for any reason. The people that seem to have the problem with it are often those with someone to hide. I'm sorry but any trouble that you had with the police yesterday was brought on by yourselves. I think you'll find that very few people have any sympathy for those involved yesterday.
Indeed. if you have done nothing wrong, why would the police stop you in the first place.. It seems that some people go out of their way to cause themselves issues with the police. I actually know a few officers who do the local beat on st. james street in Brighton, and they have always been polite to me. Always stop and chat as well. Whilst I am working...
You're nuts. Innocent people get stopped all the time.

Perhaps you have not heard about the several hundred thousand people who have been stopped and searched in London for "anti-terror" purposes. Less than 1% have resulted in any kind of arrest. In other words, the police had a 99% FAILURE rate.

There is no such thing as a friendly policeman.

bibble says...
5:17pm Tue 5 May 09

kkj wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'
You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
But bibble, these are not MY 'police-state arguments'. I suggest you re-read Article 11 again and again until you understand that the ECRH allows this. Otherwise how do you explain the clause in Article 11 that states the law may restrict the right of protest "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"? As for your statement that "the legal requirements... may well be illegal themselves.", have you any evidence to support this?
But they ARE your police-state arguments. I have read the Charter a long time ago, and know exactly what you are referring to. Recent case law has made it clear that the police do not have a free hand to restrict protest in any way they like. The limits they may go to must be reasonable, and they must still allow protest. Your last paragraph - yes. Look up the case at the High Court last week. Five protestors were falsely arrested (and beaten up) at a demonstration three years ago. The police overstepped their authority to limit protest. Result: an £85,000 payout to the protestors.
I've now returned from work and looked up your High Court case. It appears that this was an out-of-court settlement, recorded at the High Court. I can find no reports of a court case. Neither can I find any evidence that they were beaten up. Anyway as I stated earlier, I am not claiming the police have a free hand, but this 'case' does not indicate to me that the legal requirements may well be illegal, as you claim.
Detective Chief Inspector Alex Gibbs, of the Met's directorate of professional standards, stated: "It is accepted that your arrest was unlawful and that any force used on you during your arrest was therefore an assault and battery.

bibble says...
5:20pm Tue 5 May 09

kkj wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'
You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
But bibble, these are not MY 'police-state arguments'. I suggest you re-read Article 11 again and again until you understand that the ECRH allows this. Otherwise how do you explain the clause in Article 11 that states the law may restrict the right of protest "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"? As for your statement that "the legal requirements... may well be illegal themselves.", have you any evidence to support this?
But they ARE your police-state arguments. I have read the Charter a long time ago, and know exactly what you are referring to. Recent case law has made it clear that the police do not have a free hand to restrict protest in any way they like. The limits they may go to must be reasonable, and they must still allow protest. Your last paragraph - yes. Look up the case at the High Court last week. Five protestors were falsely arrested (and beaten up) at a demonstration three years ago. The police overstepped their authority to limit protest. Result: an £85,000 payout to the protestors.
I've now returned from work and looked up your High Court case. It appears that this was an out-of-court settlement, recorded at the High Court. I can find no reports of a court case. Neither can I find any evidence that they were beaten up. Anyway as I stated earlier, I am not claiming the police have a free hand, but this 'case' does not indicate to me that the legal requirements may well be illegal, as you claim.
If the police thought they had a leg to stand on they would have pursued the case.

No doubt their counsel was a bit wiser than the average thuggish yob in a blue uniform.

kkj says...
5:26pm Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
kkj wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'
You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
But bibble, these are not MY 'police-state arguments'. I suggest you re-read Article 11 again and again until you understand that the ECRH allows this. Otherwise how do you explain the clause in Article 11 that states the law may restrict the right of protest "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"? As for your statement that "the legal requirements... may well be illegal themselves.", have you any evidence to support this?
But they ARE your police-state arguments. I have read the Charter a long time ago, and know exactly what you are referring to. Recent case law has made it clear that the police do not have a free hand to restrict protest in any way they like. The limits they may go to must be reasonable, and they must still allow protest. Your last paragraph - yes. Look up the case at the High Court last week. Five protestors were falsely arrested (and beaten up) at a demonstration three years ago. The police overstepped their authority to limit protest. Result: an £85,000 payout to the protestors.
I've now returned from work and looked up your High Court case. It appears that this was an out-of-court settlement, recorded at the High Court. I can find no reports of a court case. Neither can I find any evidence that they were beaten up. Anyway as I stated earlier, I am not claiming the police have a free hand, but this 'case' does not indicate to me that the legal requirements may well be illegal, as you claim.
Detective Chief Inspector Alex Gibbs, of the Met's directorate of professional standards, stated: "It is accepted that your arrest was unlawful and that any force used on you during your arrest was therefore an assault and battery.
and...?

If you go to
http://www.timesonli
ne.co.uk/tol/news/uk
/crime/article619429
6.ece

you will find footage of Jeremie Fernandez' arrest. This is what DCI Gibbs is referring to as legally assault and battery. What it isn't is someone being beaten up!

When you find any evidence , please feel free to let me know.

Likewise, if you can support your claim that the 'legal requirements may well be illegal', let me know.

bibble says...
5:44pm Tue 5 May 09

kkj wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'
You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
But bibble, these are not MY 'police-state arguments'. I suggest you re-read Article 11 again and again until you understand that the ECRH allows this. Otherwise how do you explain the clause in Article 11 that states the law may restrict the right of protest "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"? As for your statement that "the legal requirements... may well be illegal themselves.", have you any evidence to support this?
But they ARE your police-state arguments. I have read the Charter a long time ago, and know exactly what you are referring to. Recent case law has made it clear that the police do not have a free hand to restrict protest in any way they like. The limits they may go to must be reasonable, and they must still allow protest. Your last paragraph - yes. Look up the case at the High Court last week. Five protestors were falsely arrested (and beaten up) at a demonstration three years ago. The police overstepped their authority to limit protest. Result: an £85,000 payout to the protestors.
I've now returned from work and looked up your High Court case. It appears that this was an out-of-court settlement, recorded at the High Court. I can find no reports of a court case. Neither can I find any evidence that they were beaten up. Anyway as I stated earlier, I am not claiming the police have a free hand, but this 'case' does not indicate to me that the legal requirements may well be illegal, as you claim.
Detective Chief Inspector Alex Gibbs, of the Met's directorate of professional standards, stated: "It is accepted that your arrest was unlawful and that any force used on you during your arrest was therefore an assault and battery.
and...? If you go to http://www.timesonli ne.co.uk/tol/news/uk /crime/article619429 6.ece you will find footage of Jeremie Fernandez' arrest. This is what DCI Gibbs is referring to as legally assault and battery. What it isn't is someone being beaten up! When you find any evidence , please feel free to let me know. Likewise, if you can support your claim that the 'legal requirements may well be illegal', let me know.
"and?" It's an admission of guilt.

You are trying to be obtuse, deliberately closing your eyes to illegal activity by the police. Interestingly, although the police arrest was unlawful and the protestors were assaulted, no policeman has been arrested or even investigated for the crimes they committed.

Yet again, the police pay people to keep quiet, to drop a case. If the boot was on the other foot, the police would investigate the payout as attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The police settled out of court because the plaintiff's case rested on the fact that the police action was unlawful, i.e. they illegally policed the demonstration. Even if the "legal requirements" are not met, that does not mean the demonstration was unlawful.

south_coast says...
5:45pm Tue 5 May 09

There is no point discussing this with someone like 'bibble'. He/she is blinkered in their views so you may as well just talk to a brick wall - in fact I am probably being unfair on the brick wall there.

MoreMikey says...
5:50pm Tue 5 May 09

bibble, London (but visit Brighton regularly) says...
3:40pm Tue 5 May 09


"It's obvious that you have a closed mind, and think that anything the police do is fine."

And it's obvious to everyone here that you have a closed mind and think that EVERYTHING the police do is bad.

You are a paranoid, delusional, self-righteous, rabble-rousing tw@t.

kkj says...
6:01pm Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
kkj wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote:
bibble wrote:
kkj wrote: bibble: I had it drummed into me at school that while I had certain rights I also hade certain responsibilities. While Article 11 of the ECRH enshrines the right of PEACEFUL assembly (my emphasis) It also states that restrictions as prescribed by law are allowed. So while assembly, in itself, is not illegal, this does not mean it is a free-for-all, it means the organisers have a responsibility to ensure the protest is carried out legally. For example, notice is required in most cases, where practicable. Notice is to include * The date of the procession. * The time it will start. * The proposed route. * The name and the address of the organiser The written notice must be delivered to a police station in the area where the procession is planned to start (or the first police area in England), either by hand or by recorded delivery six clear days in advance. 'Six clear days' means, effectively, a full week in advance, for example, on Saturday for a procession the following Saturday. As the venue of the street party was withheld to last minute, and available via mobile phone only, at least one of these conditions was not met, therefore an offence was committed. The organiser commits an offence if: * Notice was not given as required. * The date, starting time or route differs from that given on the notice. Failure to comply with a valid condition, properly imposed, is a criminal offence with different penalties for organisers and other participants. In the light of the protest today (yesterday?) it would seem to me that that there were several hundred criminals on our streets. The organisers have clearly failed on the 'responsibility' front. With acknowledgements to 'Liberty'
You obviously have had your head in the sand for far too long. The very legal requirements to give notice about a demonstration may well be illegal themselves. That is something that you fail to understand. If I wanted to have a demonstration I wouldn't tell the police about it. I would ignore that part of the law that says I must. If I went along with that law I would be giving legitimacy to it, a legitimacy that it does not have. So keep your spurious police-state arguments where they belong. Inform the police, indeed. What a load of tripe.
But bibble, these are not MY 'police-state arguments'. I suggest you re-read Article 11 again and again until you understand that the ECRH allows this. Otherwise how do you explain the clause in Article 11 that states the law may restrict the right of protest "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"? As for your statement that "the legal requirements... may well be illegal themselves.", have you any evidence to support this?
But they ARE your police-state arguments. I have read the Charter a long time ago, and know exactly what you are referring to. Recent case law has made it clear that the police do not have a free hand to restrict protest in any way they like. The limits they may go to must be reasonable, and they must still allow protest. Your last paragraph - yes. Look up the case at the High Court last week. Five protestors were falsely arrested (and beaten up) at a demonstration three years ago. The police overstepped their authority to limit protest. Result: an £85,000 payout to the protestors.
I've now returned from work and looked up your High Court case. It appears that this was an out-of-court settlement, recorded at the High Court. I can find no reports of a court case. Neither can I find any evidence that they were beaten up. Anyway as I stated earlier, I am not claiming the police have a free hand, but this 'case' does not indicate to me that the legal requirements may well be illegal, as you claim.
Detective Chief Inspector Alex Gibbs, of the Met's directorate of professional standards, stated: "It is accepted that your arrest was unlawful and that any force used on you during your arrest was therefore an assault and battery.
and...? If you go to http://www.timesonli ne.co.uk/tol/news/uk /crime/article619429 6.ece you will find footage of Jeremie Fernandez' arrest. This is what DCI Gibbs is referring to as legally assault and battery. What it isn't is someone being beaten up! When you find any evidence , please feel free to let me know. Likewise, if you can support your claim that the 'legal requirements may well be illegal', let me know.
"and?" It's an admission of guilt.

You are trying to be obtuse, deliberately closing your eyes to illegal activity by the police. Interestingly, although the police arrest was unlawful and the protestors were assaulted, no policeman has been arrested or even investigated for the crimes they committed.

Yet again, the police pay people to keep quiet, to drop a case. If the boot was on the other foot, the police would investigate the payout as attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The police settled out of court because the plaintiff's case rested on the fact that the police action was unlawful, i.e. they illegally policed the demonstration. Even if the "legal requirements" are not met, that does not mean the demonstration was unlawful.
No, I'm not trying to be obtuse; I'm trying to show your arguments as being half-truths and opinion, rather than facts.

There was no court case; no-one got beaten up. True or false?

I haven't closed my eyes to illegal activity by the police (if I have show me where).

We don't know the police service's motivation for making an out of court settlement, so to suggest it is some sort of bribe is pure conjecture - again no facts.

The police admitted that they acted unlawfully; I'm not sure how you make the leap that this means they 'illegally policed the demonstration'.

'Even if the legal requirements are not met, that does not mean the demonstration was unlawful' - indeed it doesn't necessarily - there is that 'reasonably practicable' clause. I would suggest that regarding yesterdays protest, all the legal requirements could quite reasonably have been met. If they weren't, then that protest was illegal.

Bog Vern says...
6:01pm Tue 5 May 09

Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'.

That is double standards don't you think?


You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!!

I await the next insult

bibble says...
6:23pm Tue 5 May 09

Bog Vern wrote:
Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insult
Not double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.

loopyblonde says...
6:26pm Tue 5 May 09

Bibble, I don't think anyone is saying that the police NEVER do anything wrong. Isn't this debate about yesterdays violent protest and not any other police involved incidents?

To tar ALL of the police with the same brush is to tar ALL protesters with the same brush.

There is always good and evil.

As for yesterday, in my opinion the protesters who took part in a known to be violent protest march on a known to be family day in a seaside town were the evil on that occasion.

worthinglad says...
6:30pm Tue 5 May 09

“As the street party progressed through the city activists scaled scaffolding saurrounding Barclays Bank displying a banner stating 'No Arms Dealers in Our Communities”

This is one of the headlines from their website( incidentally with the original spelling mistakes, so much for the professional nature of the campaign). This they think is one of the achievements of their campaign a banner stating “ No arms dealers in our communities.” The Town at times brought to a standstill by the great unwashed so they could get a banner up saying 'No Arms Dealers in Our Communities” probably spelt incorrectly. If you look at the cost of this achievement for the supporters of Smash EDO, 2000 people ( their numbers not most disinterested observers) let’s say if they worked (if!) they could earn £40 a day, that’s £80,000, let’s assume they spent a minimum of £5 getting there that’s a further £10,000. So to achieve, what I suspect was a poorly spelt, unprofessional slogan on the front of Barclays Bank for an hour, let’s be charitable a day cost them collectively £90,000. I suspect most advertising agencies would kill their whole families for that( They are money grubbing capitalist murderers after all)

That’s the financial cost to the supporters of Smash EDO, the cost to their campaign from a day of mindless thuggery is to reduce further what miniscule support they have in this town, after all Brighton is full of mindless right wing bigots( to quote one of their sympathisers)


oyl says...
7:03pm Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
south_coast wrote:
"If a policeman stops you for any reason and you say "you do not have my consent to stop me" he will laugh at you, and quickly follow up with some violence no doubt." Nothing like a sweeping statement is there! I would not have a problem with Police stopping me for any reason. The people that seem to have the problem with it are often those with someone to hide. I'm sorry but any trouble that you had with the police yesterday was brought on by yourselves. I think you'll find that very few people have any sympathy for those involved yesterday.
That you don't have a problem with a policeman stopping you for "any" reason does not mean you have given your consent. It means you are docile.

Standing up for one's rights has NOTHING to do with a person having something to hide.

It is a lie, and a lie that a lot of people fall for, that "having nothing to hide" is a legitimate reason for the police to stop you.

I really don't care if you or a lot of other people have no sympathy for the demonstrators yesterday. I know that there are a lot of extremely bigoted people in Brighton, who keep using emotive language to describe people you disagree with. We saw what people like you did in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. Calling people "scum" is the first step in dehumanisation, and we saw where that led.

The police have been shown to attack people without any justification. Perhaps you have heard of Ian Tomlinson? Perhaps you think he deserved to be killed.

I adhere strongly to rights, but I do wonder sometimes if people like you should have yours taken away. We'd soon see you hopping up and down. But then we would have to send in OUR police on horses and with dogs, wearing riot uniforms and give you a clubbing. But don't expect us to complain too much.
Bibble - what is the word that SmashEDO protesters have been screeching at anybody in the home farm area for five years - whether or not they work for EDO? SCUM is the answer.

jay316 says...
7:09pm Tue 5 May 09

To: oyl, Brighton

Narr these aledged protesters would never use such bad words..

They all see to talk the talk and write cheques their mouth can't afford, but when push comes to shove, they never seem to answer when a VALID point is aimed at them.

Bog Vern says...
7:11pm Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insult
Not double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
Oh - I see

You are a superior being and you can call people derogatory names yet they cant do the same!!

Double standards and insecurity - a classic tale.

Did you used to kick children's footballs away from you when they played nearby?

Don't you think calling people nuts dehumanises them?

Thank you very much

bibble says...
7:55pm Tue 5 May 09

Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote: Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insult
Not double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
Oh - I see You are a superior being and you can call people derogatory names yet they cant do the same!! Double standards and insecurity - a classic tale. Did you used to kick children's footballs away from you when they played nearby? Don't you think calling people nuts dehumanises them? Thank you very much
I have already said it is not a case of double standards. But you repeat your negated point again.

I think one of the key differences between the protestors and a lot of people who post to this article is that the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference.

Some people are using emotive language in a poor attempt to dehumanise the protestors. They do this because they are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly. So they lurch back to the old standby of personal insults.

Whatever way it is looked at, making bomb release components (i.e. involved in the arms trade) does not compare at all well with making some noise and throwing a bit of paint.

Many posters on this thread are apparent warmongers. But when a little disruption comes their way they don't like it. Too bad. You'll just have to put up with it.

bibble says...
7:59pm Tue 5 May 09

loopyblonde wrote:
Bibble, I don't think anyone is saying that the police NEVER do anything wrong. Isn't this debate about yesterdays violent protest and not any other police involved incidents? To tar ALL of the police with the same brush is to tar ALL protesters with the same brush. There is always good and evil. As for yesterday, in my opinion the protesters who took part in a known to be violent protest march on a known to be family day in a seaside town were the evil on that occasion.
I think if you open your eyes properly you will see that a lot of police act badly. It isn't just the odd rotten apple here and there. I used to think that, but then I woke up.

Take the case of Ian Tomlinson. One police officer shoved him to the ground. Did any of the (about) 9 or 10 other police officers there do anything to restrain their colleague, or even help Mr Tomlinson on the ground? No. That's not one bad apple, that's 9 or 10 in one go.

jay316 says...
8:14pm Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote: Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insult
Not double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
Oh - I see You are a superior being and you can call people derogatory names yet they cant do the same!! Double standards and insecurity - a classic tale. Did you used to kick children's footballs away from you when they played nearby? Don't you think calling people nuts dehumanises them? Thank you very much
I have already said it is not a case of double standards. But you repeat your negated point again.

I think one of the key differences between the protestors and a lot of people who post to this article is that the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference.

Some people are using emotive language in a poor attempt to dehumanise the protestors. They do this because they are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly. So they lurch back to the old standby of personal insults.

Whatever way it is looked at, making bomb release components (i.e. involved in the arms trade) does not compare at all well with making some noise and throwing a bit of paint.

Many posters on this thread are apparent warmongers. But when a little disruption comes their way they don't like it. Too bad. You'll just have to put up with it.
People on this thread have mostly said they have issues with the Violent Protests not with the protestors as such.

I think the comment about warmongers is out of line... Our grandparents, parents etc died in several world wars to give wankers like you your liberty.. Maybe this country would have been better under hitlers control (sorry if that offends those of us that are cival). I am sure he would have culled all the wasters, etc.

loopyblonde says...
8:16pm Tue 5 May 09

I'm not interested in talking about other cases where the police were involved and whether or not there was any wrongdoing.

I am talking about yesterday's violent protest that was done in front of young children and families. And the fact that the police were there to protect the innocent who never asked for this to happen and may have even been unaware that it was going to happen.

You are blinkered. You commented earlier on the main front page picture of the snarling policeman but what you didn't comment on was the fact that smoke from flares or whatever was filling up a public street full of people on a bank holiday day out.

And in answer to one of your replies

"the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference."

I can't say in general whether I like or don't like protesters. I can say that I did not like what yesterdays protesters were doing. Where's the difference in that?

You are nothing but a politician yourself judging by a lot of your answers.

Bog Vern says...
8:34pm Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote: Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insult
Not double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
Oh - I see You are a superior being and you can call people derogatory names yet they cant do the same!! Double standards and insecurity - a classic tale. Did you used to kick children's footballs away from you when they played nearby? Don't you think calling people nuts dehumanises them? Thank you very much
I have already said it is not a case of double standards. But you repeat your negated point again.

I think one of the key differences between the protestors and a lot of people who post to this article is that the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference.

Some people are using emotive language in a poor attempt to dehumanise the protestors. They do this because they are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly. So they lurch back to the old standby of personal insults.

Whatever way it is looked at, making bomb release components (i.e. involved in the arms trade) does not compare at all well with making some noise and throwing a bit of paint.

Many posters on this thread are apparent warmongers. But when a little disruption comes their way they don't like it. Too bad. You'll just have to put up with it.
Bibble - you make me laugh so much that my sides are splitting.

You cannot see the woods for the trees can you!!

You have been rude to other people who have posted yet you cant see it can you? You show the same traits as those in Govt - believe they are above everybody else.


Your not and MP are you? Have you got a second home?


You imply that people are attempting to 'dehumanise protestors' - no they are merely expressing their disbelief that they destroy property, intimidate children, frighten women and implicate businesses to EDO through their own warped perspective on life.

They do like protestors that is what they have said - it is the violence and intimidation they reject.

I am not a warmonger at all - I do not promote violence.

You are being rude about people because you are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly.




bibble says...
8:40pm Tue 5 May 09

jay316 wrote:
bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote: Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insult
Not double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
Oh - I see You are a superior being and you can call people derogatory names yet they cant do the same!! Double standards and insecurity - a classic tale. Did you used to kick children's footballs away from you when they played nearby? Don't you think calling people nuts dehumanises them? Thank you very much
I have already said it is not a case of double standards. But you repeat your negated point again. I think one of the key differences between the protestors and a lot of people who post to this article is that the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference. Some people are using emotive language in a poor attempt to dehumanise the protestors. They do this because they are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly. So they lurch back to the old standby of personal insults. Whatever way it is looked at, making bomb release components (i.e. involved in the arms trade) does not compare at all well with making some noise and throwing a bit of paint. Many posters on this thread are apparent warmongers. But when a little disruption comes their way they don't like it. Too bad. You'll just have to put up with it.
People on this thread have mostly said they have issues with the Violent Protests not with the protestors as such. I think the comment about warmongers is out of line... Our grandparents, parents etc died in several world wars to give wankers like you your liberty.. Maybe this country would have been better under hitlers control (sorry if that offends those of us that are cival). I am sure he would have culled all the wasters, etc.
No, a lot of people posting on this article DO have a problem with the protestors themselves. Words ranging from "pikey scum" to the ludicrous "hope it rains". Those people are bigots.

My comment about warmongers is valid, when you consider the context in which is was made. My family too fought in WW2 (and WW1) for OUR freedom. Don't try and pretend that YOUR family fought for MY freedom, that's not true.

But then you really let the cat out of the bag saying perhaps it would be better if Hitler did win. You show your true colours with the words "I am sure he would have culled all the wasters, etc.) You look upon the "culling" of people, that is the mass murder of people, as something that could be in some way beneficial.

Thank you for letting us all know.

jay316 says...
8:41pm Tue 5 May 09

Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote: Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insult
Not double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
Oh - I see You are a superior being and you can call people derogatory names yet they cant do the same!! Double standards and insecurity - a classic tale. Did you used to kick children's footballs away from you when they played nearby? Don't you think calling people nuts dehumanises them? Thank you very much
I have already said it is not a case of double standards. But you repeat your negated point again.

I think one of the key differences between the protestors and a lot of people who post to this article is that the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference.

Some people are using emotive language in a poor attempt to dehumanise the protestors. They do this because they are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly. So they lurch back to the old standby of personal insults.

Whatever way it is looked at, making bomb release components (i.e. involved in the arms trade) does not compare at all well with making some noise and throwing a bit of paint.

Many posters on this thread are apparent warmongers. But when a little disruption comes their way they don't like it. Too bad. You'll just have to put up with it.
Bibble - you make me laugh so much that my sides are splitting.

You cannot see the woods for the trees can you!!

You have been rude to other people who have posted yet you cant see it can you? You show the same traits as those in Govt - believe they are above everybody else.


Your not and MP are you? Have you got a second home?


You imply that people are attempting to 'dehumanise protestors' - no they are merely expressing their disbelief that they destroy property, intimidate children, frighten women and implicate businesses to EDO through their own warped perspective on life.

They do like protestors that is what they have said - it is the violence and intimidation they reject.

I am not a warmonger at all - I do not promote violence.

You are being rude about people because you are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly.



Which as I said leads me to believe his is a Protester... not a bystander...

Most protestors are happy to shout and scream, but when confronted with a valid arguement, they all disappear in to the woodwork. Strange eh?

bibble says...
8:44pm Tue 5 May 09

Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote: Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insult
Not double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
Oh - I see You are a superior being and you can call people derogatory names yet they cant do the same!! Double standards and insecurity - a classic tale. Did you used to kick children's footballs away from you when they played nearby? Don't you think calling people nuts dehumanises them? Thank you very much
I have already said it is not a case of double standards. But you repeat your negated point again. I think one of the key differences between the protestors and a lot of people who post to this article is that the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference. Some people are using emotive language in a poor attempt to dehumanise the protestors. They do this because they are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly. So they lurch back to the old standby of personal insults. Whatever way it is looked at, making bomb release components (i.e. involved in the arms trade) does not compare at all well with making some noise and throwing a bit of paint. Many posters on this thread are apparent warmongers. But when a little disruption comes their way they don't like it. Too bad. You'll just have to put up with it.
Bibble - you make me laugh so much that my sides are splitting. You cannot see the woods for the trees can you!! You have been rude to other people who have posted yet you cant see it can you? You show the same traits as those in Govt - believe they are above everybody else. Your not and MP are you? Have you got a second home? You imply that people are attempting to 'dehumanise protestors' - no they are merely expressing their disbelief that they destroy property, intimidate children, frighten women and implicate businesses to EDO through their own warped perspective on life. They do like protestors that is what they have said - it is the violence and intimidation they reject. I am not a warmonger at all - I do not promote violence. You are being rude about people because you are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly.
I suggest you read the posts again from start to finish. There are a very large number of posts which are against the protestors personally. "chavs", "pikeys", "scum". How some people judge a book by its cover.

bibble says...
8:46pm Tue 5 May 09

jay316 wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote: Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insult
Not double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
Oh - I see You are a superior being and you can call people derogatory names yet they cant do the same!! Double standards and insecurity - a classic tale. Did you used to kick children's footballs away from you when they played nearby? Don't you think calling people nuts dehumanises them? Thank you very much
I have already said it is not a case of double standards. But you repeat your negated point again. I think one of the key differences between the protestors and a lot of people who post to this article is that the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference. Some people are using emotive language in a poor attempt to dehumanise the protestors. They do this because they are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly. So they lurch back to the old standby of personal insults. Whatever way it is looked at, making bomb release components (i.e. involved in the arms trade) does not compare at all well with making some noise and throwing a bit of paint. Many posters on this thread are apparent warmongers. But when a little disruption comes their way they don't like it. Too bad. You'll just have to put up with it.
Bibble - you make me laugh so much that my sides are splitting. You cannot see the woods for the trees can you!! You have been rude to other people who have posted yet you cant see it can you? You show the same traits as those in Govt - believe they are above everybody else. Your not and MP are you? Have you got a second home? You imply that people are attempting to 'dehumanise protestors' - no they are merely expressing their disbelief that they destroy property, intimidate children, frighten women and implicate businesses to EDO through their own warped perspective on life. They do like protestors that is what they have said - it is the violence and intimidation they reject. I am not a warmonger at all - I do not promote violence. You are being rude about people because you are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly.
Which as I said leads me to believe his is a Protester... not a bystander... Most protestors are happy to shout and scream, but when confronted with a valid arguement, they all disappear in to the woodwork. Strange eh?
Oh dear. I have said that I was a spectator, not a protestor. But some people believe anything they want to believe.

Did you argue or debate any of your points with protestors yesterday? I doubt it.

Bog Vern says...
8:48pm Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote: Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insult
Not double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
Oh - I see You are a superior being and you can call people derogatory names yet they cant do the same!! Double standards and insecurity - a classic tale. Did you used to kick children's footballs away from you when they played nearby? Don't you think calling people nuts dehumanises them? Thank you very much
I have already said it is not a case of double standards. But you repeat your negated point again. I think one of the key differences between the protestors and a lot of people who post to this article is that the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference. Some people are using emotive language in a poor attempt to dehumanise the protestors. They do this because they are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly. So they lurch back to the old standby of personal insults. Whatever way it is looked at, making bomb release components (i.e. involved in the arms trade) does not compare at all well with making some noise and throwing a bit of paint. Many posters on this thread are apparent warmongers. But when a little disruption comes their way they don't like it. Too bad. You'll just have to put up with it.
Bibble - you make me laugh so much that my sides are splitting. You cannot see the woods for the trees can you!! You have been rude to other people who have posted yet you cant see it can you? You show the same traits as those in Govt - believe they are above everybody else. Your not and MP are you? Have you got a second home? You imply that people are attempting to 'dehumanise protestors' - no they are merely expressing their disbelief that they destroy property, intimidate children, frighten women and implicate businesses to EDO through their own warped perspective on life. They do like protestors that is what they have said - it is the violence and intimidation they reject. I am not a warmonger at all - I do not promote violence. You are being rude about people because you are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly.
I suggest you read the posts again from start to finish. There are a very large number of posts which are against the protestors personally. "chavs", "pikeys", "scum". How some people judge a book by its cover.
Still not replied properly although you insist you do.

Partial facts, partial story, partial perspective.

That could be your motto!!

bibble says...
8:51pm Tue 5 May 09

loopyblonde wrote:
I'm not interested in talking about other cases where the police were involved and whether or not there was any wrongdoing. I am talking about yesterday's violent protest that was done in front of young children and families. And the fact that the police were there to protect the innocent who never asked for this to happen and may have even been unaware that it was going to happen. You are blinkered. You commented earlier on the main front page picture of the snarling policeman but what you didn't comment on was the fact that smoke from flares or whatever was filling up a public street full of people on a bank holiday day out. And in answer to one of your replies "the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference." I can't say in general whether I like or don't like protesters. I can say that I did not like what yesterdays protesters were doing. Where's the difference in that? You are nothing but a politician yourself judging by a lot of your answers.
So how do you justify your earlier comment "What a shame that EDO don't use their weapon making capability's to blow up this bunch of scum bag wasters".

YOU are tarring ALL the protestors with one fat brush.

I noticed very young children taking part in the demonstrations yesterday, accompanied by their parents. But here you wanting to blow up a load of people.

Oh dear.

jay316 says...
8:53pm Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote: Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insult
Not double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
Oh - I see You are a superior being and you can call people derogatory names yet they cant do the same!! Double standards and insecurity - a classic tale. Did you used to kick children's footballs away from you when they played nearby? Don't you think calling people nuts dehumanises them? Thank you very much
I have already said it is not a case of double standards. But you repeat your negated point again. I think one of the key differences between the protestors and a lot of people who post to this article is that the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference. Some people are using emotive language in a poor attempt to dehumanise the protestors. They do this because they are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly. So they lurch back to the old standby of personal insults. Whatever way it is looked at, making bomb release components (i.e. involved in the arms trade) does not compare at all well with making some noise and throwing a bit of paint. Many posters on this thread are apparent warmongers. But when a little disruption comes their way they don't like it. Too bad. You'll just have to put up with it.
People on this thread have mostly said they have issues with the Violent Protests not with the protestors as such. I think the comment about warmongers is out of line... Our grandparents, parents etc died in several world wars to give wankers like you your liberty.. Maybe this country would have been better under hitlers control (sorry if that offends those of us that are cival). I am sure he would have culled all the wasters, etc.
No, a lot of people posting on this article DO have a problem with the protestors themselves. Words ranging from "pikey scum" to the ludicrous "hope it rains". Those people are bigots.

My comment about warmongers is valid, when you consider the context in which is was made. My family too fought in WW2 (and WW1) for OUR freedom. Don't try and pretend that YOUR family fought for MY freedom, that's not true.

But then you really let the cat out of the bag saying perhaps it would be better if Hitler did win. You show your true colours with the words "I am sure he would have culled all the wasters, etc.) You look upon the "culling" of people, that is the mass murder of people, as something that could be in some way beneficial.

Thank you for letting us all know.
I have not said "that I have an issue with protestors". I have issues with those that are causing issues. (which I think everyone really has an issue with).

I never said my family.. I said "our grandparents, parents etc.".. which I believe means everyone who is probably reading this forum.

At no point have I said "I agree with any war".

And as you well know what Hitlers views were, everyone who was not upto his "IDEAL standard" would have been culled.. Doesn't mean I agree with it. And that would have been about 90% of the population.

If our brave men and women hadn't stopped him, what do you think it would be like today, do you think me or you would be in here.. I doubt it.. he would have probably executed our parents/grandparents
.

I would say that nobody likes wars, and its not the people who decide is it... its the mps etc...

I would say from your comments over the last day is that you would have left Saddam in power to kill 1000's of people as and when he wanted.

Personally I don't think we should be fighting anyone, but history from day zero has show wars have always been part of human life.

jay316 says...
8:56pm Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
jay316 wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote:
bibble wrote:
Bog Vern wrote: Bibble - you mention calling someone Scum is the first stage of de-humanisation as was the case in Nazi Germany - then you go on to call someone 'NUTS' and 'DELUDED'. That is double standards don't you think? You really do need to get a grip. Judging by your posts here - you really really do need to get a grip!! I await the next insult
Not double standards at all. The people who I call "nuts" are indeed nutty. But those people who use words like "chav", "scum", "soap dodgers" and the like are using their words in a completely different way - to dehumanise the people they don't like.
Oh - I see You are a superior being and you can call people derogatory names yet they cant do the same!! Double standards and insecurity - a classic tale. Did you used to kick children's footballs away from you when they played nearby? Don't you think calling people nuts dehumanises them? Thank you very much
I have already said it is not a case of double standards. But you repeat your negated point again. I think one of the key differences between the protestors and a lot of people who post to this article is that the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference. Some people are using emotive language in a poor attempt to dehumanise the protestors. They do this because they are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly. So they lurch back to the old standby of personal insults. Whatever way it is looked at, making bomb release components (i.e. involved in the arms trade) does not compare at all well with making some noise and throwing a bit of paint. Many posters on this thread are apparent warmongers. But when a little disruption comes their way they don't like it. Too bad. You'll just have to put up with it.
Bibble - you make me laugh so much that my sides are splitting. You cannot see the woods for the trees can you!! You have been rude to other people who have posted yet you cant see it can you? You show the same traits as those in Govt - believe they are above everybody else. Your not and MP are you? Have you got a second home? You imply that people are attempting to 'dehumanise protestors' - no they are merely expressing their disbelief that they destroy property, intimidate children, frighten women and implicate businesses to EDO through their own warped perspective on life. They do like protestors that is what they have said - it is the violence and intimidation they reject. I am not a warmonger at all - I do not promote violence. You are being rude about people because you are unable to properly argue or debate a point properly.
Which as I said leads me to believe his is a Protester... not a bystander... Most protestors are happy to shout and scream, but when confronted with a valid arguement, they all disappear in to the woodwork. Strange eh?
Oh dear. I have said that I was a spectator, not a protestor. But some people believe anything they want to believe.

Did you argue or debate any of your points with protestors yesterday? I doubt it.
Kettle Black.

Yes I did.. I have already said that.... as I have said "no all protestors are the way people see them", and the same goes for the police.

You say "oh everyone is sayding they are pikey scum etc" yet you are tarnishing the police with the same bruish..



BN1 says...
9:51pm Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
loopyblonde wrote:
Bibble, I don't think anyone is saying that the police NEVER do anything wrong. Isn't this debate about yesterdays violent protest and not any other police involved incidents? To tar ALL of the police with the same brush is to tar ALL protesters with the same brush. There is always good and evil. As for yesterday, in my opinion the protesters who took part in a known to be violent protest march on a known to be family day in a seaside town were the evil on that occasion.
I think if you open your eyes properly you will see that a lot of police act badly. It isn't just the odd rotten apple here and there. I used to think that, but then I woke up.

Take the case of Ian Tomlinson. One police officer shoved him to the ground. Did any of the (about) 9 or 10 other police officers there do anything to restrain their colleague, or even help Mr Tomlinson on the ground? No. That's not one bad apple, that's 9 or 10 in one go.
Take the case of Ian Tomlinson.

Had the area NOT have been full of "protesters" he still would have alive today.

Who really killed Ian Tomlinson?

mummy of 2 says...
10:06pm Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
brightonneil wrote:
mummy of 2 wrote: I'm new at this so bear with me, but I'm really outraged by today's protests. I am from Brighton, born and bred, and although I was aware of the protests today, I made the decision to continue to support my town and take my children, 18 months and 4, into town for lunch and a visit to the sea life centre. I too had thought this protest was meant to be peaceful, but I and my 2 small children were petrified as we left the sea life centre at tea time today. I'm all for freedom of speech, but surely I, as a Brighton resident, have the freedom to take my kids out without feeling intimidated, and dealing with questions from my eldest like why are these people pushing the police? The police have a job to do, many are taken away from what they should be doing to deal with days like this- ie my friend who works in child protection. Surely the time these protesters have spent today- if they are genuine- would be better spent writing to MP's etc. The majority of protesters I saw were either students who sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there, and crusties on benefits, who moan about capitalism, but seem more than happy to take the benefits that tax payers, and indeed these corporate capitalist companies, pay for! Sorry to go on but I am one of the few that is from Brighton and hate to see mindless people tring to destroy what should have been a busy and vibrant day in our beautiful city.
bibble that is what i was trying to say only that lady said it much better
Well, I will for two seconds grant "mummy of 2" the status of not being a police stooge and answer some of her points. It is unfortunate and not a happy state of affairs when demonstrations turn ugly. I didn't see the demonstration outside Sea Life at tea time, so I can't comment on whether it was peaceful or not. If (again I qualify that by stating that I was not there, so am not a witness) protestors were pushing the police I have to ask the question "why?". Was the situation anything like that at the G20 demonstrations outside the Bank of England, with the police "kettling" people? Who started the pushing, was it the police or the demonstrators? That police are taken away from other duties to be at demonstrations is entirely irrelevant. There is a right to protest; the level of policing is decided by the police themselves, usually based on whatever information (nowadays they flatter themselves and call it "intelligence") they can gather beforehand. For the police to be at a demonstration is an absolutely legitimate use of their time, as legitimate as when they are on "child protection" duties. I doubt very much if the crowd of demonstrators would attack a woman with two young children, so if "mummy of 2" felt intimidated I am not sure why. Certainly demonstrations can have an air of tension, but that does not mean that the demonstrators are suddenly turned into psychopaths intent on harming passers-by (or anyone else). I would like to know how "mummy of 2" decided that the student-types "sounded as though they didn't have a clue why they were there". Were they singing (or chanting, or whatever it is student-types do) "we don't know why we are here"? Or was it that they were just making a noise, unpalatable to "mummy of 2"'s ears? Writing to MPs achieves nothing. Absolutely nothing. Anyone who thinks is does is completely deluding themselves. I am/was a capitalist, but I must admit my confidence in capitalism has taken a big dent. I have paid a huge amount of money in taxes over the years. I don't have a choice where my tax goes, and I certainly don't like it going to Fred the Shred. His payoff and pension I bet will add to a large proportion of those who were demonstrating today in Brighton. The argument that Fred's payoff was a contractually-bindin g and lawful agreement shows the rottenness of the system in this country. If "mummy of 2" wrote to her MP and complained she would get a reply back that says "sorry, that's the way it is". The demonstrators have a more reasonable view on this.
I was merely stating that my son- who is only 4- was asking why were people pushing the police. He, rightly or wrongly, has been brought up to believe that the police are to protect people.
I understand your view that it is the police's decision to distribute the level of policing at such events. However, it doesn't stop the fact that police who do something worthwhile- like protecting babies with broken bones- are taken away from the job they are meant to be doing.
I didn't say that any protesters attacked me, and I truely hope they wouldn't, but that doesn't stop the fact that I felt intimidated and frightened. I was not expecting to see so many people shouting, swearing and being quite abusive at 5.30 outside the sea life centre.
I didn't 'decide' that student types didn't know why they were here- I heard many saying they didn't know where they were heading, where was the party, what do EDO do etc. From that, they gave me the impression they didn't really know what they are doing. I'm not a prude, I've been a teenager too, and can handle a 'noise,' but no, I don't like abusive language and tone in front of my children- sorry.
I completely agree with you about RBOS and I'm not happy either, but did yesterda actually change anything- I think not.

BN1 says...
10:14pm Tue 5 May 09

Well said Mummy Of 2.

Derfenders of this sham don't have a leg to stand on. But they still protest. Stay out of out city next time.

loopyblonde says...
10:24pm Tue 5 May 09

bibble wrote:
loopyblonde wrote: I'm not interested in talking about other cases where the police were involved and whether or not there was any wrongdoing. I am talking about yesterday's violent protest that was done in front of young children and families. And the fact that the police were there to protect the innocent who never asked for this to happen and may have even been unaware that it was going to happen. You are blinkered. You commented earlier on the main front page picture of the snarling policeman but what you didn't comment on was the fact that smoke from flares or whatever was filling up a public street full of people on a bank holiday day out. And in answer to one of your replies "the protestors don't like what some people or companies are doing, whereas the people on this thread do not like the protestors. That is a big difference." I can't say in general whether I like or don't like protesters. I can say that I did not like what yesterdays protesters were doing. Where's the difference in that? You are nothing but a politician yourself judging by a lot of your answers.
So how do you justify your earlier comment "What a shame that EDO don't use their weapon making capability's to blow up this bunch of scum bag wasters". YOU are tarring ALL the protestors with one fat brush. I noticed very young children taking part in the demonstrations yesterday, accompanied by their parents. But here you wanting to blow up a load of people. Oh dear.
I stand by my comment yesterday and repeat what I have said.

I have no issue with peaceful protest but all those who were there yesterday KNEW they were attending/spectating and supporting a protest with a known history of violence on a bank holiday Monday when Brighton would be packed with families. A lot of whom would be visitors to the town with no idea of the planned protest.

So yes, I tar all that attended yesterday as waster scum bags.


kkj says...
12:07am Wed 6 May 09

bibble, I am most disappointed. Six hours and no response to my last post. Am I now to assume that you agree with me?

jay316 says...
2:24pm Wed 6 May 09

kkj wrote:
bibble, I am most disappointed. Six hours and no response to my last post. Am I now to assume that you agree with me?
Mmmmm interesting point :)

jay316 says...
2:40pm Wed 6 May 09

having just watched.

http://www.theargus.
co.uk/news/videonews
/82246/?archive_page
=0

was it not claimed by the protestors who was blogging that the police pushed the biker over.. this video clearly shows protestors doing it..

Shows that they can't even tell the truth on simple matters.


Acheron says...
2:40pm Wed 6 May 09

Church St,

OK, yes there is a much fuller list of what EDO produce.

However you were the one to start things off by only mentioning one of the items and then not giving it the proper term, but one that is misleading. I was merely commenting on what was an incomplete post which you have conceded by your follow up post.

I am absolutely positive that you would be the first to complain if someone who held views different to you was economical with what they said. Be more accutate next time and people won't pull you up for it!

BN1 says...
6:31pm Wed 6 May 09

jay316 wrote:
having just watched.

http://www.theargus.

co.uk/news/videonews

/82246/?archive_page

=0

was it not claimed by the protestors who was blogging that the police pushed the biker over.. this video clearly shows protestors doing it..

Shows that they can't even tell the truth on simple matters.

These videos show nothing but SCUM.

brightongrappler says...
9:40pm Wed 6 May 09

the police have failed miserably - the chief constable should be ashamed and resign now - next time if there is one then let the decent people in brighton sort these unwashed pieces of vermin out.

jay316 says...
11:29pm Wed 6 May 09

brightongrappler wrote:
the police have failed miserably - the chief constable should be ashamed and resign now - next time if there is one then let the decent people in brighton sort these unwashed pieces of vermin out.
Totally Agree. 100%..

They claim they are against the making of components as they are used to commit a violent act of murder. Yet they commit violent acts themselves..

Throwing bottles, etc can kill.. smacking people with a golf club can kill... so they are no better than those they are protesting about. Even though EDO/MBM have not actually killed anyone or commit any violent act against anyone directly.

IndieVoice says...
11:24am Sun 10 May 09

I find it really sad and fairly shocking to see the stereotype of "smelly" "saggy" crusties who don't have jobs and live of benefits being thrown around. It's ridiculous to reduce thousands of people down to one stereotype, especially when that simply isn't the case. It worries me that they are being referred to as "that lot" e.t.c. These aren't just a stinking underclass of people, the thousands of protestors at the G20 summit show that these are THE people. People who are desperate to have their views heard and are reduced to taking to the streets because there is no other way to voice your opinion and be heard anymore. I think armchair social commentors who pass this off as trouble stirring hippie activity are one of the real vices of society.


Brighton and Hove was hit by the biggest demonstration in more than 20 years today as Smash EDO took to the streets to protest against the EDO factory's involvement in arms production. Brighton and Hove was hit by the biggest demonstration in more than 20 years today as Smash EDO took to the streets to protest against the EDO factory's involvement in arms production. The city is preparing for the biggest demonstration Brighton and Hove has ever seen with thousands expected to attend the Mayday march organised by peace campaign group Smash EDO.

The demonstrations are aimed at the Brighton-based defence manufacturer STANDOFF: The confrontation in Trafalgar Street. Picture by James Devonport

CAFE CRUNCH: Protesters dance on top of the cafe on the Palace Pier

LETDOWN: A protester lets the air out of a police van which has been sprayed with graffiti. Picture by Kate Howell

CONFRONTATION: A police officer outside McDonald's in London Road. Picture by Simon Dack

STANDOFF: The confrontation in Trafalgar Street. Picture by James Devonport



Most popular






Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses