Discussion in 'protest, direct action and demos' started by biggus dickus, Apr 20, 2012.
For or against them?
You're actually masturbating while you're posting that aren't you? And calling me big boy too. Please stop, it's making me uncomfortable.
I probably won't protest since I'm a long way away from the games and there are more effective things I can do with the time I have spare. But if I do it won't be with the intention of bringing your wank fantasies to life.
don't flatter yourself
Im genuinely looking forward to protesters getting their collars felt- makes for great TV
yep, highlight the cause. Cmrd Gunner, and here was I thinking you an asocial wanker with a pale band where the wedding ring used to be and a tenuous grip on reality. Turns out you are well behind high profile televised disruptions. No pasaran mate, no pasaran
It seems to be working in Bahrain.
I fail to see how receiving sexual attention from your perverted mind could flatter anyone.
Oh, and what DC said.
yep - one down as they say
if there was a cause that is popular and relevant then go for it.
paralympics and astos fair enough.
just random shit not so much
So other things with relevance to the olympics:
Sweatshop Labour stuff - Adidas have issues with this
Worker conditions in mines - Rio Tinto are a partner and supply the metal for the medals - there is some serious crap around their mines and environmental issues as well as worker condition etc. stuff that I could probably find some links for if I could be bothered
Obesity & Health, general food issues - McDonalds & Coca-Cola
pretty sure some of the other big sponsors / partners have dodgy stuff around them, I mean they are all major corporations so they are bound to ..
Slightly more of a stretch to links cuts/austerity due to the amount that's being spent on the olympics, or housing issues because the althetes village housing isn't going to be affordable for residents of the boroughs it's being built in iirc, but not exactly unconnected either.
But I agree that the best protest would be something that links with the olympics, rather than simply using the olympics as a way to get more coverage.
I think the fact that the athletes village has been built at our expense and will be sold off to the rich instead of used for affordable housing is a fucking huge deal, no?
It's not the fact of the Olympics, it is how it has been used to line pockets with little direct benefit, and often huge detriment, to the people who have been worst affected by it.
Last I read 50% of the Olympic housing development were affordable housing?
They keep saying stuff like that, but it looks like a fudge. It's been sold off to private developers, along with extra plots to develop in the future. The 50% seems to be based on the just under half of the existing units bought by Triathlon Homes 'for affordable housing':
But only 675 (just under half) of those bought by Triathlon will be let out at affordable rents:
So, there's something like 4,800+ new homes in total (of which 2818 currently exist), 675 of which will be let out at 'affordable rents', with affordable being defined as ... ?
It looks like the true figure is ~15% at best, and that's without digging into any of the other figures/claims flung out by the PR machine.
Not interested in the extra lots as that isn't part of any claim, including the 50% claim. And they haven't been build for the Games as they're not built at all yet.
On that basis, it seems 50% remain affordable, with just under 25% social housing.
I presume the rest go to key workers?
Do we have confirmation that the non-social housing will be affordable? They're usually used as synonyms, aren't they?
And regardless of those numbers (important as they are), why is something built at taxpayer expense being sold off for a private company to profit from? That's our money, and it should stay in our pockets.
Hang on, you're the one making the claims. I'm saying if you have evidence/links to back up your assertions (like the ones quoted below), it would lend them credibility.
We're told 50% - is that incorrect?
I gave you the links and my analysis of the data.
If you're claiming that "social housing" and "affordable housing" have different meanings, and that all of the Triathlon Homes will be affordable, it is up to you to provide the evidence. There's no mention of any such thing in the links I provided.
The 50% appears to be a fudge, to fool the easily fooled. It's 25% of existing units and <15% of the planned total. If you haven't, in fact, been fooled, show how the 50% claim is true wrt to existing units.
You're talking complete bollocks again.
Affordable housing is... affordable housing, of which social housing (I presume you mean for rent) is one aspect.
Different figures again from the Indy. They're claiming 8000 additional homes on the extra plots, and 91 existing units being sold under shared-ownership schemes (which could just about squeeze into the 'affordable housing' definition, but all reports state that most units will be rented, not sold).
Trying to find an article which addresses this from a social justice pov instead of all this 'great investment opportunity' crap.
well we should probably try to squat the athletes village then, lol.. can you imagine how heavy the bailiffs would be?
Highlighting the issues can be done from outside, and possibly by some spectators who don't mind losing their spectator rights. Getting some athletes to use the opportunity from the inside would be ace. Banners they can hang from their windows in the village (after they've finished competing, given than it is such a huge risk they would take to make any kind of statement)?
Squatting the athletes village would be perfect though, except for the many broken bones you'd get. The news value of it would be immense, and would easily highlight the issue of building homes that the residents can't afford.
I just think that you'd get badly beaten for even trying to do it, and probably it's going to be heavily fenced off and lots of security until the athletes turn up so you'd not have a chance to get into the houses.
Little point in doing it after they've left - would still be a good demo but wouldn't make international news, maybe not even national news.
But yeah, getting athletes involved would be great - there must be some GB athletes from around that area of London who'd understand the issue.
I would think the route to find them (in the absence of serendipitous urban friendships) would be: disability rights activists -> paralympians -> team GB
rio tinto advertising in the metro made me go
John Carlos is speaking in London as a guest of the RMT on Monday 21 May, 6pm at Friends House, Euston Road, Euston
John Carlos - Resistance: The best Olympic spirit
How to publicise that to team GB?
Twitter might find some I guess? Are the RMT on the case?
Symbolic gestures of an anti-cuts theme
There's a journo who lives in a tower block next to the Olympic site who received a letter from the MoD today saying they are going to put a missile-firing equipment on his roof for two months during the Olympics. I shit you not.
More here on his timeline: https://twitter.com/#!/brianwhelanhack
If that's not worth protesting about, I dunno what is. I reckon this'll become a bit of a story....
I'm assuming they may be worried someone may think it's a good idea to fly a plane into it?
Yeah so let's shoot it down right over a heavily populated area of London
It's military cock waving, and a piss take of the highest order. Even funnier, the tower was recently struck by lightening and has been closed because of falling debris!
Article here: http://www.latentexistence.me.uk/missiles-over-london-a-new-olympic-event/
I really thought this was a joke when I first heard, but it doesn't appear so...
Well I'm guessing they are absolute last resort rather then the first line of defence.
Whilst the consequences of shooting down an aircraft over somewhere as densely populated would be pretty horrific, I hazard a guess it would be no where near as horrific as a plane hitting a crowded olympic stadium.
Separate names with a comma.