Fisher_Gate
Active Member
A suggestion doing the rounds is that protestors defy the ban ... dressed as Buddhist monks!
Authorities Ban Anti-war March
- Thread starter TremulousTetra
- Start date
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
butchersapron said:
My last two posts were linked. I was pointing out that there will be fewer people there if the demo is an anti SOCPA demo than if it is an anti war demo.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I didn't see any suggestion of making it an anti-SOCPA demo rather than an anti-war one. Just of deying the law.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
butchersapron said:
Look at the post I quoted, which said "defy the ban"...
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Yep, can't see any suggestion to change it to an anti-SOCPA demo, just to, as i said, and as others have suggested, defy the law.
What was the demo last year about ? I forget.
What was the demo last year about ? I forget.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
My point remains - that there are people who would not attend if it was not an officially sanctioned demonstration but designed to defy the ban or the law or whatever.
I think last year's was just a general anti Government one or something. The fact that it was so easily forgettable suggests that it was not terribly effective. It was timed for the opening of parliament. The organising committee was infiltrated by coppers and there really were more coppers there than demonstrators because they knew exactly what was going on and when.
I think last year's was just a general anti Government one or something. The fact that it was so easily forgettable suggests that it was not terribly effective. It was timed for the opening of parliament. The organising committee was infiltrated by coppers and there really were more coppers there than demonstrators because they knew exactly what was going on and when.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Guineveretoo said:
Well your second paragraph makes clear what was different from that demo to this proposed one - antiwar demos recently tending to be quite large affairs. Certainly larger than some vague anti-govt thing and generally far too large for the police to stop them once they've determined to do something. Given that the main criticism of the STWC's handing of the the last 3 or 4 years has been it's lack of militance and it's meekness i think defying the law would be an excellent (tiny) step forwards.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Guineveretoo said:
Yep, no comparison at all.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
I agree.butchersapron said:
I am not sure, though, that a demonstration which defies the law will have the same broad support which made the anti war demos so effective. That is my only point.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
butchersapron said:
Why is there "no comparison"? Both on the opening day of parliament, both defying an unpopular piece of legislation, both anti war....
*shrug*
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
chymaera said:
Oh, absolutely, but the other sections are the ones which they are using.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Guineveretoo said:
Because one was an ineptly organised stunt designed only to attract a handful of people in the vauge hope that something might kick off. That's rather different from the series of STWC marches, which, whatever their many problems, were operating on an entirely different level.
Have you anything for the claim that the police infiltrated the organising committee by the way? I ask because some people involved post here.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
It was people from here who made the claim about the police infiltrating the organising committee! I have no idea if it is true, but it wouldn't surprise me.butchersapron said:
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Was it? I was banned fom here at the time so missed that. Don't suppose you have the link to hand? Don't worry.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
butchersapron said:
Why would I have the link "to hand"?
I could search, but so could you. Besides which, I am not even sure whether it was said on here, or said at a meet.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Guineveretoo said:Why would I have the link "to hand"?
I could search, but so could you. Besides which, I am not even sure whether it was said on here, or said at a meet.
Because you might have already searched to back up your claim. It's not a trap.
Righty ho, it's just that having talked to lot of people directly involved in this i've never once heard this being mentioned. It might be buried in a thread here of course. I'm not saying that you're making it up or it didn't happen either before you get offended.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
butchersapron said:
As you well know, I don't research what I am saying on here - I just type
I really can't remember the source of the committee being infiltrated, but I do remember that it was said, and that it was said by people who were involved.
But you don't offend me, you merely irritate me
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Well, it's quite a serious claim to make without any back up evidence as it goes. But if your happy to do that then i don't suppose i can stop you.
As i suspect do a lot of people who don't take you as seriously as you think you should be.
As i suspect do a lot of people who don't take you as seriously as you think you should be.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
butchersapron said:
Why is it a "serious claim"? This is a bulletin board, not a court of law, so I don't need "back up evidence". I am merely chatting, but just happen to be chatting in writing instead of out loud.
I don't expect anyone to take me seriously when I am just wittering, or commenting, or expressing my views. Anymore than anyone else does. I do expect people to take me seriously when I use my education and knowledge to inform people of stuff, but repeating a statement about an organising committee being infiltrated is not something I know through my education or professional background. It is, however, something which I know happens from the days when I used to organise demos, and I would not be at all surprised if the police sent people along to the organising meetings for a demo which set out to break the law. Makes their job easier if they know what people are being told to do.
Have you ever thought that your need to have a go at me is a tad unnecessary and bordering on unhealthy?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Guineveretoo said:Why is it a "serious claim"? This is a bulletin board, not a court of law, so I don't need "back up evidence". I am merely chatting, but just happen to be chatting in writing instead of out loud.
I don't expect anyone to take me seriously when I am just wittering, or commenting, or expressing my views. Anymore than anyone else does. I do expect people to take me seriously when I use my education and knowledge to inform people of stuff, but repeating a statement about an organising committee being infiltrated is not something I know through my education or professional background. It is, however, something which I know happens from the days when I used to organise demos, and I would not be at all surprised if the police sent people along to the organising meetings for a demo which set out to break the law. Makes their job easier if they know what people are being told to do.
Have you ever thought that your need to have a go at me is a tad unnecessary and bordering on unhealthy?
The seriosness or otherwise of the claim isn't dictated entirely by the physical contxt though is it? Do you think if i accused you of anything on here you wouldn't take it seriously? Do you think job-threatening claims or claims of crimin al activity for example posted on here aren't serious because it's just a bb? Bizarre.
Not really, the day i don't irritate Hariet Harman voting union full timers is the day i turn it in frankly.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
butchersapron said:
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
Guineveretoo said:It is a London Borough which is also a city, defined by Westminster Cathedral... What else do you want to know?
Nothing to do with Westminster Cathedral which is a Roman Catholic place of worship built in the late 19th century. Westminster has had city status since the Middle Ages. Presumably, because it was the area where the monarch and adminsstration were based,as oppose to the City of London, which was the commercial centre.
The Catholics chose Westminster for their Archbishopric because they were banned from for giving their prelates the same title as exising Anglican bishops. Although Westminser had the Abbey it did not,at that time have an anglican bishop. Although it was, interestingly, a cathedral with a bishop between 1540 and 1550, made so on a whim of Henry VIII.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
tim said:
I thought that, until recently, all "cities" had a cathedral, and that Westminster was defined by Westminster Cathedral, and the City of London was defined by St Pauls Cathedral?
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
butchersapron said:
By the way, and just for the record, before I went over to the dark side and started working for a trade union, I was a political and trade union supporter and activist for many years, and a bit of a leftie. I guess old age has worn me down!
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
Guineveretoo said:
Ah, it seems that Westminster received its letters patent which gave it city status, from the aforementioned Henry VII, in 1540. So it is actually a post-medieval creation. As mentioned in my post above this was the same year that Westminster Abbey received its brief promotion to the Cathedral division.
See here for more details. This link will also enlighten you to the fact that Rochester is no longer a city, a fact that came as a belated surprise to the locals.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Guineveretoo said:By the way, and just for the record, before I went over to the dark side and started working for a trade union, I was a political and trade union supporter and activist for many years, and a bit of a leftie. I guess old age has worn me down!
Do you want a biscuit or something?
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
So I was right about the historical link with a cathedral. I had always understood that Cambridge was unusual in being granted city status without having a cathedral.
Guineveretoo
Mostly bewildered
butchersapron said:
No thanks.
When I type on these boards, I am able to draw on my experience of political activism over the last 30 years, not just the more recent ones where I have been an employed trade union official.
Simply put, I am not typing "officially" as a trade union employee. I do, sometimes, draw on my legal knowledge to be of assistance, and often draw on my employment knowledge for the same reason, but mostly, I am here for social reasons
Similar threads
