bad moves at climate camp?

[bluestreak]

Just wondering - since when has eye-gouging been a police restraint technique?

oh come on, they were terrorists, how else are we supposed be defended if people like you won't let the police do their jobs.

 

[8ball]

oh come on, they were terrorists, how else are we supposed be defended if people like you won't let the police do their jobs.

Maybe they don't do all that training stuff any more and just show them re-runs of Karate Kid 2.

"A man can't see - he can't fight . . . "

 

[detective-boy]

For example, the article never claims/implies that people can be arrested for drunkenness under stop-and-search powers.

I know from experience that it is a waste of time arguing with you but I have never suggested that it did. ALL I tried to correct was an erroneous impression that it gave (well, to normal people anyway) that somehow drunkenness and searches were someone connected.

This quote from the article:

The Press Association wire ran an item on the blockade quoting Agrexco General Manager Amos Orr as saying that many of the protesters were drunk. It is surprising that the Press Association ran this story without reporting the fact that each activist was subjected to a search under Section one of the Police And Criminal Evidence Act, a power which the police have been using widely to deal with activists from the Climate Camp. Such searches require the activists to be intimately searched by police officers, and no arrests were made for any alcohol related offences.

... clearly uses the fact that searches were made as "evidence" that the allegations of drunkenness could not be correct. ALL I did was explain that there was no connection.

 

[detective-boy]

Just wondering - since when has eye-gouging been a police restraint technique?

If there are photographs / video of this a complaint should be pursued. I doubt very much that it could be justified in the circumstances of the protest.

 

[Miss-Shelf]

If there are photographs / video of this a complaint should be pursued. I doubt very much that it could be justified in the circumstances of the protest.

people are pursuing complaints as individuals and as a group

 

[Wilf]

I was there all week and, in a camp of this sort there were (obviously) all kinds of people, with all kinds of ideas and motivations. If some group or other broke into an Israeli fruit company, that doesn't seem like a great idea - though I'd reserve judgement till I knew something about who they traded with etc. Those who did this might have this info - or they might not. Either way, it doesn't seem all that significant. But to deal with a few of the cliches (on this thread and elsewhere):

Soap dodgers? Yes, quite a few crusties (big fucking deal). A week on a site with only (infrequent) cold running water - so a few people got stinkier. Again, big fucking deal. There's some bigger issues out there to get worked up about.

Focusing on climate change? Quite a few people went and - shock - supported workers who were on strike. Good thing or bad thing?

Reasonable Police behaviour? The ones on the public side of the camp were in the main publicly civil. However their use of stop and search - under whichever of the 3 or so legal frameworks which allow that - was just a joke. No, actually, not a joke - straightforward intimidation to control protest. Several people refused to give thier name - in circumstances where there wasn't the slightest hint that they were involved in anti-social behaviour/going equipped/terror suspects - and got arrested. Cops arrested them because they couldn't prove that the credit card, phone or whatever they had in thier pocket was their property. Straightforward political policing.

The ones at the back of the site - riot squad stopping people getting to BAA, away from the media - used violence pure and simple. There were real head injuries and people were genuinely traumatised.

Disrupting people's holidays? No, simply didn't happen - full stop. Only thing done of this kind were mini-protests to stop freight getting in. I didn't do this personally, but I ain't codemining it.

Disrupting the local area? No, the local people were more annoyed at the cops for shutting the roads near the camp. Got loads of support with people joining in, bringing food etc. Wasn't just those in Sipson who will lose their homes, but also in Harlington - who won't. My personal highlight of the week was having a few beers with local lads watching the footie in the boozer. Some were directly supportive and impressed that the camp was doing a bit of resistance - saying more people should stand up for themselves. Others were taking the piss over the stinker/crusty thing - but had themselves been up to the camp bringing food and beer.

There's a strong argument that 'camps' are not the best way to build movements, being abstracted from communities and people's reall lives. In this case though, that wasn't the case - it was right where the problem is (in terms of carbon emissions) and right where the people affected live. I'm not going to pretend this was the start of a mass movement that will transform anything in particular - and I'd take issue with the politics of some on the camp. However, it was a start and got a lot of things right.

 

[Random]

did you hear anything about camp organisers being called 'elders'?

 

[jæd]

indymedia is as reliable or unreliable as those that submit to it. it is, like all media, POV-led and subjective. this is both good and bad. the trick is, like all media, to use your critical faculties, or find someone with critical faculties to help you.

But the mainstream media often have to report to certain standards, and can have complaints levelled against them if they are inaccurate. Indymedia has any old tosh posted to it...

 

[Wilf]

did you hear anything about camp organisers being called 'elders'?

Yes, but only in the Daily Mail's report. On site? No. From what I remember i think the Mail said it was someone from the Welcome Tent - where you went to first for a quick tour of the site. Just didn't hear anything like that.

Okay, the site - pretty much like any free festival/green camp - had its fair share of 'eccentrics' (I'm trying hard not to use the word loons). And to be honest, I wince at some of the language used by the organisers - Facilitators, Tranquility Team etc. But much of the organisation - despite the decisions on tactics unravelling a bit in the last couple of days - was pretty impressive. Taking a site which was then blockaded by the cops with no vehicle access - and making it into a functioning village was pretty good. A nice example of what people can actually achieve. Again, I'm not pretending its the politics of the future, but in terms of what it claim to be it did okay.

 

[Random]

Yes, but only in the Daily Mail's report. On site? No. From what I remember i think the Mail said it was someone from the Welcome Tent - where you went to first for a quick tour of the site. Just didn't hear anything like that.

cheers, i thought as much

 

[Random]

But the mainstream media often have to report to certain standards, and can have complaints levelled against them if they are inaccurate. Indymedia has any old tosh posted to it...

i wold strongly advise you to read the mainstream press with the same level of suspicion that you would Indymedia.

 

[Wilf]

But the mainstream media often have to report to certain standards, and can have complaints levelled against them if they are inaccurate. Indymedia has any old tosh posted to it...

In what sense do they have to?

Presume, you are also referring to the PCC - or the laws of libel? Who do you think really has access to these? Do they get legal aid to do it? Also, does the occasiional 'victory' through the PCC lead to a widespread move across the whole media towards accurate reporting?

 

[Tom A]

In what sense do they have to?

Presume, you are also referring to the PCC - or the laws of libel? Who do you think really has access to these? Do they get legal aid to do it? Also, does the occasiional 'victory' through the PCC lead to a widespread move across the whole media towards accurate reporting?

Still, a well informed article in the Guardian or Independent (and in some cases, even the Times) trounces the drivel that can be found on up to two-thirds of articles on Indymedia's newswire (the normal, unpromoted, although "9/11 Truth" BS does get promoted too) at any one time.

 

[Fruitloop]

In circumstances like the CC, with no discrete body to take action against them, the mainstream media seem pretty confident of their ability to write whatever arse-nuggets they like without any fear of repercussions.

 

[jæd]

In what sense do they have to?

Presume, you are also referring to the PCC - or the laws of libel? Who do you think really has access to these? Do they get legal aid to do it? Also, does the occasiional 'victory' through the PCC lead to a widespread move across the whole media towards accurate reporting?

Who access to the PCC -- anyone who can write an email...

In 2006, the PCC received 3,325 complaints from members of the public. Around two thirds of these were related to alleged factual inaccuracies, one in five related to alleged invasions of privacy and the rest included the lack of right to reply, harassment and obtaining information using covert devices. 90% of cases were resolved to the complainants' satisfaction. 31 of the cases were adjudicated by the Commission before being resolved as the complainants were initially not satisfied by the action recommended by the Commission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Complaints_Commission

If you want to correct something on Indymedia you'd *have* to resort to the libel laws...

And lets think it through... Which is going to be more accurate...? A website that anyone can set up (and isn't setup very well with its dodgy ssl certs), or a newspaper held accountable to the PCC, its shareholders, etc...

 

[Random]

Still, a well informed article in the Guardian or Independent (and in some cases, even the Times) trounces the drivel that can be found on up to two-thirds of articles on Indymedia's newswire (the normal, unpromoted, although "9/11 Truth" BS does get promoted too) at any one time.

a well informed article in one of those papers? Sounds like about 5% of the total wordage, if you're being generous.

 

[Random]

And lets think it through... Which is going to be more accurate...? A website that anyone can set up (and isn't setup very well with its dodgy ssl certs), or a newspaper held accountable to the PCC, its shareholders, etc...

the shareholders are very happy for papers to print garbage, as long as it helps them sell advertising.

 

[Tom A]

If you want to correct something on Indymedia you'd *have* to resort to the libel laws...

Indymedia UK does have a set of Editorial Guidelines which filter out racist, fascist, and infactual articles which are then "hidden" from the main newswires, and in theory you can e-mail the "editorial collective" at [email protected] - I did that myself in the past when I still had more faith in Indymedia. But still, whether something is done about it is dictated by the members of the editorial collective, who may have different interpretations of the Guidelines and have a different agenda to you.

Also a lot of stuff that IMO falls foul of these guidelines remains up regardless.

 

[Tom A]

a well informed article in one of those papers? Sounds like about 5% of the total wordage, if you're being generous.

Compared to 0.01% of the wordage of Indymedia.

Give me the likes of George Montbiot, Johann Hari, and John Fisk over the authors of the tripe that passes as "news" on IMCUK anyday.

 

[jæd]

the shareholders are very happy for papers to print garbage, as long as it helps them sell advertising.

Another key difference between Indymedia and the Guardian/Times/etc is the number of influential people reading them, and writing in them....

 

[Random]

Compared to 0.01% of the wordage of Indymedia.

that's odd, you said 33% just a couple of posts earlier

 

[Fruitloop]

It's getting worse all the time.

 

[Tom A]

that's odd, you said 33% just a couple of posts earlier

Whatever.

 

[Miss-Shelf]

read as much (or as little) media as you like on a subject - they're all telling a story because humans make everything into a story

 

[Random]

read as much (or as little) media as you like on a subject - they're all telling a story because humans make everything into a story

but journalists make things into a specific set of stories - framed within what their employing company will allow

 

[8ball]

If there are photographs / video of this a complaint should be pursued. I doubt very much that it could be justified in the circumstances of the protest.

It was in yesterday's Metro - attached to the kind of pro-police police piece you wouldn't expect given the choice of pic.

 

[Miss-Shelf]

but journalists make things into a specific set of stories - framed within what their employing company will allow

yes indeed. everyone has an agenda

 

[TAE]

I know from experience that it is a waste of time arguing with you but I have never suggested that it did.

Then what were you suggesting when you corrected the article by saying "s.1 PACE has absolutely nothing to do with offences of drunkeness." ?

ALL I tried to correct was an erroneous impression that it gave (well, to normal people anyway) that somehow drunkenness and searches were someone connected.

They were connected only in the sense that the article suggests the policed were in close enough proximity to the protesters to be able to detect "alcohol related offences".

... clearly uses the fact that searches were made as "evidence" that the allegations of drunkenness could not be correct. ALL I did was explain that there was no connection.

What 'connection' are you trying to disprove here? The article makes no assertions regarding what PACE allows the police to do or whether it is an unusual power for the police to use.

 

[TAE]

that's odd, you said 33% just a couple of posts earlier

51.2689907654780075578% of statistics are made up on the spot!

 

[Random]

yes indeed. everyone has an agenda

yes, determined by their interests. So, as i've said before, what is needed is for people to read media - whether the Times or Indymedia - critically, thinking about who's saying something, and what interests lie behind it.