Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

G8 marchers = fucking wankers (discuss)

i am now william! work in the morning, little girl to get ready etc..

night all, sweet dreams, let's hope tomorrow is better that today....... :)
 
sorter said:
please scumbalina read my last post, jesus. destroying property, attacking police officers. i can't write it any more! :D

Yes you can - from who did you hear this happened? Where and when did it happen? Provide a source that people can look at?
 
As a G8 protester who has just returned you can take it from me that

1. the media accounts of violence are exagerated

2. the riot police were out to cause confrontation.

The policies of the G8 are impoverishing much of the World, ensuring that no real action is taken to save the planet from climate change and are warmongers who have made the whole world a more dangerous place. It is right and just to oppose them and expose them.

I will provide an account of the supposed 'riot' on Monday in Edinburgh's 'financial district' and of yesterday's march on the G8 hotel in Gleneagles.

Right now, having walked through London, I am not really in the mood for rigorous debate, and certainly not for slanging matches.
 
sorter said:
i hate political violence, domestic violence, war, terrorism, fighting on the street, boxing, whatever.
That's nice.

Can you reply to my question please?



And Titchmarsh haters....I was making a point....sorry :D
 
_pH_ said:
Apology grudgingly accepted. Just don't do it again OK?


OK. I only have hanging baskets...what the fuck do I know. :(


Hey Sorter - answer my questions or I'll derail your thread into a gardening experts debate! :D
 
sorter said:
i was responding to the notion of people having opinions. would someone be ok in saying the violence in london was ok (because it was their opinion), in the same way someone approved of the violence against, say, huntingdon life sciences employees (because it was their opinion). ??
Jesus christ on a fucking bike: there's more to the morality of an action than the consequence of the action. Is that so fucking hard to grasp? I think going up to someone on the street & kicking the shit out of them is morally different to kicking the shit out of someone who has a gun to your family & is threatening to kill them. By your logic, those two actions are morally equal because they have the same result (i.e. violence) but to anyone with a braincell - or for that matter, anyone who's thought through the subject of ethics at all - they're clearly not.
 
editor said:
So anything creating a traffic jam should also be charged similarly too? Broken down cars, injured pedestrians etc?

And how can you be "imprisoned" when there are usually between 2 and 5 doors available on every vehicle?

Do people deliberatly have their cars break down on them or injure themselves?
 
sorter said:
look, it's fairly simple. for the last time, how can:

destroying people's cars and shops
attacking police officers

on whatever scale, large or small, advance any cause they might be up there to champion? no-one has answered this in 8 pages of responses.
Yes they have. People have given as examples; Suffragettes, Poll Tax, Peasants revolt and more.
 
i guess at least the events in london yesterday sort of meant that there wouldnt be any trouble up north. thank fully. pointless violence up there would have won absolutely no favours at all in light of what was happening in london.
 
I got back from the Sterling camp early thismorning, I spent Wednesday mostly on and around the A9, I didn't see any violence except by the police. I know the BK and Pizza hut by camp were trashed, I saw them after it had happened, apprentyl by a group who left the camp early on the morning of wednesday, not saying it didn't happen just I didn't see it.

As for locals by Gleneagles, they were supportive, I saw no attacks against them and in the afternoon on Wednesday when I found myself there with a group of around 20-30 people a local hotle owner gave us coffee and wouldn't take money for it, and gave a jumper (left unclaimed by a pervious guest) to one person who didn't have dry clothes. They were certainly not the community under siege by violent thugs that seem to have been portrayed (I've had little access to radio/tv etc for days).
 
Back
Top Bottom