Security Guard

[Deareg]

better than looking like this

that is a better example of harrasment and is more likely to help you win an arguement and convince others

 

[peacepete]

I don't see the private property bit, which is probably the main reason why we differ

 

[Guineveretoo]

i agree that it might not be obvious to everyone with an open mind, but I have an open mind and it's obvious to me

If you have an open mind, can you not conceive of the possibility that the security guard may not be a fascist dictator and nazi who deserves to be ridiculed and threatened, but just someone going about his daily and legitimate business?

 

[peacepete]

I was grinning inanely because I made an inane quip.

I can do that, you know. I don't need your permission to use emoticons.

Here are a couple more:

you can do what you like. i'm not going to start bossing you round. i was just pointing out that you're clearly trying to offend me and that you might have thought more people were reading this than actually are.

 

[peacepete]

If you have an open mind, can you not conceive of the possibility that the security guard may not be a fascist dictator and nazi who deserves to be ridiculed and threatened, but just someone going about his daily and legitimate business?

I can and do. I refer you to some of my previous points.

 

[Deareg]

I don't see the private property bit, which is probably the main reason why we differ

pete i could'nt give a fuck if they had trashed the bank in fact i would have a lot of sympathy what i did'nt like was the stick the security guard got nor the reference to his kids, some security guards bring it on themselves and deserve it but this particular one looked like he was only doing a job, a job that is badly paid

 

[Guineveretoo]

I don't see the private property bit, which is probably the main reason why we differ

Ah, so you think that guy with the obscured face is sitting on some publicly owned steps just for fun and not to make any protest at all, and that the security guard has asked him to move even though it is not his job to do so, also just for fun, and that the police are there by coincidence? Oh, and that the guy with the camera just happened to be passing and leapt in to defend some poor innocent guy who just was not being allowed to sit, legally, on public steps?

Even if the above is true, which I seriously doubt, what makes the guy a fascist and a nazi and deserving of threats and humiliation?

 

[Guineveretoo]

I can and do. I refer you to some of my previous points.

Fucking hell! I find that quite disturbing.

 

[Guineveretoo]

you can do what you like. i'm not going to start bossing you round. i was just pointing out that you're clearly trying to offend me and that you might have thought more people were reading this than actually are.

I see you can read into my motives about as accurately as you can read that youtube video.

 

[Guineveretoo]

better than looking like this

And if the youtube video was showing something like this, I think we might agree that someone is being "hassled" by the police.

Shame that we can't agree that the security guard is being hassled by the person with the camera.

 

[peacepete]

pete i could'nt give a fuck if they had trashed the bank in fact i would have a lot of sympathy what i did'nt like was the stick the security guard got nor the reference to his kids, some security guards bring it on themselves and deserve it but this particular one looked like he was only doing a job, a job that is badly paid

I agree with this.

though, I understood the reference to his kids as - they'll see this on the internet and think you're a bully (i recommend watching the clip again before we argue over that)

the 'you've got to walk home tonight' bit is the bit that made me uncomfortable btw.

 

[peacepete]

Ah, so you think that guy with the obscured face is sitting on some publicly owned steps just for fun and not to make any protest at all, and that the security guard has asked him to move even though it is not his job to do so, also just for fun, and that the police are there by coincidence? Oh, and that the guy with the camera just happened to be passing and leapt in to defend some poor innocent guy who just was not being allowed to sit, legally, on public steps?

Even if the above is true, which I seriously doubt, what makes the guy a fascist and a nazi and deserving of threats and humiliation?

no i just don't respect the private property

 

[Guineveretoo]

no i just don't respect the private property

Well, what on earth do you think the security guard was doing there, then?

Come to that, what on earth do you think the protester was doing there?

 

[skunkboy69]

i agree that it might not be obvious to everyone with an open mind, but I have an open mind and it's obvious to me

I'm open minded and all I see is an everyday guy trying to do his job being hindered by a couple of idiots.I'm all for protest and such but I'm missing your point totally here.

 

[peacepete]

i'm confused by some of this debate, but then again i haven't been explaining everything i've been thinking all that clearly so fair enough.

i guess the point in relation to property is that i don't see it as relevant. a bit of land you happen to be employed to guard is no more yours than anyone else's. it alone doesn't give you the right to push people around. (that includes almost pushing people around and deciding not to because a video camera is pointing at you)

 

[Guineveretoo]

i'm confused by some of this debate, but then again i haven't been explaining everything i've been thinking all that clearly so fair enough.

i guess the point in relation to property is that i don't see it as relevant. a bit of land you happen to be employed to guard is no more yours than anyone else's. it alone doesn't give you the right to push people around. (that includes almost pushing people around and deciding not to because a video camera is pointing at you)

Actually, it can and does.

There would be nothing for that guy to protest about, otherwise....

 

[peacepete]

I'm open minded and all I see is an everyday guy trying to do his job being hindered by a couple of idiots.I'm all for protest and such but I'm missing your point totally here.

why exactly do you think they're being idiots? especially the one sitting down. i agree that some of what the guy shouting says seems out of order (but we don't know the atmosphere very well - except that the other picture i posted up in relation to the young one's reference appears to be from the same day).

what exactly is the guy sitting down doing wrong?

 

[Snufkin!]

The internet never fails to provide me with laughs, peacepete you've brightened my day, for that, I thank you.

 

[peacepete]

Actually, it can and does.

There would be nothing for that guy to protest about, otherwise....

you appear to be trying to talk at crossed purposes with me. i obviously mean that i don't think it gives him the right as opposed to Queen Elizabeth II, who presumably does!

 

[peacepete]

The internet never fails to provide me with laughs, peacepete you've brightened my day, for that, I thank you.

I presume you've read the whole thread and thought about all the issues involved. my laughs are stifled by the complexity of the themes

 

[peacepete]

Shame that we can't agree that the security guard is being hassled by the person with the camera.

Actually I do agree with this

 

[Guineveretoo]

you appear to be trying to talk at crossed purposes with me. i obviously mean that i don't think it gives him the right as opposed to Queen Elizabeth II, who presumably does!

So, because you deny the legal rights of the owners of property, that makes it acceptable for the guy with the camera to threaten and humiliate someone else?

 

[peacepete]

I'd have had more 'respect' if the big mouth behind the camera asked the guard round the back for a 'square go', instead of insulting him. I'd wager he wouldn't have been so yappy if the cops hadn't been there. Ironic, eh?

that's the most shocking thing I reckon anyone wrote on this thread by the way.

 

[Deareg]

i'm confused by some of this debate, but then again i haven't been explaining everything i've been thinking all that clearly so fair enough.

i guess the point in relation to property is that i don't see it as relevant. a bit of land you happen to be employed to guard is no more yours than anyone else's. it alone doesn't give you the right to push people around. (that includes almost pushing people around and deciding not to because a video camera is pointing at you)

it does'nt give you the right to push people around i agree with you, i worked on the door for a few years, not because i wanted too but because i needed the money, i only once ever hit someone and that was because he attacked me, but on a number of occasions i had to physically remove people from the premises because for whatever reasons they had going through their heads they refused to leave by themselves, it was part of my job, if i had been the security gaurd it the video i would have took the wankers way out and asked the police to move the punk, which would you prefer pete to be moved on by the guard or arrested?

 

[detective-boy]

I have no idea why you've decided to call me a twat. my only guess is that I don't agree with you.

You're guess would be wrong.

I'm calling you a twat because ... your dishonest attempt to portray the incident as some form of hassle of the poor, downtrodden masses by some agent of "the man" is, basically, twattish in my book.

 

[Snufkin!]

I presume you've read the whole thread and thought about all the issues involved. my laughs are stifled by the complexity of the themes

I think perhaps you've been so caught up in revolutionary zeal you've forgotten how to look at yourself or other things objectively. Anyway I don't know you so good luck.

 

[peacepete]

So, because you deny the legal rights of the owners of property, that makes it acceptable for the guy with the camera to threaten and humiliate someone else?

not exactly. i'm not massively in favour of threatening and humiliating people by the way.

my constant references to private property are because it seems clear that it's the basis of the antagonisms visible here.

 

[peacepete]

I think perhaps you've been so caught up in revolutionary zeal you've forgotten how to look at yourself or other things objectively. Anyway I don't know you so good luck.

I'm not caught up in revolutionary zeal at the moment, I'm just trying to hold on to some sense in response to a reactionary onslaught.

 

[detective-boy]

I don't see the private property bit, which is probably the main reason why we differ

So if, say, McDonalds decided your squat would be a good place to set up a new drive thru', that would be OK then would it? People (and groups of people organised into companies and other bodies) have "owned" property since the dawn of time. It's what animal's do ... go watch some Attenborough ...

 

[London_Calling]

peacepete - How on earth will you attract respect and sympathy for your cause/s when you try to spin - in the best New Labour tradition - a perfectly reasonable response into being an act of "Nazisim".

Do you really think people are so naive to not recognise what it is they're looking at ?

Do you really think this is the way to convince people of the worth of your own agenda ?