Minority Report is here, and not in a cool way

[The Mad Monkey]

Well, it's nice to see I'm not the only person who can see that arresting someone over a planned triviality of a non crime isn't a good thing. I mean intended breach of the peace, what is a breach of the peace, someone talking loudly in public, a neighbour playing their music a bit too loud, arranging a party in a residential area could be called an intended breach of the peace.

 

It's not like they were intending on doing anything actually in range of proceedings, no member of the family of parasites would have seen or known anything about it. It would have done nothing to ruin the wedding for anybody, so you can stick the argument that it's harassing and insulting the couple in the happiest day of their life argument up your arse.

 

It's not just a few people getting arrested either, about a hundred people were arrested this week on the pretext that they might have done something yesterday, about another fifty arrests on the day on flimsy charges. People who did attempt to protest were quickly targeted by plain clothes snatch squads when they were miles away from the actual event and doing nothing to hurt or upset anyone.

What harm were the people there doing?

If you listen to what the police are saying they say when questioned on the reason for arrest it is possession of an offensive weapon, and when asked what would that be they reply that remains to be investigated. So basically a trumped up charge.

 

Our freedom of speech, our right to protest, our civil liberties are being taken away from us. You can bury your head in the sand if you like, pretend it doesn't matter or isn't really happening, but it is.

[LegoMan1031]

You keep bringing up the fact they were arrested and taken away for something they hadn't even done yet.

 

To arrest someone you only need suspicion that an offence will be/about to be or has been commited. Obviously to be charged with something is seperate as that requires evidence. Obviously the police had suspicion that an offence was going to take place hence the arrests.

 

From your logic should we let terrorists and the like blow up places and then arrest them afterwords because they have then done something wrong?

 

EDIT: Also police officers are individuals as well, and unfortunatly there will be the minority that are idiots/power hungry who don't follow things properly which make the majority of officers look bad.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Mike1988uk

[drahkon]

From your logic should we let terrorists and the like blow up places and then arrest them afterwords because they have then done something wrong?

 

Looking forward to read Monkey's answer.

[Ramar]

Our freedom of speech, our right to protest, our civil liberties are being taken away from us. You can bury your head in the sand if you like, pretend it doesn't matter or isn't really happening, but it is.

 

Why does one of the protesters in the video have a badana over his face? Got something to hide?

[Emasher]

You keep bringing up the fact they were arrested and taken away for something they hadn't even done yet.

 

To arrest someone you only need suspicion that an offence will be/about to be or has been commited. Obviously to be charged with something is seperate as that requires evidence. Obviously the police had suspicion that an offence was going to take place hence the arrests.

 

From your logic should we let terrorists and the like blow up places and then arrest them afterwords because they have then done something wrong?

 

EDIT: Also police officers are individuals as well, and unfortunatly there will be the minority that are idiots/power hungry who don't follow things properly which make the majority of officers look bad.

 

Do you really not see the difference between stopping someone from blowing up a plane and stopping someone from putting on a somewhat comical presentation that some may find distasteful?

[Magnus]

Why does one of the protesters in the video have a badana over his face? Got something to hide?

Maybe he had a pimple?

[chairdriver]

Why does one of the protesters in the video have a badana over his face? Got something to hide?

 

This does pretty well to explain:

 

 

"I don’t want to mask up.

 

At least, I don’t want to mask up, or hide my identity from you, alongside whom I marched on the 26th. I’d like to be able to talk to you, or argue with you, even if we disagree. But we don’t have that choice: to hide our identity in a surveillance culture is a choice that doesn’t permit any selection. Anonymity is not in itself an end – it would be a pretty useless one – but a means of taking action in a culture where dissent has been gutted of all potential under the watchful lenses of CCTV cameras and surveillance teams.

 

It is a choice, yes. That choice is made on the brink where analysis tips over into action. The defenders of ‘Black Bloc’ explain that it is a tactic, rather than an organisation – that it is, in other words, simply a means of acting. Why choose it?

 

For some, it is a tactic of last resort, inhabiting the far end of a spectrum that stretches from writing to MPs, to marching, to the anonymous destruction of property, all representing differing intensities of action, a tool within a wide arsenal aiming to pressure those in power. But this elides a political difference. The black bloc tactic is not simply on a continuum with those tools, but is a different species of action, one which rejects the premises on which many others are founded. Its refusal of identity, and its refusal of the logic of simple registration of disagreement, is rooted in a recognition that the ‘peaceful’ demonstration changes nothing, challenges nothing, achieves nothing but a torpid and futile walk towards resignation.

 

Why do we act? The imposition of austerity by the few and the wealthy demands action. How? Those who remember the anti-war demonstrations from the beginning of the century know that numbers achieve nothing; that to turn up in our thousands makes not the slightest impact on those in power. Power loves a good march: it enables governments to cloak themselves in a veil of pluralism – a veritable triumph for democracy, after all, even if no one intended to listen to you – or enables a craven opposition (which would cut ‘deeper and harder than Thatcher’, lest we forget) to co-opt your protest as a wave upon which to launch their party back to power. At what point were you heard?

 

We were sold on a lie a long time ago: you’re presented with the option of protesting and marching as a way of registering your dissent, of making your mark, as if our society operates like the most hallowed of debate chambers, where ideas meet each other in purity and reason, and through debate the most meritorious course of action is decided. But the dice are loaded and the house is bent: this is a power struggle, in which the act of registration, the signifying of dissent, ends up another way of someone else scoring points, some other virtually indistinguishable politician seizing the reins of power. Your voice is recuperated to their ends. ‘Not in my name’ is a gift to power – as if by turning up you’ve made the check against your name, done all you could, now all you can do is watch them ignore it or use it to their own ends. What is left, when the dice are so loaded, but to overturn the table?

 

In going masked-up, in smashing a pole through a bank window, in spattering a wall with paint, we refuse to be hemmed in to a corner where our dissent can be used by others. It is a choice to act, and to act urgently, collectively. Anonymity is a choice born of necessity, here. The banks and businesses targeted do not exist in isolation from political power, but form a constituent part of it: capital, power and surveillance combined are supposed to remind you at every turn that your existence is provisional, and your political dissent is tolerated on their terms alone. Any argument about presenting yourself clearly before the agents of power depends on the legitimacy of that power; that legitimacy is not something I recognise. To choose to be faceless as we break the glass is not an act of shame, but the condition under which such an action is possible; an action which reveals the systemic roots of the austerity agenda.

 

To take such an action is ‘radical’, yes, in that it will not be satisfied with cosmetic changes or mere rearrangement of symptoms but demands the breaking of the barriers which insulate the sources of injustice from any real change. Why break things? It is a symbol, but not a mere symbol. Such an action seems daring because it exposes fictions about what is truly valuable, and what is truly immutable. The logic of action is that it refuses to be subsumed in fictions of immutability; with the shattering of glass the narrative of ‘realism’, the argument that present social conditions are a natural and inevitable consequence of how human beings are, should shatter too.

 

*

 

I have said that I do not want to mask up; that is true. I hope that you might understand a little better now why we do. Yet I feel there is also something missing. This is a dire situation, but we need not be sad in order to be militant. The anonymity afforded by a mask is not an anonymity that is isolated but one that extends beyond isolation; it is a sign that effaces the personal and foregrounds the collective. It is risky; it is also trusting. We saw that on the day as dozens of hands reached out to snatch back from police hands those about to be arrested, or covered police cameras, or administered first aid.

 

‘Mindless violence’. Of course, neither word is apt. It was targeted, and it was a recognition, and act that, far from mindless, refused recuperation into falsehood. What sends the politicians running to the touchstone of ‘violence’ is that here it came from the wrong direction: we might argue that property destruction is hardly the same as violence against persons, but something becomes clear from their conflation. We live under a regime that transforms objects into subjects, and subjects into objects; in which to break a pane of glass is tantamount to inflicting personal injury on a corporate person, but to put families on the street, to take away the small concessions the poor and the sick have won from power is merely a matter of accountancy.

 

Catharsis is not enough: simply to expend our energy redressing the balance of power momentarily on the street, inflicting some small damage, some mark that can’t be turned around, is a start. It is in the interest of power to make you believe that we’re in it for kicks. But things have to become visible in order to catalyse, or else we achieve nothing. When we take off our masks, we’re your children, your cousin, your co-worker; we might be in the soup kitchen, or in the dole queue, or in the classroom next to you. If the glass is broken and the slogans fill the wall it is because it is a sign that something is already broken. But don’t think for a moment that’s all we know: if I didn’t think there was something else possible, if I hadn’t seen its possibility, I’m not sure I’d take these risks. ‘We carry a new world, here, in our hearts. That world is growing this minute.’"

[LegoMan1031]

Do you really not see the difference between stopping someone from blowing up a plane and stopping someone from putting on a somewhat comical presentation that some may find distasteful?

 

Yes i can see the difference as obviously it is a very big one.

 

My point was the part of the arguement given is that how can the police arrest someone for an offence they have not yet commited. All i have done is given an extreme example of why the police arrest before an offence has been commited, To prevent an offence being commited in the first place.

[The Mad Monkey]

You keep bringing up the fact they were arrested and taken away for something they hadn't even done yet.

 

To arrest someone you only need suspicion that an offence will be/about to be or has been commited. Obviously to be charged with something is seperate as that requires evidence. Obviously the police had suspicion that an offence was going to take place hence the arrests.

 

From your logic should we let terrorists and the like blow up places and then arrest them afterwords because they have then done something wrong?

 

And by your logic you should be arrested for planning a party that may, or may not, disturb your neighbours.

 

I'm not disputing serious crime should be acted upon if there is forewarning of it. But what are we talking about here, a few people putting on a performance for the entertainment of like minded individuals. Hardly a crime really is it?

 

EDIT: Also police officers are individuals as well, and unfortunatly there will be the minority that are idiots/power hungry who don't follow things properly which make the majority of officers look bad.

 

Of course, but how do you tell the difference between the bad ones putting the boot in because they enjoy the power, from the good ones who put the boot in because that's what they were told to do.

 

Why does one of the protesters in the video have a badana over his face? Got something to hide?

 

Yes, their identity. They probably don't want to spend the rest of their lives being followed by plain clothes police, have their phone tapped or expose their friends to police harassment.

 

Anyway, I really can't be bothered to argue any about this any more. it's pretty evident the majority here have never had the need to protest about anything, and don't understand how important the right to do so is.

[ReZourceman]

[Ramar]

This does pretty well to explain:

 

In going masked-up, in smashing a pole through a bank window, in spattering a wall with paint, we refuse to be hemmed in to a corner where our dissent can be used by others.

 

So by wearing a mask you can get away with crime because you can't be identified, is that what the wall of text was getting at? (Excuse me for not reading it all).

[Wesley]

 

Sorry, was this footage meant to shock me?

 

There was a bunch of twits protesting about living in a fascist regime (ha, right...).

 

Then one person, for some reason unknown to me and those, was arrested by plain clothes officers off camera.

 

I dunno why he was arrested, and the police officers at the scene didn't say at the time (to the camera man and others) either.

 

But I'm guessing that he was probably being a bellend, or was already known to the police for being a bellend.

 

And then the police stopped the rest of the twits from running after the arrested bellend, complained of being assaulted (I don't think he understands what being assaulted is, and I find it funny that while he was being assaulted he kept hold of the camera and gave a running commentary).

 

He then made a smug point of filming the horrible faces of the officers and making a note of their identity (to the utter shock... wait, no... utter indifference of them).

 

Also note the random guy with coffee who breaks through the horrible detention line (by... asking if he could get past) and ignoring the stupid cunt with the dumb-ass flag and material covering his face.

 

How utterly-non-shocking this all was.

 

EDIT: I didn't watch the last 10 seconds of that.

 

But did you see how the police officer said, "ok, thanks for that, cheers."

 

While smiling?!

 

That complete and utter bastard.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Wesley

[The Peeps]

It looked like they knew exactly who they were going in to get and took the precaution of holding the others back. Notice how once the guy with the camera had calmed down he was allowed out?

 

I also intensely dislike the fact that the instant one of the officers merely held out his hands to stop the camera guy getting past, the guy instantly shouted 'assault, assault'. That's the kind of bias they knew they'd be up against and that's why they had so many officers there.

 

Also the 'journalist' who actually asked one of the officers about the man that had been hit. This may have been something off camera but from the footage we can't see anyone being struck, but obviously the news article would be 'police violently attack innocent protesters' - even though there was no assault (unless literally just touching someone is assault) and even though the officer himself said that he had not seen anything of the sort.

Edited April 30, 2011 by The Peeps

[flameboy]

And by your logic you should be arrested for planning a party that may, or may not, disturb your neighbours.

 

I'm not disputing serious crime should be acted upon if there is forewarning of it. But what are we talking about here, a few people putting on a performance for the entertainment of like minded individuals. Hardly a crime really is it?

 

the thing is I think it would only be a few like minded individuals. Hell I'm no royalist but would still think it would have been offensive and in bad taste. If you wanna do that stuff do it private with your mates and have a laugh don't put it out there for everyone one.

 

Also offensive protests/protests that incite hatred etc... are justifiably crimes, organizing a party isn't.....

[LegoMan1031]

And by your logic you should be arrested for planning a party that may, or may not, disturb your neighbours.

 

Well just to point out that a noise nuisance is not a police matter - it is council under enviromental heath. But people tend to call the police , the police can only do something relating to a party is other factors get involved like it spilling out into a street etc.

 

I'm not disputing serious crime should be acted upon if there is forewarning of it. But what are we talking about here, a few people putting on a performance for the entertainment of like minded individuals. Hardly a crime really is it?

 

The police interviened as they must have suspected something more sinister would have taken place. Obviously not on the scale of an attack i mentioned but the basis is the same. None of us probably know the full story behind this, for all we know these protestors could come out as all innocent but they may have been planning an act which would have breached the peace.

 

Of course, but how do you tell the difference between the bad ones putting the boot in because they enjoy the power, from the good ones who put the boot in because that's what they were told to do.

 

Very true, and unfortunatly it is not really possible to do. But you could say the same as how do the police tell the difference between a peaceful protestor and someone out to cause trouble? It is like a never ending circle.

[The Mad Monkey]

(unless literally just touching someone is assault)

 

It is actually.

[Wesley]

Thank'd for the lols.

[The Peeps]

Police officers and court officials have a general power to use force for the purpose of performing an arrest or generally carrying out their official duties.

 

It was not assault.

[The Mad Monkey]

It was not assault.

 

It just would be if somebody else did it.

[The Peeps]

Here's a vid we can all enjoy

 

 

It just would be if somebody else did it.

 

What do you think the police are here for? If they're not allowed to touch people then how do you expect them to make any arrests? Set up elaborate scooby doo style traps?

[Magnus]

What do you think the police are here for? If they're not allowed to touch people then how do you expect them to make any arrests? Set up elaborate scooby doo style traps?

Oh man, that would be awesome. Just think of how much better all of the police procedurals would be all of a sudden.

[The fish]

It looked like they knew exactly who they were going in to get and took the precaution of holding the others back. Notice how once the guy with the camera had calmed down he was allowed out?

 

I also intensely dislike the fact that the instant one of the officers merely held out his hands to stop the camera guy getting past, the guy instantly shouted 'assault, assault'. That's the kind of bias they knew they'd be up against and that's why they had so many officers there.

 

Also the 'journalist' who actually asked one of the officers about the man that had been hit. This may have been something off camera but from the footage we can't see anyone being struck, but obviously the news article would be 'police violently attack innocent protesters' - even though there was no assault (unless literally just touching someone is assault) and even though the officer himself said that he had not seen anything of the sort.

 

That was actually some of the best crowd-control policing I've seen in this country in a long time. Given only the one person at the beginning was "lifted", I'm guessing it was for an earlier offence. Police only have to tell the person they're arresting why they're being arrested, not a mob of dickheads (who, I should say, are by far the most unpleasant British republicans I've ever had the misfortune to set eyes on). Unless the arrested man pops up in the paper saying how he was randomly arrested without charge and is suing them for thousands of pounds (you can for wrongful arrest), I'm guessing they know what they're doing.

 

I should also mention that a massive, nation-wide reform of crowd policing (ie not the kettling) took place a few weeks ago. This was all a rather smoothly done little "operation".

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Oh man, that would be awesome. Just think of how much better all of the police procedurals would be all of a sudden.

 

I'm going to demand this be made a requirement in the Danish police force.

[Jonnas]

The "there are bigger problems, so don't worry about yours" argument (otherwise known as "you don't know how good you've got it" argument) is an argument made out of 100% premium-grade stupid. I'm insulted that you've even said that.

 

A while back, I made a similar comment, but I was not trying to justify a wrongdoing with the comparison. I was just trying to demonstrate that Mad Monkey's comments about the police abusing their power in this case are ridiculous.

 

I do admit that arresting those 3 was going a bit too far, but it's hardly cause for the amount of outrage that Mad Monkey has shown

 

What do you think the police are here for? If they're not allowed to touch people then how do you expect them to make any arrests? Set up elaborate scooby doo style traps?

 

God, I love this community. No matter how heated up a debate becomes, someone will be able to lift my spirits

[Iun]

 

What do you think the police are here for? If they're not allowed to touch people then how do you expect them to make any arrests? Set up elaborate scooby doo style traps?

 

 

I would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for you meddling lefties!