posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 01:57 PM
The first time I witnessed the police start a riot at a peaceful protest in central London, was March 31st, 1990. When I returned home a few hours
later, all tv news coverage depicted scenes where protesters had either resisted, sought to protect other innocent members of the public as they
exercised the right to freedom of speech and freedom of association, or actually (and eventually), fought back. There were no reports depicting
incidences of affirmative and organised actions initiated by the police against and towards peaceful protesters.
At a protesters meeting later that week, I learned that all media companies, covering the protests that day had had their film, camera and other
recording equipment, conviscated by the police. Freelance reporters and camermen where also targeted. The official line was that these items formed
vital evidence in identifying the 'ringleaders' and that anyone not handing them over were obstructing the course of justice, in itself a crime in
English law. This was later reported in the established media.
The police used the conviscated footage to identify people with cameras etc. This footage, equipment etc, was also taken as 'evidence'.
Whatever the police have planned for the G20 protests, whether this is by their own volition or directed by the establishment or government (I just do
not see what it is Jacqui Smith wants me to understand when she says that government have no political control over the police!), they are likely to
legally sue for possession of any media recording equipment and resources being used at the protest.
If as suggested in other threads, the police strategy involves creating a riot (to demonstrate their ongoing dominance of the populace?), I would
suggest that the police have a vested interest in ensuring that no non police source has access to any media that might identify any police agitator.
After 19 years of further erosion of civil liberties in the UK (that may or may not have ever really existed anyway), I don't think the authorities
feel too comfortable with a population of educated, media aware, electronically contected people voicing their concerns and exercising the right to
disagree and admonish, en mass and in public.