It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Riot Cops Killed Newspaper Seller At G20

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I'm guessing he was really killed by the egg, bacon, fried bread and 3 sausage breakfast he had every morning, and the curry plus six pints of lager he consumed every evening.

Cockney street vendors are not known for their healthy lifestyle choices.

I'd like to think I could take a shove in the back and not drop dead from a heart attack.




posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 


Anarchy will only be a temporary moment as one way of life ends and a new one starts...not as a way of life unto itself.

Use the established tools already at disposal to bring about change...creative advertising, subtle marketing, package the message the same way as consumer products are. What is the Unique Selling Point of what you advocate? How will it improve someone's life? How will it create the 'me too' envy factor?

In short, manufacture consent, just as goods such as iPods or the latest mobile phone is. Make the proposed change alluring, desired, that the ordinary person would prefer to live that way, rather than the other.

Revolution, protest, and direct confrontation are tools of the last century, whats required is something subtle, beneficial, and sustainable, all wrapped up in such a way to make the ordinary joe choose the new reciepe/model/features rather than the tired old way

Why do the masses believe that '8 out of 10 cats prefer Whiskas'? Because it has been packaged and marketed to appear better than the rival brand..



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Retseh
 


That may be the case but getting a shove in the back (bad diet or not) is assault and assault resulting in death is surely murder or at least manslaughter.


[edit on 7-4-2009 by RE2505]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by suicydking
 


In my home town , we have a tradition . Mayday brings with it legions of Bikers , who come to bask in the coastal sun, drink , and enjoy the seaside town in which I live.
Now I have no problem with that, but to get to my friends place I have to walk through the middle of the bikers. Now this is no great problem , but if they get drunk and start fighting, that makes walking around , and going about my business difficult. Guess what? I do it anyway . I have , and will continue, to walk through the middle of a riot. Theres nothing in law saying that a person must avoid undesireable attention (a bottle to the head) . The law is , that the bottles must not be swung, and offensive unprovoked punches must not be thrown. Therefore the law supports my right to plough through a mass of people, if my intentions are limited to going about my business without being harrased.


Your logic is correct of course.

But pragmatism dictates otherwise.

There is no law stopping a woman from walking down a dark alley at 2am at night. Again, its obviously not her fault if she gets raped after doing so...

But common sense indicates she shouldn't have done it. It's not her fault, but at the same time it could have possibly been avoided.

reply to post by citizen smith
 


Good points


[edit on 7-4-2009 by 44soulslayer]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by RE2505
 


The witnesses to this act all appear to have connections with the rioters, so I question their objectivity.

Perhaps this guy was refusing to move along quickly enough, personally I would run from a riot, what was he doing, was he involved, why was he there?

Perhaps it was a case of mistaken identity, but if you're a police officer surrounded by 500 rioters and one poor unfortunate guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, how would you know the difference?

And a shove in the back and/or a bonk on the head with a truncheon is not assault unless it's unjustified, and we just don't have enough proof to draw that conclusion at this point.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
reply to post by RE2505
 


The witnesses to this act all appear to have connections with the rioters, so I question their objectivity.

Perhaps this guy was refusing to move along quickly enough, personally I would run from a riot, what was he doing, was he involved, why was he there?

Perhaps it was a case of mistaken identity, but if you're a police officer surrounded by 500 rioters and one poor unfortunate guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, how would you know the difference?

And a shove in the back and/or a bonk on the head with a truncheon is not assault unless it's unjustified, and we just don't have enough proof to draw that conclusion at this point.
those rioters you refer to, made up about 0.001% of the crowd. And statements are now coming through that the ringleaders of the agro, were undercover pigs. one guy was throwing bottles, the protesters accused him of being plod, and he ran through the police line, whilst flashing some ID of sorts. Agent provocateurs. They has them.

edit to add source

He writes that it appeared to at least these two photographers that most of the much-photographed violence on Wednesday evening was caused by people who looked like “agent provocateurs,” who “were going from police line to police line baiting the police — and they were the ones who instigated the push against police lines that kicked off the evening violence.” This photographer adds that “There was another guy baiting the police and whipping up the crowd to rush the police, he got a hundred or so protesters to follow him and then sneaked off as they reached police lines.” He also writes that the second photographer, who is a reliable reporter, “saw a bunch of protesters trying to stop a guy in black throwing bottles at the police, the protesters had an argument him and then accused him of being a policeman, whereupon he ran to the police cordon, showed some I.D. and was let through!”

thelede.blogs.nytimes.com...

I've started a new thread on it, as not to take this one too far off topic.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 7/4/2009 by Acidtastic]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
reply to post by RE2505
 


The witnesses to this act all appear to have connections with the rioters, so I question their objectivity.


Of course the witnesses are connected, by the fact that they were all in London. It does not make these witnesses associated with rioters. There were people from all walks of life caught up in the mess! As far as I could tell there were no rioters where Ian was killed. The centre of the city of London was blocked by riot police. There were peaceful protesters, bike couriers, council workers, city workers trying to get home, tourists and shoppers old and young. These people were not rioters!



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by RE2505
 


Not neccesarily.

If it can be shown that reasonable force was used, either by the Police trying to maintain order or by Joe Bloggs defending whats his, a shove is neither assault nor, if it results in death, manslaughter/murder.

Nothing is that simple or black and white.

Whatever happened to "presumed innocence"?

I think it is quite hypocritical of some "protestors" to cry about their human rights abuse, while trampling over others either when causing a disturbance, smashing someones windows, daubing graffiti on someones property, or advocating attacking police personnel.

Alot of you self-righteous, "i-know-how-to-run-the-world-better-but-haven't-a-clue-what-to-do" anarchist types have passed judgement on people without being in posession of all the facts, hearing the other side or giving anyone a chance to defend themselves. Why not give the IPCC inquiry a chance to establish the facts?

You would cry blue murder if you were treated the same....

Citizen Smith has the right track. Re-brand, re-package your message. People don't want to listen to a bunch of piss throwing hippies with pink hair who have altruistic ideals about how the world should all live like a hippie commune. What if people don't want that? I certainly don't want to live in such a world. Labour rebranded, the Tories rebranded. it works. People listen and pay attention.

It would never work anyway, like I stated in my previous post about anarchism. Someone tried to spin one little sentence of mine to try and portray my views as "anarchists are violent", but I understand the notion of anarchism very well and because I also understand human behaviour, I know that it would never work.

You might try to shrug off the fact most people don't want your brand of society as them being "mindless sheeple following the herd", but have you stopped to consider that many people do know what your message is, but think it's a bit of a crap one? It's even less workable than communism, for crying out loud.

I would love to see an anarchist explain to me exactly how their society would function, in the real world.

But I have yet to hear anything but the standard "party line", as it where: "People should be free from the constraints of Government, everyone should work together and barter...." blah, blah, blah...

But I want to know the the mechanics of how said society would work. As yet, I have yet to be convinced it is anything but a pipe dream and is open to abuse if it were ever implemented.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by RE2505
 




Alot of you self-righteous, "i-know-how-to-run-the-world-better-but-haven't-a-clue-what-to-do" anarchist types have passed judgement on people without being in posession of all the facts, hearing the other side or giving anyone a chance to defend themselves. Why not give the IPCC inquiry a chance to establish the facts?



I am not an anarchist, as stated before in another thread, I went there to support the climate campers. I think I am in a great position to pass judgement as I was stood with and talking to the deceased man and saw him pushed around by riot officers. I saw plenty of other people pushed around and trampled on, HELL I was one of them! Those are the facts.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by RE2505
 


And why were you pushed around?

Could it be because you were blocking a public highway?

Could it be because you refused to obey Police instruction?

Could it be because some idiots started throwing abuse, bottles and other crap, attempting to goad the Police knowing full well they could cry "Police brutality" later, earning brownie points amongst their ilk?

There's plenty of reasons for why the Police moved on protesters, depends on the particular protest, but mostly it has to do with people causing a nuisance and generally not obeying commands.

For example, those at the "Climate Camp" had been there for hours, blocking a highway, littering but were left alone for a long time by the Police.

They asked them to move later on and by the evening, the time had come to forcefully evict the protesters. Boo bloody hoo that you didn't heed earlier instruction to leave.

Did you honestly expect the Police to let you camp there all night? Into the next day? How long would it have gone on if they hadn't had moved in?

They can't just let people sit in the middle of the road indefinately for crying out loud.

EDIT: There is a common misconception that we, the people, have the right to protest wherever and whenever we like. This is not true. We have the right to assemble, which isn't the same as the right to actively protest, block highways etc etc...

[edit on 7/4/09 by stumason]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Can I ask if you were there or you are basing all your retorts on media info? If it's the latter then I'll leave you to read on.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by RE2505
 


So, because I wasn't there I am suddenly not allowed an opinion?

Somewhat hypocritical, isn't it? Your denying my right of free speech, yet crying because your's was trampled on?
Whatever...

I didn't go because I knew it would be a waste of time, effort and blood. I knew there would be trouble and I have better things to do than make my criminal record longer than it already is. I have a family, with two young children, after all.

I actually spend alot of my free time being polictically active and trying to change the world every day, not on one day just because some head honcho's happen to be in town and it's "cool" to be seen at these things...

EDIT: You all claim to have been there, got videos and seen the Police behave brutally, yet none of you are willing to provide any evidence to back this up, despite claims of having video of the event. I've even offered to help get those videos here so we can see.

Edited videos on prison Planet don't count... They have an agendea as much as anyone else, plus do you really think Alex Jones and co aren't making a heap of money out of it while the same time "fighting the PTB"?



[edit on 7/4/09 by stumason]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by RE2505
 


So, because I wasn't there I am suddenly not allowed an opinion?

Somewhat hypocritical, isn't it? Your denying my right of free speech, yet crying because your's was trampled on?
Whatever...

I didn't go because I knew it would be a waste of time, effort and blood. I knew there would be trouble and I have better things to do than make my criminal record longer than it already is. I have a family, with two young children, after all.

I actually spend alot of my free time being polictically active and trying to change the world every day, not on one day just because some head honcho's happen to be in town and it's "cool" to be seen at these things...

EDIT: You all claim to have been there, got videos and seen the Police behave brutally, yet none of you are willing to provide any evidence to back this up, despite claims of having video of the event. I've even offered to help get those videos here so we can see.

Edited videos on prison Planet don't count... They have an agendea as much as anyone else, plus do you really think Alex Jones and co aren't making a heap of money out of it while the same time "fighting the PTB"?



[edit on 7/4/09 by stumason]


I have supplied videos in the other related threads. I have also justified my being there to others and am tired of repeating myself. You seem to have made up your mind as to what happened from your media sources yet seem to ignore the eyewitness account staring you in the face. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion of course. I am not posting here to side with anyone. I have no agenda. I am not associated with the media. I am simply putting my account of what happened out there.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by RE2505
 


And it is appreciated, don't get me wrong. However, I was at work the day of the protests and watched it live on TV. For the most part, it went off peacefully. It was just a small minority, operating under the impression they could protest wherever they want, however they want and ignore police instruction that ruined it.

I am curious (and this isn't necessarily directed at you) why protesters felt they were in the right when blocking highways or performing a "legal squat". What is a "legal squat" anyway?

To me, breaking into office buildings and setting up shop is a crime (several, in fact).

I would love to hear the legal argument that says people can do that and expect to get away with it.

Protesting is fine, acting like a grade A tit isn't.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


You have a very restricted view of the intentions of those involved in the protests.

These were people from all over the UK and from every walk of life.
You bang on about people with brightly colored hair and interesting ideas as if that's something to be ashamed of. That shows more about your attitudes to others who are "different to you" than you will ever accept.

You're so high up on your own pedestal about your opinions, and yet you criticize the views of others by insulting their appearance and making generalized statements about their political views. Yep, that's intelligent isn't it? Just as intelligent as this "anarchist society" you seem to know all about but are completely unable to describe.

Anarchist ideals are not as black and white as you seem to think. It is a collection of ideas based on the principle that government are far too involved in everyday life. That's the basis of it. It's the concept that people should be permitted to do as they wish as long as it harms no one else.

Just take a look at Ron Paul for a taste of what intelligent modern Anarchist ideals are leaning towards. Whatever books you've been reading are wrong, out of date, or simply extreme in their views.

The violence at the protests was caused by a minuscule fraction of the crowd. As was shown on all national media.
And it was expected, in fact it was expected to be a lot worse.
This government and RBS have caused embarrassment, insult and injury to this country. And they have continued to do so with arrogance and complete disregard of the people. What is expected to happen?

The witnesses (some of them not your stereotypical Anarchist, whatever that is beyond "brightly colored hair" and "hippy ideas") are now saying that they saw, with their own eyes, this man being shoved by a line of riot police, just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I don't expect you to accept anything they say though, you seem to know all about exactly who these protesters were, what their political ideas are, what their intentions were and how the world would be if they were in charge, and all this despite you not knowing any of them and obviously not paying any attention to the diversity of the actual crowds there.

I don't believe for one moment that the IPCC will find any fault with any officer during those protests. It's just my opinion of course, but, as a citizen of this country, evidence suggests to me that every aspect of our government is rotten to the core and swimming in corruption.
That's not a biased view by an uneducated sheep, that's going from experience of living in this country in these times. And I am far from being the only one with this opinion.

Perhaps they should get their house in order and then maybe the people would have some faith in other aspects of this nation. Until then, they have no credibility and they have no trust from the people.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


Ron Paul is minimal government, minimal interventionist. That equates to limited government for core functions of law enforcement, military, fire dept etc.

Additionally RP is constitutionalist, and a constitution by nature is a collective declaration of the supreme laws of the land, which are inviolable by any man.

This is a world away from the free-for-all of anarchy.



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Back to the subject matter. The video has been released, and it's f#ing shocking. Anyone who isn't disgusted by this isn't human.

www.guardian.co.uk...


Deny that pigs, and all on here who defend them. GO ON



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


Some people have difficulty reading english...


Citizen Smith has the right track. Re-brand, re-package your message. People don't want to listen to a bunch of piss throwing hippies with pink hair who have altruistic ideals about how the world should all live like a hippie commune.


This particular excerpt from my post is commenting on the perception that these protesters have in the wider public, hence why I mentioned a rebranding of the "anarchist" movement away from this stereotype which is pretty entrenched.. I thought I made that clear, it seems pretty damn clear to me anyway.

As for your comments that I am obviously hostile to those who "look different" or have different views, that's bull. My missus had pink hair a few years back, even had a pierced nose and lip. She doesn't now so she can maintain a professional look at work. Doesn't bother me, I find pink hair quite horny as it happens! I, personally, couldn't give two hoots what you look like but many people do.

Again, this is about image.

You won't change the world if the world refuses to listen, and the world won't listen as long as you go to protests, wearing masks, look like you out to find trouble, are lobbing bottles of piss and damaging property.



Anarchist ideals are not as black and white as you seem to think. It is a collection of ideas based on the principle that government are far too involved in everyday life. That's the basis of it. It's the concept that people should be permitted to do as they wish as long as it harms no one else.


And I ask and ask what exactly is it "anarchists" stand for and every time, I get some stylised response with no substance. Tell me, what is it you want to see and how would it work, in real life?

There's so many forms of Anarchism I doubt you could get two anarchists to agree if put in a room! It's not a coherent political ideology and the only time you ever see Anarchists campaigning, it is as they smash there way into a McDonalds, further damaging a poorly understood subset of society.

I am well aware that there were a large cross section of society present at the protests, however, the ones I saw lobbing stuff and goading police on that day were your stereotypical "hippie" types.





Above just a few samples of those pictured scuffling with police or, in the case of the last one, an image of "anarchist" graffitii daubed over private property. Hardly the clean cut image, is it?



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


And that backs up my sentiment that "anarchism" and anarchists are so disjointed that they don't even know what it means themselves.

Way to change the world!



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 


That's the smoking gun right there! That was the second time he was pushed to the ground while having his back towards the pigs! Now you people supporting the police tactics defend that!



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join