Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2011 22:20:30 GMT 1
Just wondering how the massive march today was, seen the reports of the violence, which was inevitable!! but was a specific group, and the decent law abiding groups were well behaved
bet they are not to happy with only 250,000 attending, which is very small giving the march about the war in iraq.....
and are the 22 coach loads back, or did some people not bother and less coachs went??
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Mar 26, 2011 23:02:03 GMT 1
You'd think Milliband would at least have dressed down for the weekend.
They have said on the news that they "stopped counting" at 250 000, not that it was the sum total. Comparing it to the Iraq march is a bit unfair, what with that being about committing people on both sides of the whole thing to being killed, which was a much less partisan cause. You expect more people to protest against illegal mass murder than you do against having your pocket dipped for a few quid.
|
|
|
Post by mrmagoo on Mar 26, 2011 23:03:09 GMT 1
Over 200 arrested tonight, still going off tonight in Trafalgar Square
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Mar 26, 2011 23:05:13 GMT 1
250,000 - not a bad effort at all.
|
|
|
Post by salopianed on Mar 26, 2011 23:17:34 GMT 1
Just wondering how the massive march today was, seen the reports of the violence, which was inevitable!! but was a specific group, and the decent law abiding groups were well behaved bet they are not to happy with only 250,000 attending, which is very small giving the march about the war in iraq..... and are the 22 coach loads back, or did some people not bother and less coachs went?? Did both the Iraq war march and today's rally. It's hard to estimate, however there did appear to be far, far more than 250,000 people there. Shame that the media will focus on the trouble makers. We marched between 11 and 4 and saw no problems at all. Ordinary, decent folk protesting peacefully from all different walks of life - teachers, fire brigade, posties, miners etc Great atmosphere with plenty of kids and families etc. P.S. good effort to the bus we saw going back to Carlisle
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 26, 2011 23:26:26 GMT 1
Well, early estimations were 100,000, that rose to 250,000 and 500,000 is now being mooted.
The 'not that big' sneer was entirely predictable and I don't really see why it has to 'compete' with the Iraq war protest to be seen as valid.
Given so many people can barely be arsed to leave their homes to put a 'X' in a box at the primary school round the corner every five years, this feat of political mobilisation is not to be sniffed at.
Can't say I've been on a protest a similar size before, but it seemed massive to me. More seasoned protestors than myself felt it was certainly much bigger than the G20 demonstrations and on a scale more similar to the anti-war protests.
We were relatively late joining the march and were diverted the 'long way round' to the start point of the official route.
By the time we got to Hyde Park we'd missed the speakers (mercifully in the case of laughable 'pro cuts' anti-cuts speaker, Ed Miliband) but the crowds were still flooding in.
Unfortunately the Anarcho-cockends are now stealing the headlines, rather than the legitimate protestors.
There was a great, good humoured, friendly atmosphere on the march with no air of tension or menace. Just a vast amount of ordinary people voicing their opposition to the government's austerity programme.
I should also add that, from my experience anyway, the march was well policed. The police facilitated this peaceful protest in a fair and non-confrontational or aggressive manner.
And for those who I know will want to sling mud at people like myself, I leave this from Police Commander Bob Broadhurst
'The main march has gone very well. Their estimates are 250,000 - maybe more - have come to central London and protested peacefully. That has gone as we expected. 'Unfortunately, we have had over 500 criminals effectively attacking premises in the Oxford Circus area, causing damage. 'We anticipated there would be some problems. We have minimised the damage caused. We’ll never have enough officers to protect every building in central London. it cannot be done. 'The actual march has gone according to plan. Those damaging buildings have had nothing to do with the TUC.'
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Mar 26, 2011 23:26:51 GMT 1
bet they are not to happy with only 250,000 attending, which is very small giving the march about the war in iraq..... You're so gullible.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Mar 26, 2011 23:29:29 GMT 1
I don't think the violence is stealing the headlines. At least not on the BBC website. Unless people are suggesting that the violence should steal the headlines - for whatever motive that could be.
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Mar 26, 2011 23:39:17 GMT 1
I don't think the violence is stealing the headlines. At least not on the BBC website. Unless people are suggesting that the violence should steal the headlines - for whatever motive that could be. The BBC News certainly gave it what I would consider a slightly disproportionate amount of coverage to the ruffian contingent (Always note how the paparazzi gather like flies, snapping around anyone in a mask with a half-brick, begging them to use it), though not as vastly over-egged as the "Forget the thousands of dead, let's all focus on the word NUCLEAR because people know nothing about it, and neither do we" dross they've been pumping out for the last couple of weeks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2011 0:16:27 GMT 1
Watched news coverage of the event. Could,nt believe it but its so sad its laughable, there was a news reporter, following the knobhead factions about in a state of breathless excitement, dressed in a combat helmet. " they've thrown some paint over us, and broke some windows". Yes, because 1) ther'e knobheads and 2) because you thrusting cameras in their faces, almost willing them to do something. I almost expected Kate Adey to make an appearance.
While this was going on, over 500,000 decent, well behaved citizens of all ages were participating in a peaceful march in protest against the Governments "slash and burn" tactics on their pensions, jobs etc.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Mar 27, 2011 0:33:58 GMT 1
I don't think the violence is stealing the headlines. At least not on the BBC website. Unless people are suggesting that the violence should steal the headlines - for whatever motive that could be. The BBC News certainly gave it what I would consider a slightly disproportionate amount of coverage to the ruffian contingent (Always note how the paparazzi gather like flies, snapping around anyone in a mask with a half-brick, begging them to use it), though not as vastly over-egged as the "Forget the thousands of dead, let's all focus on the word NUCLEAR because people know nothing about it, and neither do we" dross they've been pumping out for the last couple of weeks. And on the point of the nuclear issues the BBC website is also great at providing an alternative view: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842And no doubt there is room for disagreement between the scientists on some of the points made in this article.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2011 0:37:08 GMT 1
bet they are not to happy with only 250,000 attending, which is very small giving the march about the war in iraq..... You're so gullible. Gullible, dont be so offensive, I just have different beliefs to you!!
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Mar 27, 2011 0:39:06 GMT 1
Sky News are getting very excited that there are still people in Trafalgar Square "at this time of night" i.e.11pm on a Saturday. The newsreader clearly wants anyone left in the square rounded up and shot but is getting through it by tutting a lot
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on Mar 27, 2011 1:05:54 GMT 1
"This is John Simpson - War Correspondent- reporting from outside a public house in Tower Hamlets, where it is believed a group within, fuelled by excessive amounts of alcohol believed to be significantly above the legal limit for driving, are having a very vocal debate about the country's economy. Just minutes ago, the sound of smashing glass was heard, reports that the barman dropped a schooner he was drying are so far unconfirmed, therefore we're assuming somebody inside could potentially be suffering from horrific facial injuries, possibly with a weeping girlfriend attending to them. Ross Kemp has just left the reporters' area, claiming it was "about to kick off, so I'm getting out of here". Back to the studio Huw."
ed: Sean, I agree that there has been SOME more balanced comment drip-feeding out, but very rarely has it been given equal airtime to the "potential catastrophic scenario" that the media have preferred to lead with. Thankfully, as it's pretty much become a scientifically-proven washout now, the order of the story has now finally flipped to what it should be - actual tragedy First, slight risk of further impacts Second.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2011 2:38:07 GMT 1
Nice to see people give such a damn but I fail to see what it will achieve, in the same way that the demonstrations regarding Iraq failed to change everything. I'd love to be proved wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Mar 27, 2011 9:44:56 GMT 1
Gullible, dont be so offensive, I just have different beliefs to you!! Offensive ? Where's the offence in pointing out your gullability in believing very predicatable right wing media reports ? Seems to me to have nothing to do with beliefs and more to do with not being able to seperate and interrupt news from mis information. Your views are of course different to mine and I thank the good lord for that but offensive, wide of the mark as always.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Mar 27, 2011 10:05:10 GMT 1
With regard to the media we had this conversation yesterday regarding Muslims and how they are viewed on mass.
Is there any requirement to report the facts in proportion or are we merely interested in impact incidents. With regard to yesterday is the fact that between 100 to 500 thousand people marched less worthy of air time than the fact a couple of hundred smashed windows ?
The media of course have twisted facts and figures for so long we see this as routine, truth be told we at times are fed similar slants to the Iranian (state controlled) media.
I gave up long ago listening to the BBC as for me it has been clear that it is not an independent source of information. The point here is if the BBC is not doing it's job then what hope the "owned" media.
Why do the media cartels continue down the path of highlighting the minority...is it to sell papers ? Or because the public (reading masses) crave impact incidents.....the problem here of course is twofold.
Firstly as we have seen the media concentrate an undue amount of effort and coverage into such incidents, and secondly this leads to the genuine root causes of situations being ignored/downgraded.
Final question - why do we read what we read is it because we believe what we believe or what they want us to believe.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 27, 2011 11:48:09 GMT 1
Nice to see people give such a damn but I fail to see what it will achieve, in the same way that the demonstrations regarding Iraq failed to change everything. I'd love to be proved wrong. The government's recent U-turn over the planned privatisation of 637,000 acres of woodlands is a recent example of protest forcing a change in policy. The poll tax demonstrations also forced the Tory government to change their plans and played a massive part in the downfall of the 'Iron Lady' herself. In the latter example, the demonstrations were the culmination of a lot of planning and organising at a local level. It wasn't a case of the government changing course because of a riot, as some people seem to believe. Yesterday's march won't ,in and of itself, force the government to come out and announce a change in direction - that's never going to happen, even if you get 4 million on the streets - but it sends a clear message that there is significant opposition to these cuts, and people won't just passively accept them. It keeps up the pressure on the government. Imagine how bad things could be if there was no oppsition whatsoever. They would feel they had a free rein to push on with their twisted vision of a fully privatised Britain - with the exception of the armed forces and judiciary - as set out by Camron very recently. I was pleased with yesterday's turnout, but if all those people thinking ' I agree, but what's the point' had joined us, an even bigger impact could have been made. What could be more insidious than a system that instills such a feeling of futility in it's population? If we give in to that, then we're beaten before we even start. Democracy is more than scrawling a cross in a box every five years. I also hope the march will instill confidence in people and they will bring that spirit of protest and opposition back to their local communities where their jobs and services are under threat. This isn't the end. We don't sit back and wait to see if the Tories have 'seen the light'. We keep fighting, campaigning and organising. Who knows, in 2-3 years time, when the impact of these policies will really be felt, perhaps an even bigger demo will descend on London. Of course, we could be living in Cameron's nightmarish vision in ten years time; a harsher, less compassionate and more divided country. But at least I'll be able to say I was one of the ones who tried to stop this coming about, in whatever small way I could.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2011 12:03:46 GMT 1
Fair points somewhat - I don't disagree with the effort put in, or that it's better to protest than do nothing.
Perhaps the point I was trying to make is that ultimately those protests do not hurt nor impact the key decision makers or influencers on this Govt. You know how much the Tory and Labour parties are in the pockets of big business and the banks but yesterday's actions did little to impact them in any way.
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on Mar 27, 2011 12:04:41 GMT 1
bet they are not to happy with only 250,000 attending, which is very small giving the march about the war in iraq..... You're probably right, Id imagine Thatchers funeral will draw a bigger crowd
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 27, 2011 12:19:48 GMT 1
Fair points somewhat - I don't disagree with the effort put in, or that it's better to protest than do nothing. Perhaps the point I was trying to make is that ultimately those protests do not hurt nor impact the key decision makers or influencers on this Govt. You know how much the Tory and Labour parties are in the pockets of big business and the banks but yesterday's actions did little to impact them in any way. The privatisation of our forests is an example of protests having a direct impact on the decision makers: www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/spelmans-forest-uturn-we-got-this-one-wrong-2218382.htmlDon't disagree that the three main parties are in the pocket of big business but, ultimately, those of us who stand to suffer as a result of the coalitions policies far outnumber those who stand to benefit. If yesterday's march has shown people that there is an organised opposition to the cuts, there is a broad movement they can join, there is a part they can play, then we'll be taking important strides forward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2011 12:24:14 GMT 1
I hope you're right!
|
|
|
Post by heavenlyshrew on Mar 27, 2011 12:45:08 GMT 1
Fair play the march was peaceful apart from a few students that joined in and tryed to stir up the police.I bet Jamo id quite happy how everything went.
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Mar 27, 2011 12:56:40 GMT 1
Having read your very considered views Shrewace can you now tell us what Labours alternative is? Also why so negative? THe cuts might just work and we will all be better off in 3 years time One more question for you. Just how much did the demonstration including transport and police etc cost?
|
|
|
Post by Bilbo on Mar 27, 2011 13:04:20 GMT 1
Fantastic turnout for the protests in London I feel the ConDems will get the public response on the 5th of May Local Elections, which will give them a true indication on their popularity with these cuts. I'm expecting the Tories & Libdems to suffer really bad and just maybe rethink their strategies.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 27, 2011 13:13:28 GMT 1
Having read your very considered views Shrewace can you now tell us what Labours alternative is? Also why so negative? THe cuts might just work and we will all be better off in 3 years time One more wquestion for you. Just how much did the demonstration including transport and police costs etc? Can't speak for the Labour party, I'm afraid, you'd have to ask Matron. As far as I can make out they promised 'savage and swingeing cuts' before the election and have now tagged themselves on to the anti-cuts movement, although they're still in favour of cuts - just 'slower' ones. I think one Labour activist (may have been a candidate) said before the election something like 'I'm having to tell people on the doorstep 'we'll cut your throat slowly, the others cut your head off'. This was a TUC organised march , not a Labour march. Although the march wasn't purely one of TUC affiliated trade unions, it also included community groups and individuals opposed to the cuts. Some alternatives put forward by the unionswww.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/campa....c-spendi ng.cfm www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=1890www.unitetheunion.org/news__event....economic_a.aspxwww.nasuwt.org.uk/Whatsnew/NASUWT....t/NASUWT_007126www.fbu.org.uk/?p=1971 The excellent TUC backed website 'False Economy' also has lots of analysis: falseeconomy.org.uk/The cuts may 'work' in the way that 'unemployment was a price well worth paying', although, looking at Ireland - Osborne's model state - I doubt it. How much did yesterday cost? For me £2.50 to park at Abbey Foregate Car Park and £7.60 for the tube. Don't know about police costs etc, why?
|
|
|
Post by salopianed on Mar 27, 2011 13:21:49 GMT 1
Final question - why do we read what we read is it because we believe what we believe or what they want us to believe. All media is pluralistic, just like business. If nobody wants to purchase your media, then you'll go bust. Same for football teams etc. Therefore, people buy want they want to read. Such content is nearly always sympathetic to what the individual believes. Hence, the media just reflect these trends. This is why the Sun supports whichever party has the largest following at one particular time. It now loves Dave and George after supporting Labour for many years, and the Tories pre 1997. The bottom line isn't news, it's filling Rupert Murdoch's bank account
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2011 13:57:13 GMT 1
Gullible, dont be so offensive, I just have different beliefs to you!! Offensive ? Where's the offence in pointing out your gullability in believing very predicatable right wing media reports ? Seems to me to have nothing to do with beliefs and more to do with not being able to seperate and interrupt news from mis information. Your views are of course different to mine and I thank the good lord for that but offensive, wide of the mark as always. Mate, calling someone gullible is in my opinion quite offensive, by saying that you are assuming that I have taken what is fed by the media as an accurate accute of actions as yesterday.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2011 14:40:31 GMT 1
Offensive ? Where's the offence in pointing out your gullability in believing very predicatable right wing media reports ? Seems to me to have nothing to do with beliefs and more to do with not being able to seperate and interrupt news from mis information. Your views are of course different to mine and I thank the good lord for that but offensive, wide of the mark as always. Mate, calling someone gullible is in my opinion quite offensive, by saying that you are assuming that I have taken what is fed by the media as an accurate accute of actions as yesterday. Yeah, sounds to me that is exactly what he is saying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2011 14:49:06 GMT 1
Mate, calling someone gullible is in my opinion quite offensive, by saying that you are assuming that I have taken what is fed by the media as an accurate accute of actions as yesterday. Yeah, sounds to me that is exactly what he is saying. How very presumptious!!
|
|