March 27, 2011
On Violence and Recent Protest
As previously noted, I have no problem per se with political violence. Its use and justification must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, with reference to myriad factors such as likelihood to succeed, ability to justify harm to victims, long-term advantages gained, greater evils averted, and so on. Use and justification of violence – like any other tool of politics – depends on firstly the judgement of those who deploy it, and at a later stage the judgement of those (if different) who must assess it (and quite possibly, sentence it). As a general rule, it is wise to hope for better judgement than worse, and from all concerned.
Some situations allow for more judgement, particularly with regards to strategy, than others. The leaders of the ANC, or the ETA, or Hamas, typically control the means of violence in hierarchical command structures. A few men will decide when and where to use violence, and dictate orders to subordinates. In such cases, judgement (including strategic planning) is in the hands of specific individuals with relatively high degrees of control. In turn, moral judgement by other parties as to the justified or unjustified use of that violence will in large measure focus on the decisions of the commanding individuals. The same, incidentally, goes for the aparatus of the modern state – though for complex and important reasons we tend to shy away from recognising the deeply and necessarily coercive natures of the states we find ourselves in and under.
But certainly not all instances of political violence fit this model. When the so-called “Black Bloc” of anarchist militants attacked stores on Oxford Street yesterday they were not part of a (para)military organised hierarchy with a leadership exercising strategic-tactical judgement – still less the militant wing of the 250,000 peaceful marchers congregating in Hyde Park. When UK Uncut protestors launched their non-violent direct action against Fortnum and Mason, they can hardly be held responsible for the spontaneous vandalism that enthusiasts in the assembled crowd promptly launched.
In these latter cases the problem with considering the use of political violence from the perspective of strategic judgement in particular is that it quite simply doesn’t apply. Before Saturday’s outbursts of violent direct action no hierarchy of command could exercise the sort of command and control upon which strategic judgement is predicated. Yet after the violence talk of strategic judgement seems largely besides the point. Insofar as there was any, it was exercised by individuals or small groups in loosely organised ways, in a situation of mass happenings over which nobody had meaningful control.
In turn, this makes the task of passing retrospective moral judgement over the uses of political violence on Saturday a nuanced affair. For a start, we must distinguish between the actions of opportunistic vandals, committed anarchists, young enthusiasts caught up in the moment, and those goaded and provoked by police tactics (if any of the above indeed turn out to apply).
Nonetheless, it remains possible to assume a third-party perspective in order to analyse yesterday’s events. Specifically, we can adopt a position of hypothetical strategic judgement. It is quite sensible to ask: if I had absolute control over what actions people did and did not take yesterday, which would I permit? Personally, I would have preferred an entirely peaceful protest. Not because I’m opposed to all political violence (I’m not), but because yesterday’s outbursts were unambiguously counter-productive, and predictably so.
By contrast, my strong sense is that if the student movement had remained entirely peaceful at the end of last year, it would certainly have achieved absolutely nothing. The broken windows at Millbank and the riots in Westminster attracted levels of attention that peaceful marching never could have. And importantly, I believe that the student violence did not lead to the same outcomes that purely peaceful protest would have (failed to) achieve.
Certainly, the Parliamentary vote was passed and in that sense the student protests failed. Yet the carnage witnessed in Parliament Square – chronciled by myself, Jeremy Gilbert and others in Fight Back! – will have sent a shiver down many Coalition MPs’ spines. Lib Dems in particular must know that the ferocity of student anger means that particular constituency is lost for the very foreseeable future. Tory MPs must know deep down that if things can get that bad that quickly before the cuts have even started to bite, the next 4 years will contain some very difficult fights. Perhaps this will only make the present Government even more determined and bullish – but my sense is that it will quietly make key decision-makers more wary, and Lib Dems more skittish. And even if all of that is wrong, I still think that the student protests stood a better chance the way they actually happened than any peaceful alternative could have offered.
By contrast, Saturday’s march needed something entirely different. It needed the other face of protest: the face of hundreds of thousands of ordinary, reasonable and respectable people calmly registering their disapproval. As Paul Mason has noted, if you can get your entire workforce out to a Saturday demonstration, this means something. The scale of yesterday’s protest, quite obviously not made up of the “usual suspects”, would have been very powerful just because of its sheer size. If only it had been the main news story.
Instead, much coverage was given over to actions initially started by the “Black Bloc” idiots. I call them idiots because that is exactly what they are. Either they like to smash things just for the thrill (in which case they are Basic Idiots), or they are so politically deluded they think throwing paint bombs at TopShop will light the fuse of revolutionary explosion (in which case they are Advanced level Über-Idiots). Whichever camp of idiots yesterday’s Black Bloc thugs fell into, they did the anti-cuts campaign huge damage. By distracting attention to the loudly spectacular and meaningless away from the quietly awesome and meaningful they ruined it for everyone. Except the Tory Party.
Yet, crucially, there is more to say. For although the actions of the Black Bloc started the trouble – as Ryan Gallagher has noted – it is undeniable that many others quickly joined the violence without premeditation. Likewise the kids who stuck it out in Trafalgar Square, or who angrily confronted police outside Fortnum and Mason, cannot be dismissed as merely extended members of the Black Bloc.
Rather, they were the people who don’t any longer see the point of maintaining peaceful protest if the opportunity to descend into confrontation arises. And at a certain level they have my sympathy, for two reasons. Firstly, my generation learned quite spectacularly in 2003 that even enormous peaceful demonstrations of over a million people can make precisely zero difference. Tony Blair invaded Iraq, and didn’t give a flying damn what any of us thought.
Secondly, anybody who has been on even a handful of protests – especially in London – knows full well that the police do not hesitate to use violence, and frequently instigate aggressive confrontational situations amidst previously jovial and peaceful atmospheres. At the G20 protests in 2009, trouble only started when the police moved in – and it is probably significant that following that experience increasing numbers of protestors are drawing the obvious conclusion: if you know the boys in blue will baton you regardless, why wait around passively for them to do it?
It is significant and telling that so many recent protests have seen flare-ups of violence. The Black Bloc has been around a long while now and they cannot alone explain this. A better explanation is that many people – especially the young – are angry, justifiably untrusting of the police, and contemptuous of the old (failed) channels of political expression. As the cuts really start to bite, their numbers must surely increase.
So whilst I regret yesterday’s violence – if I could have had my way, there would have been none at all – I can understand why these outbursts of wider political violence are happening. And they do not make me optimistic about the future.
Mercer Finn said,
March 27, 2011 at 10:30 pm
I think the violence during the student protests would have convinced the Liberals MPs to hug the Tories even closer (esp since I suspect a large chunk of them quite like the fees proposals), so I’m not sure it achieved anything apart from bad press, really. But yr right, police tactics don’t exactly encourage peaceful behaviour. The stuff going on yest that Laurie Penny reported is pretty sickening.
Straus said,
March 28, 2011 at 12:17 am
I’m not clear about what your criteria are for judging when violence in the furtherance of political ends is justified.
You endorse the use of violence and intimidation by rioters during the student protests as a means of drawing attention to their cause. Is this simply because you deem their cause to be just? Or are you advocating a more general right to violence on the part of people who feel that the political system produces outcomes that do not coincide with their moral convictions? Would the advocates of fox-hunting have been justified in laying waste to urban centres because they felt that urban elites were imposing their values to the detriment of the rural way of life? Would opponents of abortion be justified in ransacking hospitals they judged to be complicit in the killing of unborn infants? If so, then this would appear to be a recipe for general anarchy, where ultimately might would be right and the weakest would perish. If not, then you would seem to be arguing that there are certain causes that you deem to be so righteous that their advocates should not be subject to the restraints of the law. Are you seriously suggesting that the raising of student fees from £3,000 to potentially £9,000 falls into to this sacrosanct category?
Paul Sagar said,
March 28, 2011 at 12:23 am
“I’m not clear about what your criteria are for judging when violence in the furtherance of political ends is justified”
Well that’s because I haven’t tried to lay any down. And because it’s basically impossible to lay them down a priori; the point of the post above is to highlight the central role of judgement in these questions – and that’s something that can’t (by definition) be theorised.
It may help, however, to know that I don’t expect it to be the case that one side’s (even my side’s) judgement about political violence is justified/valid/morally acceptable if and only if the other side can agree that it is. It seems to me just obvious that political violence is itself inherently contested and that part of the point about the use of violence in politics is precisely that other sides try to delegitimise it. Agonism is the lifebloody of politics, and especially so with political violence – in that sense, everyone is a political hypocrite because they will set the threshold at different levels for different causes. It seems to me just obvious that I can’t provide you with either a) an a priori check-list of when violence is acceptable (the point about judgement and b) that I can’t lay down conditions universally (or near-universally) acceptable to all (the point about agonism).
That probably won’t help – but what I’m trying to say is that it’s messy not because I have given you a crap analysis, but because the subject matter is inherently difficult and both morally and conceptually untidy.
Shayan said,
March 28, 2011 at 12:25 am
I’m not entirely sure that the violence perpetrated during the Student Protest created the effect you describe. I would argue the opposite; it was more important for there to be a lack of violence during the Student Protest, in order for young people and students to prove their capacity and ability for peaceful protest, and therefore combat the ‘violent young thug’ rhetoric so often employed by the government and media to downplay and belittle the voices of students and young people in general. Instead, the violence only gave Cameron a point to hone in on and by doing so completely ignore the message the protest tried to put out.
Paul Sagar said,
March 28, 2011 at 12:31 am
Shayan, that might be right. I guess I’m just unconvined that peaceful protest would have achieved anything better, whilst I suspect the long-term psychological effects of the 2010 violence are not inconsiderable. But the truth is, I don’t really know (and I don’t think anyone really does).
Straus said,
March 28, 2011 at 12:39 am
Perhaps it would help if you could explain why you think the violence in support of the fees protests was justified or necessary. It seems to me that no very fundamental principle was at stake here, such as the right to vote or the infringement of the rights of a minority by an oppressive majority. It was rather an issue that ought to fall well within the realms of political discourse and debate where violence is absolutely unnecessary and unjustified.
Shayan said,
March 28, 2011 at 12:42 am
I completely agree. This is probably (most definitely) the irrational idealist in me talking, but I can’t help but feel that an underlying problem with both these protests has been a ‘half-assed’ attitude: those who aren’t violent turn up for the protest, march a little and then return home. Indeed, by 9pm in Trafalgar Square, if a bypasser walked through the ‘protest’, they would have had no idea what the protest was about: drum and bass was being blared out in the style of a mini rave – I couldn’t help but feel that the essence and cause behind it all was swept away in all the fervour. Our instilled ‘right’ to demonstrate has meant that that is all we do (or get violent). I am being entirely idealistic here, but had that 500,000 people turned up at Parliament on the day of the vote and carried out an entirely peaceful but forceful sit-in refusing to move, would that have been more effective? Had the police used violence (as they probably would have done) during such a peaceful protest, it would have done nothing but show them up, adding weight to the cause. It just seems to me that the ‘passion’ behind preventing the cuts is often directed in completely unproductive ways, and often, by getting caught up in the means, we often forget to actually fight for the ends. I realise I’ve just had a bit of a brainstorm on your page and i know this is really idealistic, but it’s something that I always wonder about…
Brian Zschiedrich said,
March 28, 2011 at 8:44 am
Dear Paul,
I am over here in “The Land of the Free” and am only on this website because I can’t seem to fall asleep and decided to look up a new “friend of mine on Google who happens to share your name.
I am sincerely impressed by your blogs except for the obvious fact that, unfortunately, you don’t seem to know the Lord Jesus Christ.
Have you stopped laughing yet. I’ll continue now.
Look, why don’t you pick up “Mere Christianity” by C.S.Lewis. Your countryman is considered one of the greatest Christian intellectuals.
Seriously, God doesn’t need you, but has a deeper, fiercer love for you than you can possibly imagine. Believe it or not He is who you need desperately.
I don’t pretend to be an intellectual like you, however the love of God is so great within me that I will risk being laughed at by you. Another guy named Paul, who was a great man once said, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ”. This is a quote from in Romans (1:16). He died for his beliefs.
Phil said,
March 28, 2011 at 9:26 am
Straus and Shayan: what would your suggestions be for people caught up in the situation Paul described last December?
by 9pm in Trafalgar Square, if a bypasser walked through the ‘protest’, they would have had no idea what the protest was about: drum and bass was being blared out in the style of a mini rave – I couldn’t help but feel that the essence and cause behind it all was swept away in all the fervour.
This may be true, but it’s also true that at 9 pm in Trafalgar Square there was no violence. That started when the police moved in, kettled the entre square & then cleared it by force.
What I find wearisome about all these condemnations of ‘violence’ (although Paul’s is less guilty of this than many) is that they lump together a whole range of actions under the banner of ‘violence’ and remove them all from their context: we end up pre-emptively defining the object of analysis as “The Violent Demonstrator”, and fitting everyone to the model of those very few people who came intent on causing trouble. So targeted vandalism, spontaneous vandalism, planned aggression against the police and spontaneous resistance to police violence all go into the same pot, and are all blamed on the Violent Minority – and all traffic among the commentariat is diverted to handwringing over how the Violent Minority spoils it for everyone.
Here’s my considered take on Saturday’s violence: I Don’t Care. If 0.05% of the demonstration breaks away from the other 99.95% and starts trashing posh shops, does it really matter? If the more excitable elements see non-violent direct action going on and chip in with a bit of vandalism, does that matter in the slightest? It seems to me that a society with a healthy level of political participation would shrug off the ‘violence’ of Saturday afternoon without a second thought – and the way the media seized on it says a lot about how narrow the limits to protest now are. (My point here isn’t that breaking the windows of Fortnum & Mason should be ‘allowed’, but that the ‘limits’ are broad and fuzzy: there are several points on the scale between Permissible and Impermissible, and it’s only when you’re getting into the outskirts of Impermissible that the alarm bells go off.)
As for Saturday night, if the police succeed in turning a peaceful and static demonstration into a free-flowing riot – as they’ve done more than once before – does it make any sense at all to load the demonstrators with the stigma of ‘violent’? Returning to my initial question – what else would you have them do? What else would you have anyone do? Sit down peacefully to take a baton to the head?
Kelvin said,
March 28, 2011 at 9:47 am
Shayan,
One of the problems with these cuts is that there is no one point where the government says ‘This is the vote on cuts’, so no ‘moment’ to stand and be counted.
It’s a similar situation with the NHS reforms; there hasn’t really been one moment prior to which they’ve not taken place and after which they’re effective. It’s instead been done very cleverly with ‘pathfinder’ consortia; in a very real way, the NHS reforms have already taken place. Now, it’s just detail.
This makes it hugely difficult to find one defining moment, and as such, one moment for a united voice of opposition even to one issue, let alone to broad government policy. The protest probably wasn’t united; instead, it’s likely each person had their own personal protest against some aspect of government policy. I wonder if this is the reason why it seemed half-assed. As you claim turning up, marching then going home is half-assed, but that violence is too far, what would fully-assed be?
I’m also not sure what an ‘entirely peaceful but forceful sit-in’ means.
Shayan said,
March 28, 2011 at 10:48 am
Phil & Kelvin,
I am in no way justifying the actions of the police, I was actually at Trafalgar Sq. and will 100% vouch for its peaceful nature. But here is the problem:
You don’t care about the violence, you don’t think it takes away from the purpose of the debate, and that’s all very well; but the media do and so do the government. I may be going too far in this, but I feel that they almost sigh with relief upon learning that a bottle has thrown by a protester, as through this action they have found an escape from actually dealing with the protest and can focus entirely on the violence attributed by these ‘thugs’, as has been done so many times before. Assuming that protesters are aware that this is the attitude will be taken by the government and media, they then need to ask: will any violence at all be a good thing for our cause? Because, as you say yourself Phil, acts of violence are always lumped together regardless of their motive; for this reason, I would argue no – violence is nothing but detrimental.
As for your question: What else would you have anyone do? Sit down peacefully to take a baton to the head?
This is really awful, but ideally, yes. I think that such a disgusting act of brutality, particularly in this democracy would not be taken lying down – IF there is no counter violence from the protesters at all. My mind goes back to Alfie of the student protests, who, following a baton to the head, had to undergo brain surgery. Now atrocious acts like this by the police are completely swept under the rug amidst the claims by the media of ‘aggressive student violence’. When Sky News spends a substantial amount of camera time focussing on a minority of protesters drunkenly jibing the police, or acting aggressively, this seemingly provides both for viewers and for the government a backdrop against which police brutality is justified. So, for the purpose of really pushing through the cause, then I would argue that peaceful behaviour should be the number one priority.
Kelvin, I agree that the problem with these protests and organising these movements is that each individual comes with its own agenda; and that is a definitely a contributing factor to the violence orchestrated in the protest, and the difficulty to evade aggression. I still think though, for example, that the protest may have carried more weight had it been held on the day of the budget, for example. And as for ‘fully-assed’, I know this is idealistic but a fully assed protest to me is a completely peaceful sit in or occupation that will not yield to police demands but will remain peaceful, until attention is paid to its objectives.
My day out with the arthritic proto-hooligans « Though Cowards Flinch said,
March 28, 2011 at 10:59 am
[...] coherent intellectual analysis of the peaceful protester/the others dichotomy narrative is at Paul Sagar’s Bad Consicience, which I’ll be drawing [...]
Straus said,
March 28, 2011 at 11:09 am
Phil,
Let’s go back to the demonstration in November, when the students were allowed to march without hindrance through the centre of London to express their opposition to the Coalition’s policy on tuition fees. What happened? Ah, yes, a significant number of them (egged on by an even larger number) went on the rampage, smashing up buildings and endangering the lives of people caught up in the mayhem. In this context, it is not really surprising that the police subsequently adopted more aggressive tactics, is it?
For some reason, you appear reluctant to attempt a reasoned justification of the violence (for violence it undoubtedly is). Is this because there really isn’t one in this context and that what we are witnessing is just a violent expression of visceral antagonism towards wealth, capitalism, Western civilization etc?
But if you believe violence is justified on those grounds, then you, presumably, endorse the violent acts of anti-abortionists, extreme Islamists etc. They, too, have much to hate in our modern, liberal, Western democracies.
Phil said,
March 28, 2011 at 11:50 am
“Ah yes” nothing. Re-read Paul’s eyewitness account before you talk about protesters spontaneously “going on the rampage”. Then re-read the comment you’re ostensibly responding to, as it challenges the move you’re making here.
“And I went down to the demonstration” « 33revolutionsperminute's Blog said,
March 28, 2011 at 12:10 pm
[...] So whilst I regret yesterday’s violence – if I could have had my way, there would have been none… [...]
Straus said,
March 28, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Phil,
Unless I’m missing something, Paul’s eye-witness account refers to what happened in December. My comment about students (or their supporters) going on the “rampage” clearly refers to November. I don’t recall there being any suggestion of police provocation on that occasion.
I did read your comment. You said that society should be able to “shrug off” the violence. But why? This is a mere assertion of a right to commit acts of violence, which you do not make any reasoned attempt to justify. If I don’t like the cut of your jib, the tenets of your religion, your ability to make money and provide employment then I’m entitled to come in with a baseball bat and smash up your house, your place of worship or your place of business. This is what you appear to be arguing.
grrl said,
March 28, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Straus said:
Have you considered it might be ‘infringement of the rights of a majority by an oppressive(ruling) minority ‘?, which is a fundamental [insert a word like… 'reason', or 'right'] for [insert an expression like… riots?, or 'pick the nose’, or 'sing words of prise to God’]
On a side note: you seem to not realize Paul actually is just theorizing from a ‘meta’-point of view, that is, he is looking at it all from above, someting like… looking at the fields from a helicopter.
Straus said,
March 28, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Grrl,
Why do you say that Paul is just theorizing? As far as I can see, he is talking about specific recent events and arguing that violence is justified if it servces the tactical purpose of advancing the cause he supports. I’m still yet to see an argument that attempts to justify why violence in these particular circumstances was justified that does not imply a general carte blanche to commit violence in support of whatever cause you care to name.
The thing about democracies is that majorities have the opportunity to get rid of their oppressors. The thing is, though, I suspect that the “majority” you are talking about is in fact a tiny, unrepresentative minority. And hence the need for violence rather than peaceful means to pursue their goals, whatever these may be.
Jon said,
March 28, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Surely the primary difference between the “violence” (against property) at Millbank during the student protests, and the vandalism we saw yesterday was the symbolic significance of the targets?
When those students left the main march and decided to smash Tory HQ, it said, “This is who we are angry with. This is your policy, and we don’t like it.” Saturday’s violence, on the other hand, seemed to say, “This is where I find myself, and I want to smash some windows.” UKUncut chose Fortnum & Mason’s as a protest space to occupy, but the ensuing crowds turned it into a target for vandalism simply because it was there.
Your post explores the role of “strategic control”, but tactical and individual control and decision-making are also important aspects in the discussion of violence. Violence against proper symbolic targets, whether the orders come from on-high or the decision is spontaneous, is much more effective than the bare opportunism we saw on Saturday.
Smashing Millbank said, “We hate the Tories.”
Smashing F&M said, “We like smashing windows.”
Adam Dinwoodie said,
March 28, 2011 at 1:55 pm
Another, somewhat sad reason for violence: the media has quite clearly shown how little coverage it will give of 250,000–500,000 protestors, and how much it will give to the miniscule number who are being violent. As soon as one small group start using violence at a protest like that, it feels the only way for any others to have their message heard is to use violence elsewhere.
Peter said,
March 28, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Perhaps somewhat predictably, I think Straus is pretty much correct with regard to the student protests.
Grrl asks
but I don’t think this is very plausible, at least with regard to the student protests. Straus is quite right to say that “it was rather an issue that ought to fall well within the realms of political discourse and debate where violence is absolutely unnecessary and unjustified”.
Saturday’s protests and incidents of violence | Liberal Conspiracy said,
March 28, 2011 at 4:56 pm
[...] A longer version is at Bad Conscience here. [...]
Tom N said,
March 28, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Meta analysis is all very well but, as the comments have shown, there’s always more hunger for the substantive debate. I sympathise Paul because inevitably we just end up going over old ground and going round in circles. I suspect that the TUC events have added nothing to your view of the situation, just as it has added nothing to mine. Am not saying you haven’t gone into the substantives elsewhere.
That said, I have seen the following two sentiments expressed in recent writing:
1. The ‘violent minority’ should not be allowed to distract from the reality of mass peaceful protest.
2. But however many thousands marched peacefully against Iraq and it changed nothing so – you know – the violence is ….understandable.
This is inconsistent, not logically but in what it implies is necessary. I think a lot of the protesters simply cannot accept that if they use only legitimate means then they will fail to achieve their goals.
“Yet the carnage witnessed in Parliament Square – chronicled by myself, Jeremy Gilbert and others in Fight Back! – will have sent a shiver down many Coalition MPs’ spines. Lib Dems in particular must know that the ferocity of student anger means that particular constituency is lost for the very foreseeable future.”
Be careful what you wish for. Yes, they may succeed in forcing a change of policy as did the miners with Heath, but all you’re setting yourselves up for is another Thatcher i.e. someone who, when the situation deteriorates enough, has the mandate/ability to get through policies much harsher than what’s on offer now.
Yes, politics is riven with agonistic strife but why make everything murky by insisting on going to first principles in areas where there is an overwhelming historically-tested moral consensus? Tiny (yes, tiny) changes to the public sector budgets of a developed, heavily-indebted Western democracy that enjoys universal suffrage, material prosperity, and extremely low levels of official corruption do not come within the same galaxy as the kind that threaten fundamental interests to such an extent, in the manner of an apartheid South Africa or Murbarak’s Egypt, that might justify mass civil disobedience. I think Straus’ posts are an excellent reminder that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. As I said before, the reason we set the bar so high for this kind of behaviour is that, if it goes for your beliefs it goes for everyone else’s.
“…whilst I suspect the long-term psychological effects of the 2010 violence are not inconsiderable. But the truth is, I don’t really know (and I don’t think anyone really does).”
History. Violent disorder/vandalism – call it what you will – fails. The deck is always stacked in favour of a moderate, stable democratic government. Mass, peaceful, non-violent protest can succeed but only after many, many failures.
All I can say, the longer I spend out of the country and see
1. What the ‘cuts’ constitute in real terms
2. What is necessary given the financial situation of the UK government
3. What dire predictions are being made
The more absurd all the protests seem. Have a feeling we’ll be fine in the end.
Marching for the Alternative: A protest of two halves « Paperback Rioter said,
March 28, 2011 at 10:52 pm
[...] inclined to agree with the views of Paul Sagar and Anthony Painter that not only was the violence daft, it was also a strategic error from UK [...]
Marcher said,
March 29, 2011 at 11:57 am
On violence on the day in question: I have never witnessed violence like when tooled up riot police decided to clear a bunch of kids having a party out of Trafalgar Square at 11 30.
A minority of thugs that just want to spoil it for everyone else.
An extremist scrape « The gaping silence said,
March 29, 2011 at 11:35 pm
[...] blogs, and specifically what’s annoyed me about it. (This post develops on comments here, here, here and on the interesting thread that’s developed here.) What’s annoyed me has been [...]
Violence 2 – Last Saturday’s Protest « To Future Humans said,
April 3, 2011 at 2:02 pm
[...] Quite a long and considered approach… generally in agreement except with reference to ‘the black bloc’: http://badconscience.com/2011/03/27/on-violence-and-recent-protest/ [...]