The Criminalization of Dissent: A Gramscian Analysis of Public Online Discourses
This dissertation carries out critical qualitative research regarding the question of how dissent
and dissenters and the criminalisation of dissent and dissenters are perceived in public online
discourse. A central aspect of the project is the review of the literature, set out in three main
disciplines, social movement studies, politics and criminology. Methodologically, the research
was influenced strongly by the theories of Antonio Gramsci and Stuart Hall, resulting in a
thematic and discourse analysis to study online comments posted on newspaper articles by the
public. The findings of the research suggest prevalent 'common-sense' and some 'good-sense'
public perceptions of a number of issues; the role that dissent plays in a democracy, the
tolerance for different expressions of dissent, the characterisations of the groups of dissenters,
the characterisations of individual dissenters, perceptions of processes of criminalisation,
perceptions of the policing of dissent, perceptions of dissent in relation to the rule of law and
perceptions of dissent and crime. Some of the most important conclusions drawn were that the
use of stereotyping was evident in perceptions of dissenters who were labelled 'rent-a-mobs',
unemployed and on benefits, a finding consistent with previous research that explored the
prevalence of stereotypical representations of activists. Additionally, common-sense
understandings of law and order and narrow conceptualisations of democracy were found
which seem to give uncritically, an implicit legitimacy to parliamentary politics/democracy,
private property, the law and the police. Furthermore, through the discourse analysis of a
typical contribution that represented the research, it was shown that common-sense
understandings of dissent and dissenters were constructed which legitimised the
criminalisation of dissent.
Contents
Introduction
Chapter One: Reviewing the Literature on the Criminalisation of Dissent
4
Chapter Two: Methodology
2.1
Theory and Epistemology
2.2
Public Online Discourse
2.3
Sample
2.4
Data Preparation
2.5
Thematic Analysis & Discourse Analysis
2.6
Reflexivity & Ethics
16
Chapter Three: Findings
3.1
Themes
3.1.1 Common-sense understandings of Democracy
3.1.2 Common-sense understandings of Dissenters
3.1.3 Common-sense understandings of Policing Dissent
3.1.4 Common-sense understandings of the Law
3.1.5 Good-sense understandings of Criminalisation
3.2
Typical Common-Sense Thinking
23
Chapter Four: Discussion & Conclusion
33
Data Sources
References
39
Appendix A. Comments by Themes
Appendix B. Commentary of Themes
48
149
It is an often taken for granted assumption that democracies and totalitarian regimes are
fundamentally different; in that the former are tolerant of dissent and protest whilst the latter
are not (Shantz, 2012). Few in the UK would dispute the argument that free political
expression and protest are essential aspects in a functioning democracy, vital as they are in
keeping power in check and encouraging democratic reform and social equity (Esmonde,
2002). However, a serious threat to such values is taking form in the UK as a crisis in neoliberal hegemony is leading powerful actors to increasingly adopt '...a siege mentality, marked
by a narrowing of public debate, the tightening of the screws of austerity and a quicker resort
to repression' (Cox and Nilsen, 2014: 3). Evidence is continually accumulating that supports
the claim that political repression and the criminalization of dissent are apparent in the UK
(Garland, 2012). This is problematic given that firstly, activists are being faced with
extraordinarily tough, disproportionate punishments in comparison to what they have done,
secondly, because increasing criminalisation today opens the door for wider criminalisation
tomorrow, and thus soon any effective grass root activism will face the risk of being labelled a
crime and thirdly because the criminalisation of activists prevents society from concentrating
on more harmful crimes (Aaltola, 2012).Whilst research has sought to explore aspects of the
criminalisation of dissent both on a global and national scale, there has been less
criminological attention given to the topic of dissent than is needed and in addition, very little
concern with studying public perceptions of the criminalisation of dissent. This dissertation
will attempt to begin to rectify this and will do so by engaging in critical research and writing
to promote social justice and ask questions of power and the existing social order (Hillyard et
al 2004).
Chapter One: Reviewing the Literature on the Criminalisation of Dissent
This chapter sets out a comprehensive review of the literature relevant to the criminalisation
of dissent. As a research topic, the control of dissent has been approached by scholars from
diverse traditions and is a complex and ever-expanding field1, in which it is near impossible to
read everything with potential relevance. Although a testament to the vibrancy of scholarship
on the topic, it did present difficulties for a systematic review within space constraints. To
make sense of the vast amount of literature, it was categorised according to the tradition from
which it emerged, with the hope of revealing gaps in literature, highlighting where traditions
could learn from each other and providing clarity that can spark interdisciplinary debate and
research. It is however acknowledged that many scholars cited do transcend disciplinary
boundaries and deserve credit for doing so. The review begins with the field of Social
Movement Studies, covering literature on state repression, the policing of protest and protest
control, before reviewing Political research covering civil liberties and securitization and
finally reviewing Criminological scholarship covering research on security and anti-terror,
capitalism and states, social crime and riots, social control, labelling, deviancy and media. The
chapter ends by considering the role that public opinion has played in research on (the
criminalisation of) dissent, concluding that this is the area where scholarship is most needed,
and setting out the research questions and other aims.
Although focused on the concept of 'dissent' rather than 'social movements' per se, social
movement studies, originating in the 1970s, is an important sub-discipline of sociology (and
itself an interdisciplinary project) to this project because it is the predominant conceptual
framework for the study of social movements and protest today (Edwards, 2014). An
animated field, external and internal debate has led to streams of research moving from
theories of collective behaviour, towards resource mobilisation, political process, new social
movement theory, framing and culture, and contentious politics2. Contentious politics is the
end result of these debates which developed in an attempt to accommodate theoretical
tensions between structure and agency in the study of social movements (Meyer, 2004).
Within this field, dissent is conceptualised as a contentious performance; part of a range of
repertoires available to social movements which are known to them and normalized (Tilly and
Tarrow, 2007) and the criminalization of dissent is viewed as an aspect of state repression 3
which is determined by the severity of the threat a social movement presents to the state
1
2
3
Forthcoming, Winlow et al (2015) Riots and Political Protest
See Edwards, G. (2014) for a comprehensive review of these theories
State repression involves harassment, surveillance/spying, bans, arrests, torture and mass killing by
governments (Davenport, 2007)
(Davenport, 2000).
State repression research is concerned fundamentally with how and why political authorities
use coercive power domestically amid potential and existing challengers and challenges
(Davenport, 2007). Key studies have predominantly been quantitative, focusing on why states
apply repression (Davenport 1995), the relationship between democracy and state violation of
human rights (Davenport and Armstrong 2004), youth and state repression (Davenport and
Nordas, 2013), oil and repression (DeMerrit and Young 2013) and terrorism, human rights and
repression (Shor et al 2014). Key findings suggest dissent always increases repression,
whereas state coercive behaviour has a range of different influences on dissent (Davenport
and Loyle 2012), for example from radicalization to de-mobilization. Furthermore, research
shows democracies are least likely to display continuous repressive behaviour, yet if faced
with dissent, just as likely to respond with negative sanctions as other regimes (Carey, 2006).
Relations among protesters, elites, authorities and the general populace have all been found to
play a role in shaping the risks and results of protest and state responses, and where protests
are likely to grow violent is where they are met by harsh state violence (Goldstone, 2012).
These wider studies of state repression have been accompanied by studies that explored
specifically state repression in the form of the policing of protest.
The 'policing of protest' (an intentionally 'neutral' term) is conceptualised as one aspect of
state responses to political dissent. Early works emphasised the selective nature of protest
policing, with diverse policing styles implemented in different situations towards different
actors (Della Porta and Reiter, 1998). For example, Waddington (1998) argues that the more
institutionalised the dissent, the more facilitative the policing, and thus the less
institutionalised, the more subject to coercive policing. Additionally, Gorringe and Rosie's
(2008) research of the G8 protests showed that police operate with specific frames in mind of
protest groups relating to the (il)legitimacy of specific protesters which influenced subsequent
interactions. More recently, Diani (2012) shows that events which are less connected to
'established' social movements and that involve violence and disruption are likely to be
viewed as deviant, labelled as riots and lead to the criminalization of dissenters and the spread
of 'law and order' orientations among the public.
Within the policing of protest research, a key finding suggest that in western democracies,
police strategies of control have shifted from 'escalated force' (which involves harsh
repression of even minor forms of transgression) towards 'negotiated management' (which
reduces the use of force in favour of dialogue and tolerance of the right to dissent) (Della
Porta and Diani, 2006). This shift supposedly reflects increasing 'public stigmatization of
coercive police management of political demonstrations and social protest' (Della Porta and
Reiter, 1998). The notion that police strategy is increasingly marked by determination to
accommodate crowd objectives is supported by Waddington and King (2005), however they
also note that these commitments are not always apparent during more major police
operations, for example as is the case with the transnational policing of protest (see Della
Porta, Reiter and Peterson, 2006). The claim of any shift away from repressiveness has
however been increasingly challenged; Gilmore's (2010) research for example notes an
authoritarian turn in the policing of protest, representative of unequal power relations between
increasingly criminalized protesters and police who act with relative legal impunity. King
(2013) also illustrates that far from being an alternative to repressive strategies, negotiated
management styles of policing are actually used to prevent protest through criminalisation of
legal activity and physical repression and Gorringe et al (2011) note that attempts at
facilitation are not effective in practice and policing often reverts to attempts to contain
protest. As an extension of this challenge scholars have noted the new hybrid forms of
intelligent control and strategic incapacitation in protest policing (Lint 2005; Gorringe et al
2012; Monaghan and Walby 2012; Gillham 2011) which suppress dissent and are used to
control space4 (Noakes et al 2005; Starr et al 2011). Another trend noted is the increasing
‘militarization’ of protest policing which is studied by Wood (2014:164) within the 'broader
logics and practices that are tied to a globalizing and neoliberalizing field of policing'. For
Wozniak (2005) the police do not act as neutral arbitrators of law and order but serve above
all to preserve the existing social order and protect the interests of ruling elites, which is
especially true in the case of paramilitary policing units which have a tendency to define
politically active segments of the public as enemy combatants to be destroyed, rather than as
practitioners of democracy to be protected; thus shattering the illusion of the police's political
neutrality. Although seemingly contradictory,
the complementarity of 'negotiation' and
'militarisation' emerges through the constitution of 'binary representations of 'good
protester/bad protester', based on discourses of responsibilization, security, citizenship and
rights' (Dafnos, 2014:515). Dafnos (2014) argues it is important to transcend narrow
conceptualisations of public order policing, henceforth viewing protest policing not as an
exceptional circumstance but on a continuum from everyday order to large scale events,
within which establishing public order is understood as the essence of policing; a form of
social regulation.
4
See D'arcus (2004), Sbicca and Perdue (2014), Lubin (2012) and Zajko and Beland (2008) for research that
explores the interaction between space and protest.
Moving research away from focusing solely on state-based coercion towards considering
private and non-state actors5, Earl (2006) suggests discussing 'protest control' or the 'social
control of protest' and has set out a repression typology with three theoretical dimensions of
importance; the identity of the repressive agent, the character of the repressive action and
whether the repressive action is observable (Earl, 2003). Boykoff's (2006) research for
example explores the triadic relationship between social movements, the state and the mass
media, constructing a typology of state and mass media actions that suppress dissent as part of
a wider project of documenting the various types of dissident activities and modes of
suppression particularly the more subtle mechanisms of repression that other scholars have
often overlooked by focusing only on 'police' and 'protest' (Boykoff, 2007). Recent research
by Seferiades and Johnston (2012) argues that the forces of social control, whether they are
the police, the military or semi-official private militias act at the behest of political elites to
protect their power, and as in the past, police violence is often proactive, seeking to raise the
cost of participation in disruptive protest before any occurs (Seferiades, 2005). Thus the social
control of protest occurs not simply during 'protest', as documented by Fernandez (2008) who
highlights the role of legal control before and after protest, emphasising six different
examples of pre-emptive control of protest. Other research also focuses on methods of preemptive control for example in the increasing levels of surveillance 6 of social movements by
public and private actors (Starr et al 2008; Monaghan and Walby 2011) and the criminal
proceedings that follow acts of political dissent (Barkan, 2006).
In the discipline of Politics, dissent is most commonly researched in relation to wider
concerns about civil liberties and changing legal contexts. Research in Canada for example
explores the use of bail a means to criminalize dissent (Esmonde, 2003), breach of the peace
as a powerful police tool in criminalizing dissent (Esmonde, 2002), the role of legal
professionals in the repression of civil disobedience (MacPherson, 2003) and in the UK,
Crawford (2008) has explored the development and use of dispersal powers in the Anti-Social
Behaviour Act 2003 as an encroachment on civil liberties. More comprehensively, Buchholtz
(2011) traces the attack on civil liberties in Britain that has occurred over the years through
legislative changes and notes the worrying flexibility with which the law has been applied in
order to criminalize dissent. She demonstrates how legislative developments pre and post 9/11
5
6
See Earl (2011) for a review of social movement scholarship on repression
Although the majority of research focuses on the negative effects of surveillance on social movements and
protesters, Bradshaw (2013) has sought to explore how protest groups have been able to use countersurveillance strategies to highlight excessive police force and challenge authority.
were accompanied by tactics that force activists to ignore or violate police instructions and
attempts to make activists feel as though they are in the wrong and thus in tracing these
developments and their underlying logic, dissent and the criminalization of dissent are seen as
'a struggle between counter-hegemonic and hegemonic forces, between the rights and
demands of ordinary people and the interests of the state and ruling classes' (Buchholtz, 2011:
80).
Research on human rights and civil liberties particularly post-9/11 has been important in
noting the threat of anti-terror legislation both in Western democracies (see Gearty, 2005;
Clarke, 2002; Jackson, 2012; Terwindt, 2013) but also in China (Clarke, 2010). Such
legislation has been seen to lead to an increasing criminalisation of dissent, hidden in the
rhetoric of security (Brazabon, 2006). Furthermore political research has shown how security
strategies to counter extremism are used to depoliticise those whom the state deem extremists
thus de-legitimating and criminalising alternative politics (Jackson, 2012). US scholars
especially, have researched the effects of anti-terror legislation on environmentalists, noting
how new law enforcement powers have been directed against these groups to redefine them as
eco-terrorists (Vanderheiden 2005; 2008; Del Gandio and Nocella II, 2014), changing
perceptions of environmental activists as peaceful, loving, leftists to that of violent domestic
terrorists (Lovitz, 2007).
The criminalisation of dissent has also been researched as an aspect of trends that pre-dated
9/11 towards outlawing dissent against the new global world order (Clarke, 2002) with legal
changes seen as symbolic of the limited tolerance of dissent in liberal democracies where
challenges to the dominant social order are concerned (Brazabon, 2006). Roberts (2013) has
sought to answer the question of why in the UK and the US, the leaders of neo-liberal
ideology, there has been markedly less protest and dissent than in other nations. By looking
through a longer historical lens, he postulates that these two states have an 'unstated formula
for keeping peace' which involves 'disabling the capacity to mobilize protest...the reinvention
of policing...and ceding emergency powers to technocrats' (Roberts, 2013). This work places
the control of dissent within a historical context, demonstrating that the criminalization of
dissent is part of longer attempts by states to control their populations, particularly during
epochs of significant change in economic relations.
Criminology, like Politics, has also taken an interest in theorisations of 'security', seen
sometimes conceptually with positive connotations but more frequently in negative terms as a
form of oppressive state intervention (Jones, 2012). Research has been concerned broadly
with the State's 'pursuit of security' (Zedner, 2000) and specifically the fragile balance
between individual liberty and collective security (see Zedner 2005). Hudson (2009) for
example documents how concerns about security linked with the 'War on Terror' have curbed
the freedom of citizens of western democracies rather than deliver justice and Walters (2003)
describes the 'War on Terror' in relation to how critical knowledge and dissent were
suppressed through government technologies of power within regimes of intolerance. For
Hallsworth and Lea (2011) the suppression of dissent is a condition of the move towards a
security state, which seeks to regulate the marginalised and to criminalise left over remnants
of the welfare state. Carver (2013) also researches trends in increasing state power namely the
expansion of extraordinary powers of control through criminal justice. In analysing the
G8/G20 meetings in Canada, she demonstrates how processes of creep and normalisation
have intentionally been used to criminalise legitimate protest. Finally from the perspective of
an eco-global criminology, Aaltola's (2012) qualitative research in the UK, explores the
criminalisation of SHAC through the targeting of legal actions, targeting minor crimes in an
atypical manner, the excessively stringent policing or atypical interpretations of the law and
legislative changes.
Criminologists have also sought to situate the criminalisation of dissent within wider sociopolitical contexts and not simply in relation to legislative change or securitization. Shantz's
(2012) edited volume explores the relationship between neoliberal capitalism and the
criminalization of dissent, himself concluding that “criminalising protests is a method that
states and ruling elites use to maintain power, status, and authority, sustain existing social
structures, and control opposition or rebellion” (Shantz, 2012:13). Garland's (2012) chapter,
sets out to examine how dissent against free market capitalism has faced criminalisation and
continued repression, and state violence; the physical and direct embodiment of the inherent
structural violence of capitalism. Through his analysis he argues that:
'To consider violence from above (legal violence used by agents of the state) as morally
superior to violence from below (violence/illegality from the oppressed resisting their
oppression) is to have entered into the perverse ethical universe of capitalism itself' (Garland,
2012: 38).
Both Garland and Shantz note how the policing of dissent, especially trends in pre-emptive
policing are not neutral attempts to maintain order but serve to reinforce existing unequal
property rights and to demarcate the limited political processes of parliamentary democracy as
the preferred or privileged form of political expression and action outside such legitimized,
and hierarchical channels is treated as deviant, threatening, or even criminal (Shantz, 2012).
Similar conclusions emerge in Giroux's (2013) research which situates the Occupy movement
in relation to the emerging US neoliberal police state which, through modes of discipline and
education, is increasingly framing protest as un-American but worse as criminal behaviour.
Criminology, unlike social movement studies has been less explicit in separating crime and
dissent, a dichotomy that Oliver (2008) argues has led to ignorance of the relationship
between the repression of dissent and the control of ordinary crime. Indeed the concept of
social crime, first coined by Eric Hobsbawm is a concept in criminology that sees criminality
as rebellion, resistance and a collective survival strategy of the poor (Lea, 1999). Lea (1999)
argues that social crime could be a useful starting point for exploring the complex and
conflicting ways that protest and survival strategies interface with violence and oppression in
the criminal and legitimate sections of the capitalist economy. For Lovell (2009) the role of
deliberate law breaking as a means of propelling social change has been overlooked by
scholars, and he proposes acknowledgement that domestic unrest and 'crime' serve as
necessary antecedents to social change and social justice. More recently, Akram's (2014)
research of the 2011 UK riots used Bourdieu's concept of habitus to show that rioting could be
viewed as a distinctly political action.
Analysis of the UK 2011 riots has also taken the form of research that explores protest as
crime for example noting how media and political commentary has conceived of rioters
through lenses of 'pure criminality', 'mob rule' (Cavanagh and Dennis 2012) 7 and 'underclass'
(Tyler, 2013). Such conceptualisations8 ignore the underlying causes of the riots9 and
stigmatise the rioters, perpetuating the myth that they are mindless criminals and propping up
a wider project of punishing the poor and legitimating neo-liberal austerity (Wacquant 2009;
Slater, 2011). Bennett's (2013) research using discourse analysis, demonstrates how a
recontextualisation of the 2011 riots and Occupy protests through employing neo-liberal
discourse serves to moralise what is actually material, class-based opposition, a function of
attempting to assert hegemonic neo-liberal understandings of the inequalities of contemporary
capitalism. Research focusing primarily on 'riots' does not however capture fully the
criminalization of dissent because of the narrow focus on this specific variant of dissent; it
does albeit along with discussions of social crime demonstrate that the boundary between
7
8
9
See Fitzgibbon et al (2013) for a discussion of riots in relation to probation/criminality
See Grover (2011)
See Allen et al (2013) for a sociological overview
crime and dissent is often blurred.
A broader, and key area of Criminology in which the criminalization of dissent has been
explored, is in relation to social control10. Early on, Wilson (1977) pinpointed the impact of
social control on political protesters as an important and yet neglected area of study, stating
that:
“Social control is exerted in the face of an apparent norm infraction and aims
at revenge, restitution and or deterrence. In the context of protest action, social
control is the process of labelling and treating dissenters as deviants. This
process will be referred to as criminalization...a denial of the political status of
acts and affirmation of their deviant character.”
Since the 1970s, wider theoretical works such as Garland's (2001) 'cultures of control' have
sought to explain the changing terrain of social control for example in the emergence of the
'late-modern crime complex' and 'criminology of the other' in which wider concerns about
order/disorder are played out and crime is seen as emblematic of forms of deviance over
which control is routinely sought (Innes, 2003). Recently, Starr et al's (2011) multi-method
research sets out a framework for examining the tactics and the effects of social control of
dissent, identifying three important sites of study: the geography of control, the political
economy of control and violence. Studies that have dealt with social control, have helped to
highlight that protest and dissent are not always controlled through hard mechanisms or
repressed but subject to 'soft social control' for example, as embodied in the Gramscian
concept of hegemony in which; 'the effective control of the proletariat relied not simply upon
repression, but the establishment of a perceived legitimacy for the capitalist regime through
the control of the dominant ideas and values in a society' (Innes, 2003). Other research has
demonstrated that the neoliberal state is constructing the boundaries and possibilities of the
new urban frontier while simultaneously engaging in a project of social control with far
reaching consequences for our understandings of public space, social justice and the
parameters of state power (Coleman, 2003).
Key studies in criminological scholarship of deviance, labelling theory and media studies
have been influential in suggesting that there is no inherently deviant or criminal act, only that
which is labelled as such (Becker, 1963) and that 'folk devils' are those who have been
10 See Cohen's (1985) Visions of Social Control for wider theoretical discussion
labelled as deviant in the process of a wider 'moral panic' in which they are viewed as a threat
to society through media exaggeration and policy responses (Cohen, 1980). A seminal text,
which has greatly influenced this research is Hall et al's (1978) Policing the Crisis, which
considers, using a Gramscian notion of hegemony, how the state created a moral panic in
order to mask social and economic crises 'by tapping into already existing popular stereotypes
regarding black youth, and popular explanations of criminality based upon 'permissiveness'
and a 'soft' criminal justice system' (Tierney, 2010: 207). The study was pivotal also in
highlighting the role of the media in the criminalisation process and in demonstrating how the
hardening of public opinion into consent relies upon the repetition and accumulation of
expressions and beliefs 'on the streets' (Hall et al 1978). Fundamentally:
'…the exercise of power and the securing of domination ultimately
depends...on the equation of popular consent. This is consent, not simply to the
interests and purposes but also to the interpretations and representations of
social reality generated by those who control the mental, as well as the
material, means of social reproduction' (Hall et al, 1978: 219).
Drawing upon Hall et al (1978) and others, more recently, Tyler (2013) has offered a thick
social and cultural account of neoliberalism as a form of governance – concentrating in
particular on the mechanisms through which public consent is procured for policies and
practices that effect inequalities and fundamentally corrode democracy. She notes that the
hardening of public opinion into consent increasingly takes place online as well as on the
streets. Furthermore, Fletcher (2014) discusses how elites maintain hegemony through the
construction of acts of dissent as deviant, creating the justification for repressive controls and
criminalisation, helped along by media conceptualisations which manipulate public opinion,
Donson et al (2004) research the way in which anti-capitalists in the UK and the Czech
Republic are (mis)constructed by the media as folk devils and labelled as violent criminals
and dangerous anarchists which influences their treatment by public authorities and Schwartz
et al (2014) research how political responses to protests in Brazil lead to criminalization of
protesters and the creation of negative stereotypes of the 'deviant anarchist'. Others have
focused on student dissent in particular for example, Donde (2010) using two case studies at
McGill University, demonstrates how 'collective organizing by students with opposing views
and fringe methods will be treated as deviant, policed and criminalized by university
authorities, despite the existence of rights of speech and assembly at both the university and
city level' and Power (2012) discusses the criminalization of students in the UK across the
latest flurry of protests and occupations in which the media has constructed students as
dangerous and violent and the police and courts have responded with brutal repression and
overzealous sentences. Despite drawing upon Hall et al (1978) in some ways, there has been
very little interest in the construction of public consent as a mechanism for the maintenance of
hegemony but also as a site of political struggle in which to challenge processes of
criminalization.
The literature on the criminalisation of dissent has gone a long way to providing
understandings of many phenomena, and yet the role of the public has very rarely been
considered in each of the disciplines. This is particularly surprising, given the importance of
the public to social movements in supporting and being involved in movements and affecting
policy change (Vrablikova, 2012), the role that public plays in democratic culture and the
functioning of the British criminal justice system (Wood, 2009) for example the notion of
policing by consent and the increasing political responsiveness to public opinion (Hough and
Roberts, 2012).
Of the studies that have looked at public opinion, the majority originate from Politics 11 and
have relied on quantitative methods of measurement, for example to document in the US, the
extent to which the public grant legitimacy to different protest actions (Olsen, 1967), attitudes
towards the anti-war movement (Robinson, 1968) but also as a basis of theoretical
propositions regarding whether the public will view collective acts of disruption as protest or
as crime (Turner, 1969). In the UK, the British Social Attitudes Survey (2007) reports a
general, but declining public commitment to the protection of civil liberties which although
not causally related to fear of terrorism was affected by counter-terror measures which
seemed to create more public support for sacrificing freedoms. Quantitative researchers in the
UK have also documented the multi-dimensionality of political behaviour of citizens
emphasising the structured nature of political action (Pattie, 2003), and the preparedness of
the public to engage in protest activity, which depends on how individuals are affected by the
economy and whether protest has previously been publicly successful (Sanders et al, 2003).
More recently, new survey research suggests that the public may resist social change as a
result
of
holding
negative
stereotypes
of
activists
(particularly
feminists
and
environmentalists) as being eccentric and militant (Bashir et al 2013). Using mixed methods
Van Aelst and Walgrave (2001) suggested that peaceful protest is gaining increasing
11 In the criminology, public opinion is more commonly invoked in relation to traditional areas of criminal
justice, rather the criminalisation of dissent, and in sociology, public opinion has fallen out of favour since
scholars dismissed it's usefulness (see Manza, 2012).
legitimacy in the eyes of the public and they argue (albeit not without some reservations) that
the normalisation of protest has led to the normalisation of the protester.
Again using mixed-methods, Duckett and Miller (2005) studied the attitudes of the public in
four developing countries towards protest against international organisations and companies,
finding almost universal support for protest of some kind against global injustice but more
crucially varying acceptance of protest depending on the method, rather than the principle i.e.
the use of violence was only considered acceptable by a minority and generally only when
peaceful methods failed. In an almost standalone endeavour, Rowbotham (2013) explores
qualitatively attitudes towards public protest through a gender lens, delineating the boundaries
between acceptable and unacceptable violence in 19th century Britain. She concludes that the
more frequent use of marches and public meetings, is reflective of increasing public hostility
towards visible violence, especially involving women and thus the increasing criminalisation
of protest occurs as a means of prevent violence and maintaining the orderliness that the
British public holds dear.
Qualitative research especially, is thus lacking in the relation to public perceptions of dissent
and current scholarship does not explain how the public understand and give meaning to
dissent and the criminalisation of dissent. Research that has considered public perceptions is
predominantly quantitative which frames questions in a way that reproduces the dominant
agenda of the moment, and fails to capture the way that discourse works, how people engage
with frames and construct and attribute meanings to phenomena. In light of this absence of
research on the public's perceptions of dissent and the criminalisation of dissent, the general
aims of the research were:
•
•
•
To reinvigorate the study of public opinion particularly through the use of qualitative
methods
To present a much needed comprehensive interdisciplinary literature review on the
topic of the criminalization of dissent.
To promote the use of the internet as a source of qualitatively rich data
And the research questions of the dissertation were:
1. How are acts of dissent and dissenters perceived in public online discourses?
2. How is the criminalisation of dissent and dissenters perceived in public online
discourses?
The next chapter on methodology sets out how the research questions will be answered,
discussing the theoretical and epistemological foundations of the methodology, the source of
and sampling of the data, the methods employed (thematic and discourse analysis) and a brief
discussion of reflexivity and ethics.
Chapter Two: Methodology
This chapter on methodology begins by discussing important theoretical and epistemological
considerations upon which the research was based before setting out the method used, the
sampling technique and the preparation of the data. The chapter concludes by discussing the
use of thematic and discourse analysis and briefly the role of reflexivity and ethics.
2.1 Theory and Epistemology
Epistemology is a central aspect of all research, as one cannot engage in the process without
considering a theory of knowledge. As a guiding force within this project, a critical
Gramscian epistemology was integral to the methodological decisions taken. A Gramscian
epistemology regards knowledge as emergent from intellect, emotion and engagement, feeling
and experience and as subjective and multiple rather than objective and singular (Jubas,
2010). For Gramsci, knowledge is based in the concrete not the abstract, and is developed in a
social and historical context. Gramsci developed on the work of Marx through his theory of
hegemony in which he postulates that to secure their position, the dominant classes do have
violence and force at their disposal however more crucially, the production of meaning is a
key means by which to maintain and stabilise power relations. Importantly, it is through the
production of meaning that power relations can become naturalised and so much part of
'common-sense' that they cannot be questioned. And thus through his conceptualisations of
hegemony, ideology and common-sense, Gramsci theorised the role of civil society as a site
of the production of public consent and also the arena in which counter-hegemonic challenges
could be mobilized (Jubas, 2010).
Another central aspect of Gramsci's thought that underpins this project was his view that
language is 'intricately connected to how we make sense of the social world and central to
both politics and hegemony' (Ives, 2004: 72). For Gramsci (1971: 450):
'The whole of language is a continuous process of metaphor, and the history of
semantics is an aspect of the history of culture; language is at the same time a
living thing and a museum of fossils of life and civilisations.'
Thus by following logically from epistemology and ontology to methodology more broadly 12,
an approach informed by Gramsci requires the use of qualitative research which emphasises
12 Gramsci's importance to methodology is sorely under-appreciated and his is more commonly discussed for
his social theory (Jubas, 2010).
the importance of meaning, power and language. Through qualitative research a wide array of
dimensions of the social world can be explored for example;
'the texture and weave of everyday life, the understandings, experiences and
imaginings of our research participants, the ways that social processes,
institutions, discourses or relationships work, and the significance of the
meanings that they generate' and furthermore qualitative approaches celebrate
'richness, depth, nuance, context, multi-dimensionality and complexity'
(Mason, 2002: 1).
2.2 Public Online Discourse
To study public perceptions qualitatively, requires using different methods than have
traditionally been used in this area, instead capturing discourse that is volunteered, arising
from the individual's own set of concerns, spontaneous, and unfettered by what others may
think possible (Hall and O' Shea 2013). Gaining access to public opinion online through the
comment boards that newspapers provide for the public to give freely their opinions and
debate the issues raised in articles provides a new avenue for qualitative researching which
was used recently by Hall and O' Shea (2013) and represents a particularly fruitful but underdeveloped means of accessing public opinion. The under-utilisation of this online population
as a source of data presents some difficulties, however these are overcome by the fact that this
particular data source, is qualitatively rich and is methodologically consistent with the
epistemological orientations of the research and has excellent scope for answering the
research questions and for finding in what ways might public perceptions reflect Gramscian
'common-sense' understandings.
2.3 Sample
In Hall and O' Shea's (2013) original paper, the analysis of online comments was based on one
newspaper article but given the scope of inquiry in this project it was necessary to increase the
quantity of articles and in doing so to choose articles which provided sufficient coverage of
public opinion of dissent/dissenters and the criminalisation of dissent/dissenters and thus a
purposive/theoretical sampling technique was required. Prior to beginning the search for
articles, it was necessary to establish the clear conceptual boundaries of the key concepts of
dissent and criminalisation. Dissent, was understood to involve a variety of both non-violent
and violent verbal and physical acts, with emphasis on those of a political nature but that went
beyond conventional politics, involving social movements but also individuals (Martin, 2008).
Criminalisation was understood as a social process13 involving 1) targeting legal actions; 2)
targeting minor crimes in an atypical manner; 3) excessively stringent policing or atypical
interpretations of the law and 4) legislative changes (Aaltola, 2012). Thus any articles which
appeared to cover any aspect of these concepts were considered potentially relevant to the
research.
The first step of the purposive sampling was a keyword search; a basic organising concept of
contemporary research since the advent of new online sources of information (Wall and
Williams, 2011). Some argue that keyword searches are limited, because controlling the
choice of words to search for, limits opportunities to chance upon relevant stories that do not
contain the selected words (Jewkes, 2011). In recognition of this, a wide range of key terms
were input into Google search engine including; 'dissent', 'criminalisation', 'UK', 'arrest(ed)',
'sentenced', 'police', 'protest', 'anarchists', 'Occupy', 'occupy', 'raid', 'jailed', 'activist(s)',
'kettling',
'anti-terror',
'policing',
'direct
action',
'environmentalists',
'anti-fracking',
'campaigners' and variations of these, however articles were also found through the 'related'
section of newspaper websites and through newspaper's archives and tags, reflecting a sort of
snowballing technique. Selecting terms was important as a means of attempting to cover the
different aspects of criminalisation and different types of dissent and dissenters, however this
did not cover everything, focusing instead on issues consistent with the socio-political
orientation of the research, for example reflecting a concern that issues of social and
environmental justice are increasingly corroding in favour of right-wing ideology and
neoliberal austerity.
Through purposive sampling it was also considered important to aim for a wide range of
potential public(s) in the online discourse and so the sample was constructed to include a
variety of newspapers reflecting different political orientations (left to right wing), different
scales (local and national papers) and the different types of paper (broadsheet or tabloid).
Concerns about over-accumulation of data in constructing the sample were paramount given
the relative ease and minimal time or cost required to gather information (Wall and Williams,
2011), thus articles chosen covered UK phenomena only between the years of 2010-2015
(although not in equal measure). The final sample included forty articles (see 5. Data Sources)
and the number of the article corresponds to the bracketed numbers after contributors’
usernames.
Through the construction of the sample, intended restrictions were accompanied by
13 See Lacey (2009) for conceptual discussion of the concept of criminalisation
unintended restrictions, for example not all newspapers had an online presence and where
they did, some did not possess relevant articles, required a paid subscription or did not use
comment boards at all, or used them selectively.
Although the sample was constructed purposefully in order to represent different phenomena,
social groups, newspapers and years, it is by no means in any way 'representative' of any one
social group, nor of the UK public as a whole. Representativeness and generalisation to the
wider population is not a central aim of this research, which seeks instead to explore 'how the
field of discourse is constituted at any particular moment in time' (Hall and O'Shea, 2013).
Even so when researching online, it is important to acknowledge the so called 'digital divide'
among populations which indicates that the use of internet technologies varies greatly by user
demographics (Wall and Williams, 2011). Another internet-specific issue in the use of online
comment boards is the use of moderation by the newspapers 'gatekeepers'. Each newspaper
had a moderation statement explaining the standards the public must adhere to when
commenting and in every article there was at least one instance of a comment having been
moderated. This could affect what people are willing to say online for example preventing
persons from using certain, however given the anonymity of online commenting, it seems
unlikely that moderation would deter contributions for saying what they want.
One of the limitations to note here is that which applies generally to researching with textual
data; that such data lacks non-verbal information relating to physical environments such as
setting, expression, movement and noise (Denscombe, 2003).
Tone of voice and body
language, for example are considered important in qualitative researching, however given that
no research tool is infallible the loss of non-verbal information is outweighed by the benefits
of using textual data to answer the research questions with methodological and theoretical
consistency.
2.4 Data Preparation
Using the internet in qualitative research is particularly advantageous given that data is
already in text form, reducing lengthy processes of transcription (Murray and Fisher, 2002;
Hewson et al 2003). However, a transcription process of sorts was required in order to prepare
the data for coding and analysis. Each article and comments section was copied from its
original web page, into a word document, a surprisingly lengthy process. Each online
newspaper presented their comments section differently, and in the process of copying, the
original formatting was often lost and had to be manually re-formatted, for example
contributors would quote from the article or from another comment which appeared as a
lighter text colour or in italics which was necessary in understanding threads. Additionally,
arrows indicating contributors replying to one another were lost in translation whilst included
were extra unnecessary text, avatars and blank gaps between comments which disrupted the
flow of the comments and tripled the length of each word document. Overall the process of
transferring the text from web to document took around 1 to 4 hours per article. This process
was important for practical reasons such as keeping printing costs down but also, it presented
a chance to gain a degree of familiarity with the data; an essential first step in qualitative
analysis techniques.
2.5 Thematic Analysis & Discourse Analysis
Having selected and prepared the data, the choice of an appropriate method of analysis was
fairly straightforward. Because of the relatively unexplored nature of the topic and the nature
of the materials as online comments rather than texts (e.g. official documents), it was
important to first conduct a thematic analysis, less dependent on a theoretical approach in
order to analyse what was said before exploring how it was said (Caulfield and Hill, 2014).
Thematic analysis is used in examining and reporting the experiences, meanings and the
reality of particular groups or individuals, but also 'examines the ways in which events,
realities, meanings, experiences and so on are the effects of a range of discourses operating
within society' (Braun and Clarke, 2006: 81). The thematic analysis was conducted through
six phases; data familiarisation, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing
themes, defining and naming themes and producing the report/relating themes to research
questions and literature (Braun and Clarke, 2006).
The benefits of thematic analysis are namely, that it is a flexible method (Bryman, 2008),
accessible to new researchers and rewarding when done well, it is compatible with different
schools of thought and is thus generally suitable for any form of qualitative data (Caulfield
and Hill, 2014). On the other hand, thematic analysis can be an 'exacting process requiring a
considerable investment of time and effort by the researchers' (Howwitt and Cramer, 2008:
334) and it is also unable to say much about power relations or ideology (Caulfield and Hill,
2014).
In addition to the thematic analysis, a discourse analysis based on the operationalization of
key theoretical concepts was conducted. Discourse analysis, is first and foremost recognised
by its 'textual orientation' (Fairclough, 1992) and is generally interested in naturally occurring
text and talk or 'real world data' that is unedited and can be studied in a way that comes as
close as possible to actually occurring forms (Barker and Galasinksi, 2001). Different
varieties of discourse analysis draw upon different epistemological considerations, for
example Laclau and Mouffe's (1985) discourse theory postulates 'no dialectical interaction
between discourse and something else' instead 'discourse itself is fully constitutive of our
world' (Jorgensen and Phillips, 2002: 19). In contrast, Morton and Beiler (2008) suggest that
discourse does not simply act upon people; rather, people act through discourse and so the
world cannot be reduced to discourse alone. The latter is true to Gramsci's historical
materialism and is supported by Hall who states that 'everything is within the discursive, but
nothing is only discourse or only discursive' (Hall, 1997: 31).
The key theoretical concepts employed, were Gramsci's notions of 'common-sense' and 'goodsense'. Hall and O'Shea (2013) suggest that analysing online comments through employing
the Gramscian concept of 'common-sense' is useful because all contributors 'have to
address...the issue on the terrain of 'common-sense' and in everyday language. By looking at
the discursive strategies each contribution uses, we can see in great detail how they establish a
field of debate, contend with each other, and privilege particular common-sense framings of
an issue'.
The contribution chosen for discourse analysis was based on its typicality, in that it
represented typical findings from the thematic analysis, and although it did not cover
everything, given the space and time constraints it provided scope for depth of analysis that a
combination of smaller comments could not. Being able only to employ discourse analysis
selectively and on a small amount of data, is not a limitation inherent only to this project, but
reflects the nature of discourse analysis as a qualitative research strategy.
2.6 Reflexivity & Ethics
A critical criminological stance was a foundational pillar for this project and in terms of
reflexivity, this meant acknowledging and thinking critically about the research and my own
assumptions and experiences (Mason, 2002). Expressing a socio-political stance, in the hope
of creating change through understanding, is a common undertaking of those who engage in
critical discourse analysis (Van Dijk, 1993) and as an approach to research suggests that there
can be no neutral standpoint from which to conduct research, because the very notion of
value-neutrality is an illusion (Lincoln and Cannella 2004). Although many could take issue
with the idea that the researcher's own experience and standpoint should not have an effect on
the research process, this project acknowledges that 'in an inequitable social order, the
unthinking reproduction of normative standards is more problematic than those approaches
that begin their analysis from a critical stance' (Price and Sabido, 2015).
This dissertation was conducted in accordance with the British Society of Criminology's Code
of Ethics for Researchers in the Field of Criminology (2000) but also had specific ethical
considerations regarding internet research, a practice which is in its infancy (Rodham and
Gavin, 2006). A key ethical consideration in most research is gaining the informed consent of
participants, however, given that the message boards used in this research project were 'open',
that is, freely accessible in the public domain, and the individuals who posted on them were
aware of this fact, and intended for their comments to be a matter of public consumption, it is
arguably not necessary to attempt to gain consent so long as the researcher maintains the
confidentiality of those who have posted (Rodham and Gavin, 2006). It is sometimes
suggested that when 'harvesting' (collecting the words of others) from open sites, the
researcher ought to use pseudonyms for both the commenter and the site that hosts the
message in the write up of the research (Rodham and Gavin, 2006) however some consider
this an unnecessary measure.
In the next chapter, the findings of the research are presented in two sections, the first
presenting the thematic analysis under conceptual headings pertaining to the key theoretical
concepts and the second presenting the discourse analysis.
Chapter Three: Findings
In this chapter the findings of the research are presented, first beginning with the themes that
were identified following the thematic analysis set out under conceptual headings. The
development of the themes is set out in Appendix A and B to demonstrate the process of
coding and development that lead to the conceptual headings herein. In Appendix A, the
comments that constitute each theme are set out and numbered and in Appendix B
commentary of the themes with key examples to substantiate the conclusions made here.
Following the presentation of the findings of the thematic analysis, is a discourse analysis of a
typical contribution that represents many of the issues covered in the thematic section, but
attempts to go into greater depth and provide evidence for the earlier conclusions.
3.1. Themes
Through the process of extensively reading and coding the data, eight major themes were
developed constituting the most significant representations of the data these are; the role of
dissent in a democracy, tolerance for types of dissent, representations of dissenters as a group,
representations of dissenters as individuals, the criminalisation of dissent, policing and
dissent, the law and dissent and dissenters as criminal. The first four relate to the question of
how dissent and dissenters are perceived in the public's online discourse and the second four,
the second research question regarding the criminalisation of dissent and dissenters. Each of
these themes is discussed through Gramscian notions of 'common-sense' or 'good-sense'.
Common-sense, is 'a form of everyday thinking which offers us frameworks of meaning with
which to make sense of the world' (Hall and O'Shea, 2013), it is 'not critical and coherent but
disjointed and episodic' (Gramsci, 1971: 324); a compendium of well-tried knowledge, which
contains no complicated ideas and does not depend on deep thought or reflection (Hall and
O'Shea, 2013). Within common-sense however, exists 'good-sense' the reservoir of practical
consciousness that may serve as a basis for subaltern resistance, it arises through a form of
critical self-reflexivity, wherein people shed their illusions about extant structures and
institutions and distance themselves from hegemonic elements of common-sense (Cox and
Nilsen, 2014).
3.1.1. Common-sense understandings of democracy
The first two themes, the role of dissent in a democracy and the tolerance for types of dissent,
can be viewed as representing common-sense understandings of democracy.
There are two central elements of theme one, firstly, that protest and dissent are essential
aspects of a well-functioning democracy and should be protected at all costs but secondly, in
stark contrast, was the perception that parliamentary methods of engagement such as voting,
lobbying a local MP or joining a political party were more important methods of achieving
change in society than dissent which was perceived negatively (see Appendix A, section 1.2).
This notion of parliamentary and institutionalised methods of engagement and creating
change as representing the be all and end of all of political action, functions in a way that
supports a narrow view of democracy; a view premised on creating binary opposition between
legitimate 'democratic' engagement and illegitimate undemocratic engagement. This
represents a common-sense understanding because it serves the ideological function of
legitimising the state and the social order and only those mechanisms of change that do not
represent a threat to societal relations.
Theme two develops further the public's perceptions of dissent, but more specifically the
tolerance of different kinds of dissent. What was apparent from the comments in this theme,
was that the public perceived dissent negatively when it involved violence (which included
property damage), direct action such as the practice of occupations and blockades, had no
clear goals or ideals, was disruptive (in a variety of senses) and inconvenienced the wider
public and 'legitimate' businesses.
There was some resistance to the lack of tolerance for these kinds of dissent with some
perceiving violent dissent as legitimate when other peaceful methods failed. How in the main,
this theme continues the idea of common-sense notions of democracy by de-legitimising the
political action of those who do not engage in parliamentary methods or for example methods
of change that incentivised and engaged with businesses for example by not buying their
products which was also viewed acceptable. Although it is likely to be the case that those
involved in direct action and disruptive dissent also vote and lobby MPs, again a dichotomy
seemed to emerge in which those who supported violence, disruption and direct action and
occupation were not the same as the rest of society and were not citizens concerned with
democracy. This dichotomy is common-sensical particularly in that it disguises the inherent
aspects of the democratic system that are decidedly undemocratic, for example it does not
recognise the massive disparity in wealth between the political class and the electorate.
3.1.2. Common-sense understandings of dissenters
Theme three and four, represent common-sense understandings of the people of engage in
dissent, the former collectively, the latter individually. The central element of theme three was
the perception that those who dissent are professional protesters and/or rent-a-mobs. These
overtly negative conceptualisation, were based generally on the notion that those who engage
in protest, are doing so not out of commitment to a cause but because they will protest any
issue. These perceptions seemed inherently linked to left-wing and anti-capitalist politics, and
many for example perceived 'rent-a-mobs' using terminology such as 'Marxists', 'Commies',
'Trotskyites' etc. or linked them to the UK Labour party. Conceiving of dissenters as mobs,
brings with it common-sense notions of collective action rooted in early theorisations of
protests as mobs which were gradually revised from the 60s onwards. By suggesting that
dissenters are mobs or professional protesters that will protest anything just for the sake of it,
the actual causes and issues at stake become hidden under the frame of an angry unintelligent
mob. The genuine grievances of the dissenters and the political nature of their action become
subsumed. These were not the only perceptions at play however, as some challenged the
terminology of 'rent a mob' and what it actually meant.
Theme four builds upon perceptions of dissenters found in the online discourse, looking more
specifically at the individual characteristics and attributes were ascribed to dissenters. The key
aspect was that the public perceived those dissenting to be unemployed, on benefits, lazy,
scroungers off the state and so on. This stereotype was pervasive throughout the data, and was
accompanied by other less common negative stereotypes, for example that environmentalists
were unwashed. As well as perceiving dissenters in these ways, many felt that benefits should
be removed from those attending protests as they were not looking for work. Finally, some
also perceived dissenters as self-interested, criticised their appearance and lifestyles. Thus in
addition to discrediting dissenters collectively, individually those who dissent were ridiculed
and stereotyped in a fashion that again de-legitimised the grievances of those involved. In the
sense of common-sense these perceptions serve the ideological function of constructing the
identities of those who challenge hegemony as individually flawed and characteristically
devoid. The frame of 'activist' becomes subsumed by the master frame of being unemployed
and carries with it the negative connotations of unemployment that are prevalent within a neoliberal society that privileges the economy and profit over human beings. But more
importantly, but labelling dissenters as unemployed and as unwashed scroungers, denies the
range of possibility of attributes that human beings have, it creates a deviant other in which an
unemployed scrounger cannot thus be a dedicated hard working citizen. Again, there were
some who tried to resist and challenge the stereotypes created instead attempting to reconceptualise dissenters in positive terms, as brave committed citizens challenging injustice
and oppression and thus worthy of respect.
3.1.3. Common-sense understandings of the policing of dissent
Theme six relates to how the public perceive specifically the policing of dissent. Perceptions
found in this theme, were that current policing practices, ranging from kettling to undercover
policing and pre-emptive arrests were reasonable and justified. Some even felt the need for
stronger methods of policing such as the use of water cannon and rubber bullets. A common
justification for these perceptions was the threat of violence and trouble makers and reference
to the nature of stronger policing in other countries which was felt to make UK police seem
'soft' and under resourced. The way in which these perceptions represent a common-sense
understanding of the policing of dissent, is that they take for granted the role of the police as a
'neutral' enforcer of the common good, whereas one might question the actual purpose of the
police as the arm of the state with a monopoly on the use of violence with very little
accountability. In accepting the police uncritically as neutral, these perceptions decontextualize policing from its historical origins as a mechanism of controlling working class
populations and protecting capitalist property and profit. The police are set up as the 'moral
agent' protecting the public whilst the dissenters are set up as those in need of policing and as
separate from the rest of the 'law-abiding' society.
3.1.4. Common-sense understandings of the law
In theme seven and eight, dissent and dissenters are conceptualised in common-sense ways
through uncritical perceptions of the law and of those of break the law. Theme seven explores
dissent and the law, and the central aspect of this theme was a perception of the law as
absolute, a moral standard which is broken, requires and deserves punishment (see Appendix
A, section 7.1 and 7.2). Stronger laws were also supported for example for banning dissenters
from wearing masks at protests and in pre-emptively preventing 'troublemakers' from
attending protests. Such an understanding of the law, is uncritical of the real life operation of
the law and in whose interests the law truly works, for example accepting the legal protection
of private property over and the above the protection of the rights of individuals. In addition
to support for the law, there was also support for tougher sentences for dissenters who broke
the law for example including aggravated trespass and DOS attacks. Environmentalists who
transgressed the law were sometimes perceived as terrorists with support for charges based on
anti-terrorist legislation. Contrasting public perceptions were also present, with some
perceiving the law critically, suggesting that unjust laws should not be obeyed and that the
sentences given to dissenters were disproportionate (see Appendix A, section 7.3 and 7.4).
Theme eight, relates to the public's perceptions of dissenters subject to criminalisation. The
main aspect of this theme is the idea that those who dissent are criminals, no better than
terrorists, thugs and mindless vandals. Those wearing masks were perceived particularly
negatively and those engaging in property damage especially were considered to be 'scum'
and 'animals'. Perceiving dissenters in such a way, serves the ideological function of
legitimising the control and criminalisation of individuals who are considered to have
transgressed the boundary of legality and rather than viewing this kind of dissent as
exceptional circumstance for example justified as civil disobedience, individuals involved are
considered to have very little grievance and instead a desire for destruction. The extension of
the common-sense notion of the law to common-sense notions of dissenters is represented by
the de-politicisation of dissenters in favour of frames pertaining to criminality. Peaceful
demonstrations were even often discussed in terms of their potential for violence,
demonstrating the practice of escalation, in which each minor act of dissent has the potential
to destroy the fabric of society. Some challenged perceptions of dissenters as mindless
criminals and others maintained that it was a distinction in most movements between
'ordinary' people troublemakers.
3.1.5. Good-sense understandings of criminalisation
Under this conceptual heading is theme five which represents more so than any other theme
Gramsci's notion of 'good-sense', as the central premise of this theme relates to the how the
public perceive the criminalisation of dissent. The main elements of this theme are public
perceptions that the UK is or is becoming a police state, that dissent is being increasingly and
purposefully stifled and criminalised and that pre-emptive police 'kettling' of protesters is used
to suppress dissent as well as extensive police surveillance and undercover spying being
perceived as part of the wider project of criminalisation. Particularly, some began to employ a
distinctly class-analysis of the social world, through perceiving the police as an instrument of
the ruling classes and protectors of private property (see Appendix A, section 5.4). In moving
away from considering the state and its institutions as neutral, these perceptions represent a
more coherent and logical way of thinking about the social world and one's place in it.
Recognising the operation of hegemony provides the crucial good-sense upon which a
counter-hegemonic project could begin to be built.
Some explicitly challenged the idea of the criminalisation of dissent and suggested that those
who dissent in the right way, are not under threat, creating a dichotomy between 'good' and
'bad' dissenters and that given the nature of other state's use of force it would be illogical to
suggest a lack of freedom in Britain.
Through developing themes, eight themes in particular seemed to represent the data
particularly well, however there were other interesting issues at play within the data for
example, pertaining to the costs involved in the social control of dissent, the relationship
between opinions of dissent and the political orientation of that dissent, and the role that the
public perceive the media to play in constructing dissent in particular ways.
3.2. Typical common-sense thinking
The contribution chosen for discourse analysis is a typical comment that represents the corpus
well as it covers multiple themes in one 'coherent' statement. The comment appeared in
response to David Graeber's article in the Guardian (article 6) in which he discussed the lack
of news coverage of the Occupy Democracy camp in Parliament Square which began in 2014
and has faced heavy police repression and ultimately criminalization.
Of the 628 comments responding to the article, one contributor stated:
Vrager (6)
It's sad people use the word “democracy” as a synonym for protesting.
Democracy is rule by the people (the demos) and we have a ballot box to
exercise our votes.
Building tent cities in urban spaces and generally being a nuisance on public
land has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with having
enough spare time to make a nuisance of oneself.
The so-called “Occupy” movement is anti-capitalist without offering any
alternative solution/framework for society than one few would actually vote
for when it came down to realising their nihilist demands. The protesting is a
futile expression of frustration that costs the public purse money to deal with
in Police overtime.
We've had decades of Socialist Workers wandering about with placards
protesting about everything who are totally unrepresentative of anyone – their
votes barely get into three figures in general elections. Occupy is the same
crowd rebranded as they've realised they are a turnoff for most people
Better if all of them parked themselves in the MPs surgeries and told each of
them what they want...we elect people to listen to our concerns
Addressing your concerns at people going about their lawful business on the
public highway is not really where it is going to have much positive effect.
Newspapers don't report these protests as the protesters haven't got any
coherent point to make other than “smash the system”...Russell Brand
exemplifies this stupidity wrapped in verbosity with illogical conclusions
drawn from selective snippets of information that have very little connexion
with reality.
The Occupy movement is a bunch of layabouts with nothing better to do than
pretend they are changing the world by squatting outside parliament or some
corporate HQ.
the threat of violence – i.e. smashing up some company's HQ or shop – isn't
about democracy at all...it's about destroying stuff that doesn't belong to them
which someone has to pay for...and that ultimately is the rest of us.
The contribution represents some typical common-sense understandings of the phenomena
that were identified in the previous section; common-sense understandings of democracy,
dissent, dissenters, the law and of the police.
The contributor begins the comment by suggesting that protesting and democracy should not
be considered equivalents, rather the ballot box is perceived as the central tenet of democratic
society and protesting is described as ‘futile’. By attributing protest to an expression of
'frustration', an emotional response, rather than conceptualising it as a political, instrumental
and considered act, the contributor defines the grievances of those involved as irrational and
stupid. Later in the comment, it is suggested that Occupy’s ideas are not worth voting for as a
result of a lack of aims and alternatives presented by the group. By suggesting that Occupy do
not offer any alternative, electable solutions the contributor is suggesting that to critique
current systems, one must also have readily available solutions and alternatives. By denying
that critique is important in and of itself and as a means of creating awareness and promoting
debate, the contributor holds an instrumentalist view of political engagement. Again, the
contributor brings up parliamentary politics, suggesting that these protesters grievances are
not important given the lack of support in elections, further evidence for a common-sense
understanding of democracy as a narrow concept which does not consider the voices of those
without votes and creates a dichotomy between those who have electoral support as legitimate
and those that do not as illegitimate.
The contributor suggests that parliamentary politics is the preferable route for expressing
grievance, suggesting that addressing your concerns to your MP will have a more positive
effect than addressing them to the wider public. The way this is phrased to refer to the public
as going about their 'lawful business', suggests that anyone who is disrupting this is unlawful.
It suggests that Vrager does not consider raising public awareness as an end in itself, and also
that when the citizenry for example want to protest against capitalism, the best means to do so
would be by telling an MP. This shows common-sense understandings of democracy by
revealing that the contributor considers hegemonic 'legitimate' forms of political action not to
include methods other than that which involve the state and political class, thus legitimising
the state and de-legitimising anyone who will not engage with it. It also propagates the notion
of individualistic activism in that individuals’ addressing their MPs is more useful and
legitimate than collective action and suggests that activism should be largely invisible and not
disrupt the social order.
When discussing Occupy he concludes that occupations are not part of any democratic
engagement and makes reference to 'public land', which he considered Occupy to be using
illegitimately, which suggests a separation between Occupy and the public and which ignores
the police and state control of Parliament Square which was deemed off limits to protesters by
new legislation.
The contributor represents the notion of common-sense understandings of dissenters, when
labelling those involved as those with 'enough spare time to make a nuisance of oneself',
which reflects findings in the thematic analysis. The contributor suggests that politically
engaged citizens are those who vote in elections, and do not cause disruption in the years in
between by engaging in other actions and that those who do the latter are probably
unemployed and have nothing better to do. Later, the contributor describes what they believe
to be the nature of those people who engage in dissent, perceiving socialist groups culprits
who protest about 'everything' as if they are doing so just for the sake of it, rather than as an
instrumental action to raise awareness and achieve change. This feeds into common-sense
understandings of dissenters and the idea of ‘rent-a-mobs’; groups of people viewed
negatively for their propensity to engage in visible protest (see Appendix A, section 3.1).
Occupy is framed here as the same old left wingers rather than as a new generation of
politically active citizens responding to current societal issues society and the contributor
makes an assumption based on his own dislike of 'socialist workers' that 'most people' are or
were turned off by these groups.
Near the end of comment, there is a moral attack on those involved in the movement who are
perceived as a 'bunch of layabouts'. This stereotype propagated was common in public online
discourse, based on the notion that those who engage in dissent (particularly when that dissent
is sustained, visible and disruptive) are unemployed and on benefits (see Appendix A, section
4.1). Such a stereotypical representation, serves to characterize the social identity of Occupy
activists as fixed to a limited set of characteristics which deny the diversity and complexity of
human identity. Being a 'layabout' becomes the master frame through which the activists are
understood. The contributor also suggests that these are people which have ‘nothing better to
do’; a condemnation of the character of those involved, which ultimately denies the
legitimacy of occupying public space as an act of political dissent. The sweeping
generalisation of the individuals as layabouts de-legitimises the group, symbolising wider
negative connotations associated with unemployment in neoliberal Britain in which punitive
attitudes to ‘scroungers’ and a dislike of the welfare state spread. As well as describing the
dissenters as layabouts, the contributor conceptualises Occupy as ‘nihilist’, a term denoting
extreme pessimism, belief in nothing and a lack of purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to
destroy. The term nihilist feeds into other perceptions of dissenters as hypocritical, selfish, uneducated and ill-informed individuals (see Appendix A, section 4.4.1 to 4.4.4) which represent
truly common-sense understanding of dissenters.
Vrager’s suggestion that what is being argued by the likes of Russell Brand and Occupy has
very little connection with reality, is particularly interesting, given that what Occupy often
discuss and critique pertains to capitalism and it's 'real world' social and economic
implications for people living through neoliberal austerity, often reflect a 'reality' that is
hidden from view, which rarely features in the rhetoric of politicians who consistently discuss
capitalism and the economy in such a way as to ignore its human costs and to position
economic growth and competitiveness as essential aspects of a functioning society. In judging
Occupy as disconnected from reality, Vrager is suggesting that there is 'one reality' dismissing
the realities faced by those who engage in Occupy and assuming that their understandings are
illogical, irrational and selective.
The contributor ends by bringing in violence, an entirely new issue that was not mentioned in
the newspaper article suggesting the contributor is conflating previous incidences of violence
with Occupy. In conflating the rare occurrence of a smashed window and the threat of
violence to the Occupy group, the contributor is generalising in a way that views violence
from below as illegitimate and ignores violence from above. Thus in ignoring the state
repression of the movement and the violence inflicted on those (the article mentions the
injuries gained by activists involved as a result of police) involved, the contributor reproduces
the idea that only the state has the legitimate use of violence and that the protection of private
property over the protection of human beings is paramount. By stating that violence is not
about democracy, but rather about destroying things that do not belong to them, Vrager is
depoliticising the group and attempting to reconceptualise them as mindless thugs who enjoy
destroying things for its sake.
Finally, although it was not discussed in depth in the previous findings, the contributor is
demonstrating some common-sense understandings related to the costs of policing dissent.
The contributor refers to costs for the taxpayer from protest, perceiving in general costs to the
public purse negatively, regardless of what these costs might be; for example costs incurred
by protecting democratic freedoms. It also implicitly argues that the costs of policing are the
fault of those dissenting, and not of those that made the conscious decision to deploy police at
a peaceful protest, particularly to the extent that requires large amounts of money. This
framing does not recognise police presence as a tactical choice made in order to label the
protest as illegitimate and illegal, instead accepting this behaviour inherently needs policing.
Furthermore, given that Occupy often target the failures of British democracy and the use of
taxpayers’ money to bail out banks and prop up the capitalist system, it is interesting that
contributor chooses to focus not on this cost to the taxpayer but instead the costs of the
policing far surpassed by the former. Again, the contributor brings up the issue of costs to the
taxpayer suggesting that damage incurred through the protest is paid for by 'the rest of us'
creating an 'us and them' situation, which not only conceptualises the public as the victim and
Occupy as the offender, but suggests that those involved are not taxpayers themselves. Thus
the image here is of the poor defenceless public whose taxes must be used to repair the
damages of a non-tax paying troublesome minority.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that by suggesting -in response to Graeber's concern about a
lack of news coverage- that this is a result not of something to do with the way the media
operate but because Occupy do not have a coherent message other than slogans, that this is
justification for media outlets not to report the events, the contributor’s assessment of the
story explicitly ignores Graeber's analysis of the situation and the repression that Occupy
faced by the police as a newsworthy phenomenon.
Chapter Four: Discussion & Conclusion
What the findings seem to reflect are some pervasive common-sense understandings of
dissent and dissenters. Common-sense understandings of democracy, of dissenters, of policing
and of the law serve ideologically the function of legitimising the criminalisation of dissent
and dissenters.
Particularly the pervasive signifying practice of stereotyping in which activists were perceived
as unemployed layabouts, unwashed, criminals and mindless thugs represents a knowledge
claim made in the public online discourse that fixes the social identity of dissenters as limited
and denies the range of human diversity and complexity of particular groups, legitimating
their stigmatization and naturalising the socioeconomic and political status quo (Khan, 2014).
Stereotyping is problematic because it sets up a symbolic frontier between 'normal' and
'deviant', between 'us' and 'them', thus exiling 'the others' (Hall, 1992). Such findings are
consistent with findings of previous literature in which stereotyping and labelling were
present in research of the UK 2011 riots in the form of the 'underclass' frame (Tyler, 2013), in
Schwartz et al's (2014) research in Brazil in the form of the 'deviant anarchist', in Hall et al's
(1978) research in the racialised form of 'deviant mugger', in Powers (2012) research in the
form of the 'dangerous student' and in Donson et al's (2004) research in the form of anticapitalist 'violent criminals' and 'dangerous anarchists'.
The common-sense notions of democracy, policing and the law are important because Hall
reminds us that it important to pay attention not just to what is present in a text but what is
absent (Khan, 2014). For example, the common-sense notions of democracy in which political
engagement is perceived narrowly through established and institutionalised practices such as
voting, represents an implicit acceptance of the legitimacy of parliamentary politics in Britain,
demarcating as illegitimate other political actions as argued by Shantz (2012). Furthermore,
the common-sense understandings of the police as neutral protectors of the social order and
the common-sense understandings of the law as beyond reproach contain implicit acceptance
of the legitimacy of the state's monopoly on the use of violence and of the protection of
private property (see Weber, 1978).
There was also evidence that common-sense as Gramsci theorised, represents a site of
political struggle (Rupert, 2003) in which the nucleus of good sense thinking is present. The
good-sense understandings of criminalisation represent the fact that critical thinking through
personal experience and logic are present in public online discourse.
What has been clear throughout is that very rarely were perceptions of dissent and dissenters,
and perceptions of the criminalisation of dissent and dissenters fixed, but rather were
continually under construction. This reflects the notion that hegemony is never stable and
dominant understandings can never maintain closed meanings but instead are always open to
contestation, and thus by revealing and contesting practices of representation, we make
possible the production of new kinds of knowledge and create conditions for resistance and
change (Brock, 2014). Hence the dominant discourse that dissenting is not part of a healthy
democratic activity, is continually challenged and argued to be one of many methods of civic
participation.
Future research possibilities particularly in relation to expanding upon the work of this
dissertation would be to explore further and in more depth Hall and Gramsci’s theories.
Particularly interesting could be the use of Hall’s discussion of encoding/decoding, which
explores the reader’s interpretations of texts through the concept of ‘dominant’ and
‘negotiated’ readings. Furthermore, Hall et al’s (1978) conceptualisation of the ‘thresholds’ in
which dissent occurs as being relevant to public responses, could also provide insightful
findings.
It may also be potentially fruitful to explore comparatively and in depth the role of media in
the framing of dissent, particularly around what is deemed to be newsworthy, and the way in
which complex reasons for engaging in dissent can be masked under framing that suggests an
illogical and irrational reaction to political and economic social conditions.
To conclude, this dissertation has sought to investigate the perceived legitimacy of dissent and
mechanisms by which dissent becomes subject to processes of criminalization. It has aimed to
identify common sense where is exists in the Gramscian sense, to critique the on-going
repression of dissent by the state and to highlight the ways in the which the fabric of ‘social
order’ is under continual construction by elites.
Data Sources
(1) Lister, C., Williamson, K. and Miller, A. (2011). “Why I am protesting today”. The
Guardian. Wed 9th Nov. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/09/why-i-amprotesting Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(2) Seymour, R. (2012). “March on Saturday against the cuts – but don't end the fight there”.
The Guardian. Fri 19th Oct. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/19/marchsaturday-against-cuts-fight Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(3) Tuffrey, L. (2012). “Greenpeace activists shut down 74 UK Shell petrol stations”. The
Guardian. Mon 16th Jul. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/16/greenpeaceactivists-shell-petrol Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(4) Gosden, E. (2014). “Anti-fracking activists to descend on Lancashire for 'direct action'
protest camp”. The Telegraph. Mon 11th Aug.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/fracking/11022928/Anti-fracking-activists-todescend-on-Lancashire-for-direct-action-protest-camp.html Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(5) Press Association. (2014). “Occupy Protesters Converge on Central London to Set up
Camp Outside Westminister”. The Huffington Post. Fri 21st Nov.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/21/occupy-converge-on-central-london-to-set-upcamp-outside-westminster_n_6201148.html Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(6) Graeber, D. (2014). “Occupy is not considered newsworthy. It should be.” The Guardian.
Mon 27th Oct. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/27/occupy-democracylondon-parliament-square Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(7) McBeth, J. (2013). “Days of the Faslane Peace Camp which protests against nuclear
weapons may be numbered after 30 years due to lack of interest”. The Daily Mail. Mon 29th
Apr. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2316722/Days-Faslane-Peace-Camp-protestsnuclear-weapons-numbered-30-years-lack-interest.html Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(8) Orr, D. (2010). “Protesting against the cuts is pointless”. The Guardian. Thurs 2nd Dec.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/dec/02/protesting-cuts-pointless-deborahorr Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(9) Carrell, S. (2010). “Activists halt operations at Scottish coal terminal”. The Guardian.
Wed 27th Jan.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/27/activists-scottish-coal
Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(10) Carter, C. (2014). “Squatters take over five storey building in London's Trafalgar square
and plan to invite homeless in for Christmas”. The Daily Mail. Wed 24th Dec.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2886073/Squatters-five-storey-building-London-sTrafalgar-square-plan-invite-homless-Christmas.html Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(11) Cohen, N. (2014). “Why must we tolerate police spies in our midst?” The Guardian. Sun
21st Dec. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/21/why-tolerate-police-spiesin-our-midst Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(12) Jones, J. (2014). “I was arrested in Parliament Square where free speech should prevail”.
The Guardian. Fri 24th Oct.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/24/arrested-parliament-square-freespeech-occupy-protest-arrest Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(13) Dee, H. (2014). “Have these protesters been criminalised, despite the case against them
being dismissed?” The Guardian. Tues 15th Apr.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/15/anti-fascist-prosters-criminalisedcivil-liberties-at-risk Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(14) Bingham, J. (2011). “Mark Kennedy: 15 other undercover police infiltrated green
movement”. The Telegraph. Sun 16th Jan.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/8262746/Mark-Kennedy-15-otherundercover-police-infiltrated-green-movement.html Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(15) Ahmed, N. (2014). “Are you opposed to fracking? Then you might just be a terrorist”.
The Guardian. Tues 21st Jan. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earthinsight/2014/jan/21/fracking-activism-protest-terrorist-oil-corporate-spies Last accessed: 13th
Apr, 2015
(16) Daily Mail Reporter. (2011). “Police DID use disproportionate force with their 'kettling'
tactics to control climate change protesters, judges say”. The Daily Mail. Thurs 14th Apr.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1376813/Police-kettling-G20-protesters-illegal-sayjudges.html Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(17) Press Association. (2014). “Occupy Protesters Converge on Central London to Set up
Camp Outside Westminster”. The Huffington Post. Fri 21st Nov.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/21/occupy-converge-on-central-london-to-set-upcamp-outside-westminster_n_6201148.html Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(18) Christian, L. (2012). “This judgment in favour of kettling is a missed opportunity”. The
Guardian. Thurs 15th March.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/15/judgment-in-favour-ofkettling#comments Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(19) Meikle, J. and Webb, T. (2010). “Ratcliffe activists found guilty of coal station plot”. The
Guardian. Tues 14th Dec. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/dec/14/ratcliffecoal-station-activists Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(20) Daily Mail Reporter. (2010). “Animal Activists who launched smear campaign branding
lab suppliers paedophiles and murderers are jailed”. The Daily Mail. Mon 25th Oct.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323573/Animal-rights-activists-targetedHuntingdon-Life-Sciences-jailed.html#comments Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(21) Davenport, J. and Edmonds, L. (2013). “G8 Protests in London: running battles in West
End as riot police storm anarchist squat”. London Evening Standard. Tues 11th Jun.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/g8-protests-in-london-running-battles-in-west-endas-riot-police-storm-anarchist-squat-8653594.html Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(22) Dassanayake, D. and Perring, R. (2014). “Arrests made after thousands of anti-capitalist
protesters storm streets of London”. Express. Thurs 6th Nov.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/531957/Anonymous-Million-Mask-March-Guy-FawkesTrafalgar-Square-Parliament-Square Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(23) Dolan, A. (2011). “Climate Change protesters guilty of plotting to close down power
station walk free from court after 400k case”. The Daily Mail. Wed 5th Jan.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344372/Climate-change-protesters-guilty-plottingclose-power-station-walk-free.html#comments Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(24) Mulholland, H. and Tran, M. (2010). “Boris Johnson plans to clear Parliament Square
peace camp”. The Guardian. Tues 25th May.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/25/boris-johnson-parliament-square-peace-camp
Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(25) Townsend, M. (2015). “Parliament Square fence crushes protest rights says Occupy
Democracy” The Guardian. Sat 3rd Jan. http://www.theguardian.com/uknews/2015/jan/03/boris-johnson-occupy-democracy-london-protest-fence Last accessed: 13th
Apr, 2015
(26) Morris, S. (2015). “Activist gets six-month suspended jail sentence for disrupting badger
culls”. The Guardian. Wed 21st Jan.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/21/activist-gets-six-month-suspended-jailsentence-for-disrupting-badger-culls Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(27) The Huffington Post UK. (2013). “Caroline Lucas, Green MP arrested at Anti-Fracking
Protest”. The Huffington Post. Mon 19th Aug.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08/19/caroline-lucas-frackin-arrest_n_3779502.html
Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(28) Carter, C. (2014). “Protesters arrested inside John Lewis' flagship Oxford Street store as
they stage demonstration against firm's failure to pay cleaners the living wage”. The Daily
Mail. Sun 14th Dec. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2873284/Protesters-arrestedinside-John-Lewis-flagship-Oxford-Street-store-stage-demonstration-against-firm-s-failurepay-cleaners-living-wage.html Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(29) De Peyer, R. (2013). “Protests in London as students make 'cops off campus' rallying
call- video”. London Evening Standard. Wed 11th Dec.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/protests-in-london-as-students-make-cops-offcampus-rallying-call-video-8998472.html Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(30) Evans, R. (2014). “Undercover police spy accused of encouraging activist to crime”. The
Guardian. Thurs 4th Dec. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/04/undercovermet-spy-animal-rights-overturn-conviction-appeal Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(31) Bently, P. (2014). “Police use draconian power to stifle protesters: Forces accused of
using pre-charge bail to stop innocent people attending demonstrations”. The Daily Mail. Fri
26th Dec. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2887279/Police-use-draconian-powerstifle-protesters-Forces-accused-using-pre-charge-bail-stop-innocent-people-attendingdemonstrations.html#comments Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(32) Ball, J. (2011). “By criminalising online dissent we put democracy in peril”. The
Guardian. Mon 1st Aug. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/01/onlinedissent-democracy-hacking Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(33) Perring, R. (2014). “Police arrest 76 people after mass 'die-in' at Westfield Shopping
Centre” Express. Fri 11th Dec. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/546287/Westfield-
shopping-centre-protest-76-people-die-in Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(34) Young-Powell, A. (2013) “Five students at Sussex Uni banned from campus for 'peaceful
protest '”.The Guardian. Thurs 5th Dec.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/dec/05/students-sussex-suspended Last
accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(35) Kirk, A. and Young-Powell, A. (2014) “Student protest in Birmingham leads to 14
arrests”. The Guardian. Thurs 30th Jan.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jan/30/student-protest-arrests Last accessed: 13th
Apr, 2015
(36) Matthews, J. (2014) “Riot police deployed and eleven arrested as students march against
fees in London”. Express. Wed 19th Nov. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/537361/Studentmarch-London Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(37) Webb, S. (2014) “Three students arrested and others threatened with CS spray and a
Taser after police are called to sit-in tuition fees protest at Warwick University.” The Daily
Mail. Thurs 4th Dec. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2860071/Three-studentsarrested-threatened-CS-spray-Taser-police-called-sit-tuition-fees-protest-WarwickUniversity.html Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(38) Barrett, D. and Sawer, P. (2011). “TUC Protest March: Anarchists on the Rampage in
London”. The Telegraph. Sat 26th March.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8409048/TUC-protest-march-anarchists-on-therampage-in-London.html Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(39) Sackman, S. (2012). “The Occupy London result raises the thorny issue of property v
protest”. The Guardian. Wed 18th Jan.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2012/jan/18/occupy-londoneviction-freedom-expression-private#comments Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015
(40) Minton, A. (2012). “Occupy London has lost a battle but started a war over public
space”. The Guardian. Wed 18th Jan.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2012/jan/18/occupy-london-warpublic-space#comments Last accessed: 13th Apr, 2015.
References
Aaltola, E. “Differing Philosophies: Criminalisation and the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty
Debate” in Ellefsen, R, Larson, G. and Sollund, R. (eds). (2012) Eco-Global Crimes:
Contemporary Problems and Future Challenges. London: Ashgate.
Akram, S. (2014). 'Recognising the 2011 United Kingdom Riots as Political Protest'. British
Journal of Criminology. 54: 375-392.
Allen, K., Hollingworth, S., Mansaray, A. and Taylor, Y. (2013). ‘Collisions, Coalitions and
Riotous Subjects: Reflections, Repercussions and Reverberations – an Introduction’,
Sociological Research Online, 18 (4): 1-14.
Barkan, S. (2006). 'Criminal Prosecution and the Legal Control of Protest'. Mobilization. 11
(2): 181-194.
Barker, C. and Galsalinksi, D. (2001). Cultural Studies and Discourse Analysis: A Dialogue
on Language and Identity. London: SAGE.
Bashir, N., Lockwood, P., Chasteen, A., Nadolny, D. and Noyes, I. (2013). ‘The Ironic Impact
of Activists: Negative Stereotypes Reduce Social Change Influence’. European Journal of
Social Psychology. 43: 614-626.
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. London: MacMillan.
Bennett, J. (2013). 'Moralising Class: A Discourse Analysis of the Mainstream Political
Response to Occupy and the August 2011 British Riots'. Discourse and Society, 24. (1): 2745.
Boykoff, J. (2006). The Suppression of Dissent: How the State and Mass Media Squelch US
American Social Movements. New York: Routledge.
Boykoff, J. (2007). ‘Limiting Dissent: the Mechanisms of State Repression in the USA’.
Social Movement Studies. 6 (3): 281-230.
Bradshaw, E. (2013). ‘This is What a Police State Looks Like: Sousveillance, Direct Action
and the Anti-Corporate Globalization Movement’. Critical Criminology. 21:447-461.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). ‘Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology’. Qualitative
Research in Psychology. 3 (2): 77-101.
Brazabon, H. (2006). Protecting Whose Security? Anti-Terrorism Legislation and the
Criminalization of Dissent (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Osgoode Hall Law School
York University, Toronto.
Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods. 3Rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Buchholtz, D. (2011). “Criminalization of Protest and Dissent in Post-9/11 England” in
Shantz, J. (ed.). Law Against Liberty: The Criminalization of Dissent. Florida: Vandeplas
Publishing.
Carey, S, C. (2006). 'The Dynamic Relationship Between Protest and Repression'. Political
Research Quarterly. 59 (1): 1-11.
Carver, A. (2013). ‘Creep and Normalisation: Exploring a Strategy of Social Control’.
Critical Criminology. 22: 419-432.
Caulfield, L. and Hill, J. (2014). Criminological Research For Beginners: a Student's Guide.
London: Routledge.
Cavanagh, A. and Dennis, A. (2012). 'Framing the Riots'. Capital and Class. 36 (3): 375-381.
Clarke, T. (2002). 'The Recriminalization of Dissent'. Policy Options. Available at:
http://policyoptions.irpp.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/assets/po/911-one-yearlater/clarke.pdf
Clarke, M. (2010). 'Widening the Net: China’s Anti-Terror Laws and Human Rights in the
Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region'. International Journal of Human Rights, 14(4): 542558.
Cohen, S. (1980). Folk Devils and Moral Panics. 2Nd ed. Oxford: Martin Robinson.
Cohen, S. (1985). Visions of Social Control: Crime, Punishment and Classification.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Coleman, R. (2003). ‘Images from a Neoliberal City: the State, Surveillance and Social
Control’. Critical Criminology. 12: 21-42.
Cox, L. and Nilsen, A. (2014). We Make Our Own History: Marxism and Social Movements
in the Twilight of Neoliberalism. London: Pluto Press.
Crawford, A. (2008). ‘Dispersal Powers and the Symbolic Role of Anti-Social Behaviour
Legislation’, Modern Law Review, 71 (5): 753-784.
Dafnos, T. (2014). “Social Movements and Critical Resistance: Policing Colonial Capitalist
Order”. In Brock, D., Glasbeek, A. and Murdocca, C. (eds.) Criminalization, Representation,
Regulation. Ontario: University of Toronto Press.
D'arcus, B. (2004). ‘Dissent, Public Space and the Politics of Citizenship: Riots and the
'Outside Agitator'’. Space & Polity. 8 (3): 355-370.
Davenport, C. (1995). ‘Multi-dimensional Threat Perception and State Repression: An Inquiry
into Why States Apply Negative Sanctions’. American Journal of Political Science. 39 (3):
683-713.
Davenport, C. (2000). “Introduction” in Davenport, C. (ed). Paths to State Repression:
Human Rights Violations and Contentious Politics. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Davenport, C. (2007). 'State Repression and Political Order'. Annual Review of Political
Science. 10: 1-23.
Davenport, C. and Armstrong, D, A. (2004). ‘Democracy and the Violation of Human Rights:
A Statistical Analysis from 1976 to 1996’. American Journal of Political Science. 48 (3): 538554.
Davenport, C. and Loyle, C. (2012). 'States Must be Crazy: Dissent and the Puzzle of
Repressive Persistence'. International Journal of Conflict and Violence. 6 (1): 75-95.
Davenport, C. and Nordas, R. (2013). 'Fight the Youth: Youth Bulges and State Repression'.
American Journal of Political Science, 57 (4):926-940.
Della Porta, D. and Diani, M. (2006). Social Movements: An Introduction. 2Nd ed. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.
Della Porta, D. and Reiter, H. (eds.) (1998). Policing Protest: The Control of Mass
Demonstrations in Western Democracies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Della Porta, D., Peterson, A. and Reiter, H. (eds). (2006). The Policing of Transnational
Protest. Hampshire: Ashgate.
Del Gandio, J. and Nocella II, A, J. (eds.) (2014). The Terrorization of Dissent: Corporate
Repression, Legal Corruption and the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Brooklyn: Lantern
Books.
De Lint, W. (2005). ‘Public Order Policing: A Tough Act to Follow?’ International Journal of
the Sociology of Law. 33: 179-199.
DeMerrit, J, H, R. and Young, J, K. (2013). ‘A Political Economy of Human Rights: Oil,
Natural Gas, and State Incentives to Repress’. Conflict Management and Peace Science. 30
(2): 90- 120.
Denscombe, M. (2003). The Good Research Guide: For Small Scale Research Projects. 3Rd
ed. Open University Press.
Diani, M. (2012). “Unusual Suspects”. in Seferiades, S. and Johnston, H. (eds) (2012). Violent
Protest, Contentious Politics, and the Neoliberal State. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Donde, S. (2010). The Criminalization of Student Protest at McGill University. Available at:
http://zinelibrary.info/files/Martone%20Essay.pdf
Donson, F., Chesters, G., Welsh, I. And Tickle, A. (2004), "Rebels with a Cause, Folk Devils
Without a Panic: Press Jingoism, Policing Tactics and Anti-Capitalist Protest in London and
Prague", The Internet Journal of Criminology, available at:
http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/donson%20et%20al%20-%20folkdevils.pdf
Duckett, J. and Miller, W. (2005). Public Attitudes toward Anti-globalisation Protest in the
Developing World: A study of Czech republic, South Korea, Ukraine and Vietnam. Presented
at the Annual Conference of the European Consortium of Political Research, Budapest, 8-10
September 2005
Earl, J. (2003) 'Tanks, Tear Gas and Taxes: Toward a Theory of Movement Repression',
Sociological Theory 21(1): 44-66.
Earl, J. (2011). Political Repression: Iron Fists, Velvet Gloves, and Diffuse Control. Annual
Review of Sociology. 37:261-284.
Edwards, G. (2014). Social Movements and Protest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Esmonde, J. (2003) 'Bail, Global Justice and the Limits of Dissent'. Osgoode Hall Law
Journal. 41 (2/3): 323-361.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Oxford: Polity Press.
Fernandez, L. (2008). Policing Dissent: Social Control and the Anti-Globalization Movement.
London: Rutgers University Press.
Fitzgibbon, W., Curry, D. and Lea, J. (2013). ‘Supervising Rioters: The Role of Probation’,
The Howard Journal, 52 (5): 445-461.
Fletcher, S. (2014) “Protest” in Atkinson, R. (ed.) Shades of Deviance. Oxon: Routledge.
Garland, D. (2001). The Culture of Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Garland, C. (2012). “Illuminated in its Lurid Light: Criminalization, Political Repression, and
Dissent in the UK” in Shantz, J. (ed.) (2012). Protest and Punishment: the Repression of
Resistance in the Era of Neoliberal Global Governance. Carolina Academic Press. North
Carolina.
Gearty, C. (2005). '11 September 2001, Counter-Terrorism, and the Human Rights Act',
Journal of Law and Society, 32(1): 18-33.
Gillham, P. (2011) ‘Securitizing America: Strategic Incapacitation and the Policing of Protest
Since the 11 September 2011 Terrorist Attacks’. Sociology Compass 5(7): 636–652.
Gilmore, J. (2010). 'Policing Protest: an Authoritarian Consensus'. Criminal Justice Matters.
82 (1): 21-23.
Giroux, H, A. (2013). ‘The Occupy Movement Meets the Suicidal State: Neoliberalism and
the Punishing of Dissent’. Situations. 5 (1): 7-34.
Goldstone, J. (2012). “Protest and Repression in Democracies and Autocracies: Europe, Iran,
Thailand and the Middle East 2010-11” in Seferiades, S. and Johnston, H. (eds.). (2012).
Violent Protest, Contentious Politics, and the Neoliberal State. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Gorringe, H., Rosie, M., Waddington, D. and Kominou, M. (2011). ‘Facilitating Ineffective
Protest? The Policing of the 2009 Edinburgh NATO Protests'. Policing & Society. 22 (2):115132.
Gorringe, H., Stott, C. and Rosie, M. (2012). 'Dialogue, Police, Decision Making, and the
Management of Public Order During Protest Crowd Events', Journal of Investigative
Psychology and Offender Profiling, 9(2): 111-125.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from 'The Prison Writings'. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Grover, C. (2011). ‘Social Protest in 2011: Material and Cultural Aspects of Economic
Inequalities’. Sociological Research Online. 16 (4): 18.
Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J., Roberts, B. (1978). Policing the Crisis:
Mugging, the State and Law and Order. London: MacMillan.
Hall, S. (1992). “The Work of Representation” in Hall, S. (ed.). Representation: Cultural
Representation and Signifying Practices. London: Sage.
Hall, S. (1997). ‘'Culture and Power,’' Interview With Peter Osbourne and Lynn Segal
(London, June 1997). Radical Philosophy, 86: 24–41.
Hall, S. and A, O' Shea. (2013). “Common-sense Neoliberalism” in Hall, S., Massey, D. and
Rustin, M. (eds). After Neoliberalism? The Kilburn Manifesto. London: Soundings.
Hallsworth, S. and Lea, J. (2011). 'Reconstructing Leviathan: Emerging Contours of the
Security State'. Theoretical Criminology. 15 (2): 141-157.
Hewson, C. Yule, P., Laurent, D. and Vogel, C. (2003). Internet Research Methods. London:
Sage.
Hillyard, P., Sim, J., and Tombs, S. and Whyte, D. (2003) 'Leaving a Stain upon the Silence:
Critical Criminology and the Politics of Dissent', paper presented at the European Group for
the Study of Deviance and Social Control, Chester (22-24 April) unpublished.
Hough, M. and Roberts, J, V. (2012) “Public Opinion, Crime and Criminal Justice”. In
Macguire, M., Morgan, R. and Reiner, R. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology.
Oxford: OUP.
Howwitt, D. and Cramer, D. (2008). Introduction to Research Methods in Psychology,
Harlow: Pearson
Hudson, B. (2009). 'Justice in a Time of Terror'. British Journal of Criminology. 49: 702-717.
Innes, M. (2003). Understanding Social Control: Deviance, Crime and Social Order.
Berkshire: Open University Press.
Ives, P. (2004). Language and Hegemony in Gramsci. London: Pluto Press.
Jackson, W. (2012). Countering Extremism in the Name of Security: Criminalizing
Alternative Politics, In: Extremity and Excess. University of Salford Press, Salford, pp. 129156.
Jewkes, Y. (2011). “The Media and Criminological Research” in Davies, P., Francis, P. and
Jupp, V. Doing Criminological Research. London: SAGE.
Jorgensen, M. and Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse as Theory and Method. London: SAGE.
Jones, T. (2012) “Governing Security: Pluralisation, Privatisation and Polarization in Crime
Control and Policing”. In Macguire, M., Morgan, R. and Reiner, R. (eds). The Oxford
Handbook of Criminology. Oxford: OUP.
Jubas, K. (2010). 'Reading Antonio Gramsci as a Methodologist', International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 9 (2): 224-239.
Khan, U. (2014). “The Politics of Representation” in Brock, D., Glasbeek, A. and Murdocca,
C. (eds.) Criminalization, Representation, Regulation. Ontario: University of Toronto Press.
King, M. (2013). 'Disruption is Not Permitted: the Policing and Social Control of Occupy
Oakland', Critical Criminology, 21: 463-475.
Lacey, N. (2009). ‘Historicising Criminalisation: Conceptual and Empirical Issues’, Modern
Law Review, 72 (6): 936-960.
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical
Democratic Politics. London: Verso
Lea, J. (1999). 'Social Crime Revisited', Theoretical Criminology, 3 (3): 307-325.
Lincoln, Y. S., and Cannella, G. S. (2004). 'Qualitative Research, Power and the Radical
Right', Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (2): 175-201.
Lovell, J. (2009). Crimes of Dissent: Civil Disobedience, Criminal Justice and the Politics of
Conscience. New York: New York University Press.
Lovitz, D. (2007). 'Animal Lovers and Tree Huggers are the New Cold-blooded Criminals?:
Examining the Flaws of New Eco-terrorism Bills', Journal of Animal Law, 3(1):79-97.
Lubin, J. (2012). 'The 'Occupy' Movement: Emerging Protest Forms and Contested Urban
Spaces', Berkeley Planning Journal, 25 (1): 184-197.
MacPherson, J. (2003). ‘Civil Disobedience and the Law: the Role of Legal Profession’.
Osgoode Hall Law Journal. 41 (2): 372-380.
Manza, J. and Brooks, C. (2012). 'How Sociology Lost Public Opinion: A Genealogy of a
Missing Concept in the Study of the Political'. Sociological Theory. 30 (2): 89-113.
Martin, B. (2008). "Varieties of Dissent" in Banks, S.P (ed.) Dissent and the Failure of
Leadership. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching.2nd ed. London: SAGE.
Meyer, D, S. (2004) 'Protest and Political Opportunities'. Annual Review of Sociology. 30:
125-145.
Monaghan, J. and Walby, K. (2011). ‘Private Eyes and Public Order: Policing and
Surveillance in the Suppression of Animal Rights Activists in Canada’. Social Movement
Studies. 10 (1): 21-37.
Monaghan, J. and Walby, K. (2012). ‘'They Attacked the City': Security Intelligence, the
Sociology of Protest Policing and the Anarchist Threat at the 2010 Toronto G20 Summit’.
Current Sociology. 60 (5): 653-671.
Morton, A, D. and Beiler, A. (2008). ‘The Deficits of Discourse in IPE: Turning Base Metal
into Gold?’ International Studies Quarterly. 52: 103-128.
Murray M, and Fisher J, D. (2002). ‘The Internet: A Virtually Untapped Tool for Research’.
Journal of Technology Human Science. 19: 5-18.
National Centre for Social Research, British Social Attitudes Survey, 2007. Essex: UK Data
Archive [distributor], July 2009. SN: 6240, http://dx.doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-6240-1
Noakes, J., Klocke, B. and Gillham, P. (2005). ‘Whose Streets? Police and Protester struggles
over space in Washington, DC, 29-30 September 2001’. Policing and Society. 15 (3): 235254.
Oliver, P. (2008). ‘Repression and Crime Control: Why Social Movement scholars should pay
attention to mass incarceration as a form of repression’. Mobilization: The International
Quarterly 13(1): 1-24
Olsen, M, E. (1968). 'Perceived Legitimacy of Protest Actions'. Social Problems.15 (3): 297310.
Pattie, C., Whiteley, P. and Seyd, P. (2003). 'Civic Attitudes and Engagement in Modern
Britain'. Parliamentary Affairs. 56: 616-633.
Power, N. (2012). ‘Dangerous Subjects: UK Students and the Criminalization of Protest’,
South Atlantic Quarterly, 111 (2): 412-420.
Price, S. and Sabido, R, S. (2015) Contemporary Protest and the Legacy of Dissent. London:
Rowman and Littlefield.
Roberts, A. (2013). The End of Protest: How Free-Market Capitalism Learned to Control
Dissent. New York: Cornell University Press.
Robinson, J. (1968). ‘Public Reaction to Political Protest: Chicago 1968’. Public Opinion
Quarterly. 34 (1): 1-9.
Rodham, K. and Gavin. J. (2006). ‘The Ethics of Using the Internet to Collect Qualitative
Research Data’. Research Ethics Review. 2 (3): 92-97.
Rosie, M. and Gorringe, H. (2008). ‘The Polis of 'Global' Protest: Policing Protest at the G8 in
Scotland’. Current Sociology. 56 (5): 691-710.
Rowbotham, J, D. (2013). ‘Gendering Protest: Delineating the Boundaries of Acceptable
Everyday Violence in Nineteenth Century Britain’. European Review of History. 20 (6): 945966.
Rupert, M. (2003). ‘Globalising Common Sense: a Marxian- Gramscian (Re-)vision of the
Politics of Governance and Resistance’. Review of International Studies. 29: 181-198.
Sanders, D., Clarke, H., Stewart, M. and Whiteley, P. (2003). 'The Dynamics of Protest in
Britain 2000-2002', Parliamentary Affairs. 56: 687-699.
Sbicca, J. and Perdue, R. (2014). ‘Protest Through Presence: Spatial Citizenship and Identity
Formation in Contestations of Neoliberal Crises’. Social Movement Studies.13 (3): 309-327.
Schwartz, G., Da Costa, R. and Fleck, A. (2014). ‘Political and Legal Response to Brazil's
June Days: an Analysis of Judicialization and Criminalization in the City of Porto Alegre’.
The Journal of Social Policy Studies. 12 (2): 285-295.
Seferiades, S. (2005). ‘The Coercive Impulse: Policing Labour in Interwar Greece’. Journal
of Contemporary History. 40: 55-78.
Seferiades, S. and Johnston, H. (eds) (2012). Violent Protest, Contentious Politics, and the
Neoliberal State. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Shantz, J. (ed.) (2012). Protest and Punishment: the Repression of Resistance in the Era of
Neoliberal Global Governance. Carolina Academic Press. North Carolina.
Shor, E., Carmichael, J., Munoz, J., Shandra, J. and Schwartz, M. (2014). ‘Terrorism and State
Repression of Human Rights: A Cross-National Time-Series Analysis’. International Journal
of Comparative Sociology. 55 (4): 294-317.
Slater, T. (2011). ‘From 'Criminality' to Marginality: Rioting Against a Broken State’. Human
Geography. 4 (3)
Starr, A., Fernandez, L., Amster, R., Wood, L. and Caro, M. (2008) ‘The Impacts of State
Surveillance on Political Assembly and Association: A Socio-legal Analysis’. Qualitative
Sociology. 31 (3): 251-270.
Starr, A., Fernandez, L. and Scholl, C. (2011). Shutting Down the Streets: Political Violence
and Social Control in the Global Era. New York: New York University Press.
Terwindt, C. (2013). ‘Protesters as Terrorists? An Ethnographic Analysis of the Political
Process Behind the Broadened Scope of Anti-Terrorism Legislation’. Crime, Law and Social
Change.62 (3): 207-234.
Tierney, J. (2010). Criminology: Theory and Context. London: Routledge.
Tilly, C. and Tarrow, S. (2007). Contentious Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Turner, R. (1969). 'The Public Perception of Protest'. American Sociological Review. 34 (6):
815-831.
Tyler, I. (2013). Revolting Subjects: Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain.
London: Zed Books.
Tyler, I. (2013). 'The Riots of the Underclass? Stigmatisation, Mediation and the Government
of Poverty and Disadvantage in neoliberal Britain'. Sociological Research Online. 18 (4): 6.
Van Aelst, P. and Walgrave, S. (2001). ‘Who is that (Wo)man in the Street? From the
Normalisation of Protest to the Normalisation of the Protester’. European Journal of Political
Research. 39: 461-496
Vanderheiden, S. (2008). 'Radical Environmentalism in an Age of Anti-Terrorism'.
Environmental Politics.17 (2): 299-318.
Vanderheiden, S. (2005). ‘Eco-Terrorism or Justified Resistance? Radical Environmentalism
and the War on Terror’. Politics & Society. 33 (3): 425-447.
Van Dijk, T. (1993). 'Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis'. Discourse and Society. 4
(2):249-283
Vrablikova, K. (2012). “Public Opinion and Movements” in Snow, D., Della Porta, D.,
Klandermans, B. and McAdam, D. (eds). The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Social and
Political Movements. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Wacquant, L., (2009). Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity.
duke university Press.
Waddington, P, A, J. (1998). ‘Both Arms of the Law: Institutionalised Protest and the Policing
of Public Order’. Papers from the British Criminology Conferences: Selected Proceedings.
Vol.1. Emerging Themes in Criminology [online]
http://www.britsoccrim.org/volume1/008.pdf (accessed 8th April 2015)
Waddington, D. and King, M. (2005). ‘The Disorderly Crowd: From Classical Psychological
Reductionism to Socio-Contextual Theory – The Impact on Public Order Policing Strategies’.
The Howard Journal. 44 (5): 490-503.
Wall, D, S. and Williams, M. (2011). “Using the Internet to Research Crime and Justice” in
Davies, P., Francis, P. and Jupp, V. Doing Criminological Research. London: SAGE.
Walters, R. (2003). “Silencing the Critics: the 'War on Terror' and the Suppression of Dissent”
in Deviant Knowledge: Criminology, Politics and Policy. Devon: Willan Publishing.
Weber, M. (1978).
Wilson, J. (1977). ‘Social Protest and Social Control’. Social Problems. 24 (4): 469-481.
Winlow, S., Hall, S., Briggs, D., Treadwell and Papanicolaou, G. (2015). Riots and Political
Protest. London: Routledge.
Wood, J. “Why Public Opinion of the Criminal Justice System is Important” in Wood, J. and
Gannon, T. (2009). Public Opinion and Criminal Justice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Wood, L. (2014). Crisis and Control: The Militarization of Protest Policing. London: Pluto
Press.
Wozniak, J. (2005). ‘Winning the Battle of Seattle: State Response to Perceived Crisis’.
Illness, Crisis and Loss. 13 (2):129-145.
Yates, R. (2011). ‘Criminalizing Protests About Animal Abuse. Recent Irish Experience in
Global Context’. Crime, Law and Social Change. 55 (5): 469-482.
Zajko, M. and Beland, D. (2008). ‘Space and Protest Policing at International Summits’.
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 26: 719-735.
Zedner, L. (2000). “The Pusuit of Security” in Hope, T. and Sparks, R. (eds.) Crime, Risk and
Insecurity. Routledge. London.
Zedner, L. (2005). 'Securing Liberty in the Face of Terror: Reflections from Criminal Justice'.
Journal of Law and Society. 32 (4): 507-533.
Appendix A. Comments by Theme
Theme One: Dissent in a democracy
1.1 Positive views of dissent
1. goggy (1)
Fair play to you all. If more people voiced their opinions we may actually get a democracy.
2. Tapout (1)
Good luck to all of you, watching it on TV now. 'Students' get a bad reputation. I think people
forget they are not a homogenous group. And props to the cabbies and construction workers,
nice to see people getting involved and protesting peacefully.
3. Beckylalala (1)
'Be the change you want to see in the world'
It is everyone's right to protest....Good luck students protesting, it probably wont make any
difference and the one or two groups who cause disruption today will no doubt be
representative in the media of 'all' students, but it is so important to have a voice
4. nega9000 (1)
Protest and Occupy, you brave souls.
5. softMick>50SHADESofBLUE (2)
british people are not militant we like law and order
Yes, but we also like the democratic right to demonstrate and protest, you know the old
'freedom of speech and freedom of expression' thingummy, and in the grand scheme of things
I think even the little Englanders who pursed their lips and tut tutted when they watched
protesters paintballing a royal car would get a tad militant if they thought that such freedoms
were being taken away. And we cannot forsee whether certain elements are going to try to
muscle in on a march or demonstration, though certainly a government lead media will hone
in on a lone group causing trouble because that is what a government led media is paid to
do...And if the majority of the British public are going to be brainwashed by the same tactics
then I think we have already gone a bit too far down the road of sleep walking into a totally
undemocratic dystopia and we urgently need to mobilise our efforts rather than dumb things
down.
6. Zzz62zzz (3)
excellent action! Plenty more where that came from!!!
7. Jbowers > McCourtney (3)
It is just bullying.
It's protest. It emancipated the slaves, gave women the vote, must I go on? Really, must I? Do
I feel sorry for the bus drivers of Alabama who saw a reduction in income during the
boycotts? Get a grip.
Protest is endemic to democracy. It's safe to say that much progress in democracies comes
with arrests, and technical illegality,
8. Chris Icarus (3)
...all of these causes require imaginative and brave direct action. Our vote counts for nothing
now. But feet marching on the streets and legitimate civil disobedience does still have value.
The courageous are needed now like never before.
9. Raymond Soltysek (5)
Thank goodness for civil disobedience. The conscience of the country. Lovely, lovely people.
10. Richard Forau McClary (5)
Anyone slating protesters need to put down the Sun and the Daily Fail and open your eyes at
what is being done to the public every single day, not just the young. We do not live in a
democracy anymore, its a plutocracy and corporate facism. These people are there for you as
much as they are for themselves and their children's children. Don't be so selfish.
11. PGWilkes > pauledwards1000 (6)
Parliament Square is a public space. Public. Meaning ours.
Anyone should be able to meet there, in any numbers, at any time that they want. That is
freedom of association, which in turn is a central tenet underpinning democracy.
Democracy has been bought by the elite. That's the point that Gizmo was making.
12. Rouge77 (8)
Protesting is far from pointless or waste, it's those who don't like them but don't publicly
protest who make passing them easier. Enough people on the streets and governments learn
how to backtrack.
13. Strummered (8)
There is nothing pointless about having the courage of your convictions, if people think
government is wrong they should tell them, and protest is one of the best forms of getting the
message across.
14. Farfetched (8)
I applaud the students for protesting whether it makes a difference or not, the general public
have become too apathetic whilst the rich continue to rip us all off.
More riots please.
15. Gigolo (8)
...this government does respond to protest.
16. Valten78 (8)
It's not just about getting bad decisions reversed.
It's about history recording that people objected to these bad decisions.
17. DustDevil (8)
Protesting is pointless? To a given value of pointless, perhaps, but it is a way for a group of
human beings to show that they are unhappy with what another group of human beings are
doing to them.
It is a fundamental right in this country for a reason. It disturbs the lazy idea that there is some
sort of consensus on the way we are governed.
Without protest it is possible to kid the populace that 'there is no alternative' and 'if you are
unhappy about it you are isolated and there is nothing you can do'.
No. Protest is very relevant.
18. WelshPaul (8)
Tell us Deborah, once we have all carefully scrutinised the governments fiscal policies and
cuts what do we do when we find those we do not agree with?
How do we tell the government?
Well you could always voice your concerns to your MP.
...Nope, I just couldn't write that with a straight face!
Direct action is the only way to make the bastards sit up and pay an iota of attention; just ask
any on the 1,000,000+ people who marched peacefully against the Iraq war.
19. Maghazi (8)
We would still be paying the poll tax without visible protest.
Keep it up.
20. Thoughtandmemory (8)
If we were to roll over and take it without a peep, it would be far easier to sweep the human
cost under the carpet. Protests show that we are more than mere economic units.
21. Tark (8)
...protests may not change policy right now. But they do create public discourse...
22. NapoleonXIV (8)
We really don't protest enough in the UK. I hope the recent student protests will snowball into
a much bigger movement that stops the government in its tracks.
23. Staxiz01 (8)
The protests are not pointless at all. They show a true depth of feeling. At least their voice is
heard unlike that of the Opposition.
24. Jimfred (8)
Protest or complaint, in any aspect of life, is not pointless.
It has, however, to be consistant and relentless.
There is no point, having a grumble and then quietly going away.
25. Althebald (6)
You think it's “silly” to protest? Well I'm an adult, into my fourties, and I think protest is
perfectly sensible. If Blair had paid attention to the Iraq protests (plenty of adults on that one),
maybe he wouldn't have had such a disastrous last four years, maybe he would not have been
ignominously ousted by Brown in 2007. Whatever you say, protest against an issue keeps that
issue alive. And if you think that just sitting back and accepting everything the government
foes with a sigh and shrug is what “mature” people do, then I presume that you accept that the
people in Tiaamen square, for example, should never had been so “silly” as to challenge those
in authority. Protesting is a perfectly legitimate expression of political opposition.
26. BobKL (8)
This is precisely the attitude that has got this country into the state it's in:
“Close the steel industry”, don't protest it's a waste of time.
“Sell-off manufacturing?”, don't protest, no-one listens.
“Close the coal mines?”, don't protest, it won't make any difference.
“Triple university fees”, what's the use of protesting?
Tell that to the suffragette movement, the Jarrow March, the Tolpuddle Martyrs – All
that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing
27. Soldiersvejk57 (8)
People might argue that the marches against the Iraq war in 2003 were "pointless" because
they didn't stop the war.
However, at least the opposition sticks in the mind. At least when someone says "Ah well,
who knew?" or "It's easy to be clever in hindsight. Why didn't you speak up at the time?", you
can show them that so many people knew and so many people opposed it.
Marches, protests and the organisation that they require is an exercise in coming together and
of shared consciousness. We don't all read our opinions in the papers. We think things and talk
about things together.
Many of us are really fucking angry about the cuts and the lies that surround the political
dogma that forces them in. The markets can be opposed if the people oppose them, and this
resistance is born in protests.
28. Dls1 (8)
Political speech and expressions of dissent have a point. People who engage in them have
points to make and their actions are not pointless. Politics is not like rain. It does not simply
fall, outside the purview of agency of people.
29. MrEdge (8)
...History shows that protest is worth it and that it can result in long-lasting settlements.
30. AliceTalk (8)
Obviously protest will not produce a full and comprehensive alternative solution – but it will
generate the need for the government and maybe the rest of us, to produce one.
31. Gravitygetsmedown (8)
Protesting is really the only way we, the young, have to voice our opinions. Those of us not
old enough to vote in particular have little alternative when it comes to making ourselves
heard. Not all of us have national columns to state our beliefs in.
It's disingenuous to say that we don't know what it is we want, too - the body of people I was
marching with were perfectly aware that economic hardship means cutting back spending. It's
simply the area of spending that is being cut that we object to - our personal and professional
development being limited by the mistakes of our parents' generation is where our dissent lies.
32. Cming (8)
protesting is far from pointless. History has shown that it is the only way in which change
comes.
33. AdelJ (8)
Protest makes sure that certain voices are not overlooked in this process.
34. RedMinder (8)
If the protests only serve to reinforce people's opposition to the cuts and reassure them that
they are not alone then they are worthwhile.
35. ewdafunk (8)
That's right everyone, just sit back, scrutinise, make a few verbal rejections, i don't know,
write a letter.......cos that's how major social change has always occurred, right? Bull. Sh*t.
The government should fear the public, not the other way round, and when we know of
injustice, we should let them know by throwing the mightiest spanner into the works as
possible. The list of pivitol points in history where those determined, passionate few have
made positive change for all are numerous, indeed some have been listed above. But I tell
you, when the people of say, Bolivia, unite and rise up, shutting down major cities including
the capital, governments are ousted. When more people realise this, and get off their damned
arses, we will have the power of the snow the bring things to a halt - demanding change. Not
just tutting, cursing and joining the great depression. GET THE F*CK UP PEOPLE!!!!!
Shape your destiny, don't be a spectator.
36. Bidall (8)
Almost all of the great social and political reforms in this country,most recently votes for
women, were won not only by taking to the streets but by open defiance of the law . People in
this country are never likely to see protest as pointless.
37. Highbury (8)
If you're going to be kicked in the crutch you've got every reason, even a duty to protest.
...”Better to fight on your feet than live on yours knees” or something along those lines.
38. Dandarlow (8)
Protesting is not pointless. Getting together united by one objective...is not pointless.
Protesting is public scrutiny!
39. RebTuyll (8)
...physical protest is the most visual way for the public to give "oxygen" to an issue which in
turn leads to a more critical public debate on the issue...
Whether you agree with the students or not (or perhaps can't offer an alternative to the fees) I
think most would agree that protests are probably the most effective way to bring your
message to a wider audience and is something that should be commended not belittled...
40. sparky20006 (10)
Have you ever taken a second to consider the slightest possibility that in an era where the
electorate are ignored by every Government regardless of their political affiliation that groups
like this might be the last bastion of democracy, free speech and moral centric
thought?....no....didn't think so. Just keep voting for your favourite colour and pay your taxes.
What a spoon.
41. Keith Rowley (11)
...Because in the name of freedom I would rather nurture dissent than live in a country where
orthodoxy placed its dead hand over public thinking and orthodoxy became synonymous with
being a 'good citizen'; because the tendency to conformity in public thinking scares the hell
out of me. Without dissent we become political drones – free to think only within the
constraints placed on us by the state.
42. Sammi79> Brandybaby (12)
Peaceful protest is more than tolerable, it is a basic human right and should never be denied in
a public space.
43. weathereye > alienwayupnorth (39)
I would argue that, at least in the UK, protest isn't the way to make society more just and fair,
we do this through the ballot box and by lobbying our MPs.
That is a too familiar but one-dimensional argument, that a simple ‘ballot-box’ democracy is
sufficient to secure an equitable outcome for all. A vote on one day every 1,800 days can help,
but by itself it does not lead to a just society for all. Continual involvement to represent the
views of the wider society is essential, to prevent a tyranny of the majority, or worse, that of a
small minority, as many already notice is the case in British-style ballot-box democracy.
Peaceful dissent, demonstration and protest has to be encouraged and fostered, not virtually
outlawed, if much of a democracy is to survive at all here.
44. ID2250637 > CityBoy2006 (6)
...Occupy isn't a political party but rather is supposed to be a catalyst for change and a forum
for debate.
45. Joenightingale> commanderzeroone (6)
“no one voted for Occupy to turn up...”
True, no one voted to bail out the banks either, but s**t happens, so deal with it. Part of being
in a democracy is not getting your own way.
…The workers who fought for your rights did not use the ballot box, nor did they ask those in
charge. Women's rights was famously opposed by a large number of women but improved
lives vastly. So to can another set of ideas improve the lives of millions regardless of current
social attitudes.
46. Mschin (8)
Very good article, but protest is both necessary and a very human response to injustice.
47. WelshPaul (8)
Protesting against the cuts is like protesting against water's stubborn habit of flowing
downwards.
Don't be so fucking stupid. If everyone held views like yours we'd still be paying the Poll tax.
48. Rarebite (8)
Didn't water flow uphill when the chartists won the vote for men and the suffragettes votes for
women. Didn't water flow uphill when the poll tax riots ousted Thatcher.
It is people like you that say: Don't dream the impossible – unless we dream the impossible –
we can't make it possible. Shame on you.
49. JamesGreenhalgh (8)
Perhaps, and this is a wild and somewhat disconcerting thought, the protests actually do have
a point. And that is to show our distaste in a political idea in a pronounced way.
We're not all columnists with a national soapbox, but we do all have our opinions.
50. Cowgirl (8)
As for the students, they have a right to protest that their future education is affected, and that
students from rich families will be immune...Protest on, students -you have given me hope for
the political future of this country.
51. Lierbag (8)
Protesting against the cuts isn't pointless. It reminds people that they are not alone in
experiencing a sense of dissatisfaction, and helps promote a sense of solidarity. Where protest
falls down, is that it is fundamentally aquiescent to the wishes of the government of the day
(they tell you how to protest, where, and when), and in terms of marches alone, runs the risk
of leaving those actually physically needed to take an active part, content themselves with
letting others act on their behalf. Also, governments actually like protests. As long as you're
happy walking along with your placard, the fabric of the state remains intact, and they can
point with pride at maintaining a society in which you have the freedom to offer dissent.
52. tomguard (8)
As to the value of protests remember it was the anti-poll tax demos that scuppered Thatcher's
inequitable tax.
53. RioBill (8)
Protesting is the only form of expression people have between elections, No protests then the
bastards in Westminster begin to believe their own propaganda and think they can get away
with more.
If i remember rightly, protest killed the poll tax and put the skids under the mad bat who was
beginning to believe she was infallible, immortal and unstoppable.
I for one do not think that putting a cross next to a candidates name, selected for me by a
political head office in London for some muppet who will vote how he is told to, is the be all
and end all of democracy.
54. Fedupwithnannystate (22)
protest is a human right – otherwise there is oppression. And no, the ballot box won't change a
thing. Also it is not capitalism that is ruining its country. It is crony capitalism. Completely
different.
55. Andrew James Hargrave > borninthe80s (25)
The police possess a monopoly of violence, violent direct action is a means of disrupting this
monopoly. This is important if we are to believe that we live in a democracy where the people
are truly in power.
56. SteveRP > GeorgeBall (25)
You honestly think that voting for a MP once every 5 years based on a manifesto that is
shredded after the election is what democracy is all about? No wonder this country is going
down the tubes.
57. peeps99 > GeorgeBall (25)
Whether you (or I) agree with what the protest is about, surely the important bit is actually
having the right to protest.
58. Guest > JonSwan4 (38)
a democratic right to protest is our inalienable right, but the costs of policing must be met by
the organisers, in this case the TUC. What's wrong or unfair with that? (costs)
59. Anonymous (29)
everyone has a right to protest! You cannot remove that or there is no world.
60. Sartrecastic (8)
I'm not saying I'm protesting to start a revolution. I'm not, by any means. I'm protesting
because it really does not have to be like this. Politics doesn't have to be stage-managed at
dinner parties and manipulated through money; it can belong to everyone. I'm protesting for
democracy, from the most immediate sense (the Lib Dem pledge) to the widest (democratic
control of resources).
From your article you seem to have a sort of tired complacence about whether "expecting
politicians to keep their promises" is a purposeful thing to go protesting about. But it is.
People thought the Liberal Democrats were a little different, even after the expenses scandal.
The "revelation" that in fact any politician from any party is prepared to implement anything
regardless of what they may have said to get elected wasn't a political education for the mass
of us, perhaps especially not our elders, but it has been for some. The government does not
work for you. It doesn't give a shit about you! The subsequent protests have taught a lot of
people that the police, in particular, do not work for you. They work for the government.
So yeah, we will take to the streets, as is our right. We will go where we please, think as we
please, be as we please. Protest is not only successful in so far as we get people to do what we
want. It's successful in so far as we succeed in being people who protest.
61. Williewasp18 (8)
The need for protest has never been greater...
62. MalDeDebarquement > huzar30 (6)
It is a public space. Until 2005, it was perfectly legal to have demonstrations there, as it is in
every other public space – in parks and squares up and down the country.
Are you familiar with the concept of 'democracy' and what it entails? I suppose since you are
a grown adult, you might have realised that there are many people who would consider you a
'crank', as well, and that the whole premise of freedom of speech is that if we shut people
down because we consider them 'cranks', then we will end up inadvertently smothering good
ideas, too.
If you don't like that, there are plenty of authoritarian states to which you are free to emigrate.
63. Whizgiggle (8)
As others have said, there is no other way to express opinions on cuts because the ballot box
is completely unreliable. Students tried voting first. It didn't work.
1.2 Negative view of dissent in a democracy
1. Anduu90 (1)
Protests achieve nothing. If you want a revolution go and create a new political party that
represents your aims and get the majority of the population to vote for you, then you can do
what you want with the country
2. Edwardlongshanks > GizmoGizmo (6)
Oh, FFS. If you think the Labour Party is unrepresentative and anti-democratic, then you're an
idiot. Join it, agitate for change from within. Get your friends and family involved. If people
won't participate in the real democratic process, then they've no right to complain if it doesn't
deliver. I get so heartily sick of pseudo-revolutionaries who talk the talk but don't walk the
walk. It's lazy, egocentric self-massage masquerading as political involvement.
3. MickGJ > ID2250637 (6)
if you come up with demands or a specific framework – you're anti-democratic (as a
commenter above stated) and should just cast a vote once every 5 years and diengage
otherwise.
Or--radical thought this-- you could always put those demands to the public and ask them to
cast a vote for--or against-- them, just like all the other political parties do.
Otherwise why should anyone accede to your demands as opposed to anyone else's demands?
Or is the democratic/voting bit just an inconvenience when you already know what the people
(should) want?
4. CityBoy2006> ID2250637 (6)
No matter what you do, you will be patronised.
Actually if you maybe formed a party and won some council elections, maybe got a few
MEPs and perhaps be looking to nab an MP or two next year then you'd get plenty of people
taking you seriously and voting for you.
Hell you could even throw your weight behind the Greens and campaign on a “radical
alternative” platform and see how much popular support you get at the next General Election.
That's why despite their occasional unpleasant views and general buffoonery UKIP are taken
seriously as a disruptive political force whereas Occupy aren't – people vote for them.
5. Mountman > ID2250637 (6)
So form a political party and campaign on that lot then
Hope you can afford all the lost deposits.
6. Toadbrother > ItsAnOutrage (6)
I wonder how many of these people even vote? I hear plenty about democracy, but it usually
seems to end up being an argument for how we should guarantee fringe parties a substantial
voice in Westminster to the detriment of those who actually do bother voting.
Want to change politics, form new political parties, or take over existing ones, convince the
voters you've got some ideas with merit, and get elected. Everything else is just background
noise.
7. Opaque (6)
You are not queuing outside a voting station waiting to vote you are illegally squatting in a
public space.
Try doing the first one, or something related to the furtherment of the wide ranging rights we
do have but people choose not to use.
It's amazing how many people moan about democracy but refuse to actually engage with it,
not voting, not talking to their own elected officials and especially not standing themselves. If
you want change try putting the work into it instead of sitting around doing something like
this.
You are missing out on masses of great opportunities.
8. Meinong (6)
It is a niche group of protesters, not a “democratic assembly”, that is being attacked by police.
No one voted for these people to go sit on the grass in Westminster.
(see also theme six)
9. Danny brown (8)
If the democratic system doesn't reflect the will of the people then the only recourse is to
protest. What other mechanism is there.
Voting.
10. MrPiggles (18)
Cuts to public services and the NHS, increases in student fees and attacks on welfare benefits
all mean that there is more and more reason to take to the streets against government policies.
How did you come to that conclusion? I thought the government was democratically elected
based on their policies.
11, Micheal J Cawood (5)
Setting up camp outside parliament has NOTHING to do with democracy. It is more like left
wing blackmail.
12. Mark Harding (5)
Yes, we have the right to protest. I have the right not to want to pay for it.
13. Steve John (5)
It is very important to protest about democracy – you can do that on a Thursday at the ballot
box next May!
14. Mark Todd (5)
I'm confused? If they are protesting for greater democracy shouldn't they be somewhere like
North Korea or frankly anywhere in the Middle East?
15. Light_and_Liberty (6)
Your fellow citizens, through their representatives, drafted, voted on, and passed the laws that
prohibit the use of the grounds in the manner you desire.
That is the democratic process. Ironic, no?
16. Commanderzeroone (6)
'metropolitan police regularly react with a wink and a smile if citizens camp on the street
while queuing overnight for the latest iPhone. But to do it in furtherance of democratic
expression is absolutely forbidden.'
That's because Occupy's activist take on democracy is to campaign against any result they
don't like as being undemocratic.
Inside westminister are the people, good or bad, we put there.
No one voted for Occupy to turn up on parliament green getting in the way.
So how about you all just **** off.
'The very same press that provides wall-to-wall coverage of pro-democracy occupations and
police repression halfway around the world, in Hong Kong acts as if analogous events at
home are of no interest'
That's because they are not analogous events, to suggest so is abject bollocks and an insult to
our democracy.
Personally I would just turn Boris's water cannons on you.
We have the ballot box for democratic change how about you start using it.
17. AnOldBoy (6)
Why don't you found a new party if you don't like the existing ones?...
18. Tongariro1 (6)
But if you want democracy, you have to tolerate dissident voices, and the best ideas probably
don't emerge from a bunch of people who all think the same way.
You do have the vote in this country. Our ancestors fought very long and hard to get it. If you
don't use it & are unhappy with the outcome, you have no-one to blame but yourself. It's not
very exciting, but if you want to have your say by voting, make sure you're on the electoral
roll.
19. Kingsbest >Tongariro1 (6)
perfectly put.
Pop round to Russell Brand's garden for a communal whine.
Or come up with some ideas, produce a manifesto and persuade people to vote for you.
Can't be arsed? Thought not.
20. Kingsbest > Vocalista (6)
Yes. These things take effort. But the Labour party had to start somewhere and they just didn't
sit around moaning and talking about neo-liberalism.
The point is that the vast majority don't share the views of the agitprop brigade consisting of
hormonal students, vegans and anarchists.
Evolution not revolution.
21.Toadbrother > grt_49 (6)
There have been plenty of successful reform movements....These were all done by politicians,
and they did it by getting themselves elected and making the changes where they counted...not
by camping out in public spaces.
22. Mc1ronny > spinnyspace (6)
You have democracy. You can vote for the MP's who form the government.
Many of us would prefer a more proportionate system than first past the post, but the country
rejected it when we had a referendum.
23. Philipwhiuk (6)
all to ensure no citizen enters to illegally practice democracy.
Occupying a square of grass is not practising democracy. Occupy Democracy is but a shadow
of Occupy London. It is also minuscule compared to the much mentioned Hong Kong
protests.
But it's impossible to bring people together unless there is a location, a place where they can
go 24/7, to meet people and begin to have conversations and make plans.
I think that's called the House of Commons, and you get there by being elected by your peers.
I think there's a process for that...what was it...oh yes...democracy.
It turns out people are idiots and elect people who are good at public speaking rather than
honest necessarily. But that's not an error in democracy but in humanity.
Furthermore, the people who are camping out are actually anti-democracy. They get a vote
and they might use it or not (you get a choice you see) but that's not enough.
You may call them protesters, you may even think they are right.
But the truth is they are just another form of charity funded lobbyist.
24. Philipwhiuk > changeisinevitable (6)
Meanwhile your choice at election of one neo-liberal party or another neo-liberal party or
another neo-liberal party or another neo-liberal party is exactly the fake democracy you want.
That's not your choice. You are ignoring the other options, which included standing yourself.
25. FuriousRob (7)
How can you say they are doing something they have achieved absolutely nothing in the
whole time that camps been there not one single thing. Putting a tick in a ballot box and
paying my taxes is making 100 times more of a difference than this camp had made in its
lifetime.
26. Gary Walker (17)
I'm a liberal, so disagree with the Conservatives on most issues, but a lot of people voted for
them - like it or not that's democracy in action. If you want to overthrow an elected
government, then you're advocating a dictatorship.
So again, the protesters are concerned with their own self interests over the votes people
placed within a democratic political system. You want to make a change? Then stand for
election yourself, or work to get someone elected who's beliefs match your own.
Also, remove your masks - a protest of anonymity is a protest of cowardice.
27. Jerry Levy (17)
Why would there be an “anti government” demonstration in a democracy? If you don't like
your government, just vote them out, Right?
28. TheRealCmdrGravy > Bauhaus (18)
For a start, we have a coalition, which nobody voted for.
Just because people can't, or don't understand how the voting system works and what a
coalition is doesn't automatically give them the right to go off protesting and doing what they
like.
29.Haru > bauhaus (18)
For a start we have a coalition that nobody voted for
I didn't vote for Labour, the fact they were in power for 13 awful years didn't give me the
right to go out and start rioting.
30. LakerFan (18)
If people vote for conservatives, they get conservative behavior: kettling, Stalinist
imprisonment, injustice, barbarism and the list of evils goes on and on....
If the people do not wish to live under Orwellian fascism, keep the conservatives as far from
any position of leadership (as well as scissors and sharp sticks). Conservatives are a danger to
themselves and others. Stop voting for them.
If people wish to protest and occupy, do so in the voting booth. And for God's sake keep these
psychopathic conservatives well away from anything close to a position of power. Perhaps
municipal street cleaner is the highest position in government that a conservative should be
allowed. Anything else and you all get the lash of the Pharaoh as has been amply
demonstrated.
31. AC (21)
...We have a system and can vote, this is the legal way.Lets get some water cannon on the
streets
32. GeorgeBall (25)
Speaker's Corner is the place to voice your opinions, electing your MP is the democratic way
to run the country.
If you are part of the 0.01% who think that you have the absolute right to override the vast
majority of the rest of the population, please go and do so in the Scottish Highlands or
Hampstead Heath, rather than disrupt the rest of us.
33. CaptainGrey > SteveRP (25)
You honestly think that voting for a MP once every 5 years based on a manifesto that is
shredded after the election is what democracy is all about?
Yup (not the shredding part obviously - vote them out). But electing someone every 5 years is
democracy even though you personally might not like who the people vote for.
In fact, thank the good Lord above we have that, rather than the system you would impose on
us.
34. WeLoveWindows8 (25)
You silly socialists have your Green, Labour or UKIP parties. Go and convince the public via
these organisations of your silly ideas instead. You will of course get nowhere as the vast
majority of people respect the coalition, respect international business, respect capitalism and
respect hard work.
35. Mojoly >mirandakeen (25)
Good that some people have the time and energy to challenge the filth in government.
I do. It's called going to the polling station once every five years. Most of realise that in a
democracy, that's the only way to make a difference. The Occupy protest, while it raises very
valid concerns, is a waste of time, as the only way to change things is through the ballot box.
36. mojoly760 > Agir (25)
I take it you've tried to set up a protest group then?
I have better things to do. Whether you like it or not, the only way to change things is to go to
the polling station in May. Not voting and standing and hollering in Parliament Square
certainly won't.
37. kingsbest (25)
Occupy think they represent the majority do they?
Well stand for election and prove it.
Then you can take the barriers down.
38. Tongariro1 (25)
Occupy has no democratic legitimacy. I've never had an opportunity to vote to elect anyone
associated with it. They do not speak for anyone but themselves. There's an interesting irony
that some of the enemies they have identified include elected officials, eg Boris & MPs. There
may be flaws with our democratic system, but I prefer it to a bunch of part-time camping
enthusiasts whose idea of direct action is holding seminars. Are they from the Tooting popular
front of the popular front of Tooting?
39. Icini (27)
Well Ms Lucas has to do something to get a bit of publicity. The UKIP rise has driven the
Greens out of the headlines. Perhaps we should try a little civil disobedience too? No. I think
we'll stick to the democratic process, poor and loaded thought it may be..
40. alasdairsfraser (27)
She is attempting to subvert the democratic process and the freedoms we enjoy in this
country, she should be withdrawn as an MP if she cannot work within the democratic process.
Direct action is the route minorities take when trying to enforce thier will on the majority,
would folk be so forgiving if she was with EDL or the BNP using direct action to get thier
views across ?
We are lucky to live in a very free and democratic country, action like this just undermines the
freedom of the majority.
41. Genesis Eight-Sixteen (27)
“People today, myself included, took peaceful non-violent direct action only after exhausting
every other means of protest available to us. ..........but still ministers have refused to listen."
Translates as "It's all right to break the law if you can't get your own way".
42. Tony Slater (27)
However peaceful she likes to call it, these protests turn out to be costly and disruptive to the
community. If she wishes to protest she should do so in the House of Commons, or better still
stay in her own house, where she may be permanently after the 2015 election.
43. Road king (31)
you protest at the ballot boxes ! Not by disrupting other people in the streets. I really don't
care what your cause is !
44. SergueiP (32)
and there is the nub of the problem. What are young people supposed to do now they've
exhausted the democratic route?
Accept that they are in minority and they should not try to force their views on the majority.
45. Fortsumter > matt2050 (38)
The average populace have better things to do than take part in idiotic demonstrations.
Responsible people have their own demonstration, they have several, they are called elections.
46. Spandexia > Caledonian_Comment (38)
…you lost the argument. Stop trying to impose your will on the majority and accept you're
wrong.
47. alienwayupnorth > Bauhaus (39)
I would argue that, at least in the UK, protest isn't the way to make society more just and fair,
we do this through the ballot box and by lobbying our MPs. The occupy movement has
achieved nothing because it had no aims other than apparently, 'bankers are bad', and that
seems to be the latest political argument equivalent of putting one's fingers in one's ears and
shouting lalalalalala!
48. truebluetah > galvatron20 (39)
What do you do when there's no one worth voting for because they're all the same? You
protest.
The electorate can choose between literally anyone willing to stand for election. If the people
who stand aren't to your liking then you need to convince someone else to join the race rather
than demand that those already standing change their platforms.
49. alienwayupnorth > galvatron (39)
You stand yourself!
50. Bauhaus > truebluetah (39)
If the people who stand aren't to your liking then you need to convince someone else to join
the race rather than demand that those already standing change their platforms.
Perhaps thats something the Occupy movement could do, or are doing already?
Either way, its gonna take time.
51. Perfidy (39)
You clearly assert that (and I can quote you if you like) that people's right to "protest" is more
important than the concept of private property. I disagree with you.
52. MrsNesbit > MorethanExist (40)
But we live in a democracy. If the people of Occupy want to acheive something then they are
perfectly able to do so politically by seting up a political party and canvassing for votes. If
they appeal to the general public they will get elected and can legally and consentually
implement change.
Then again I'm not sure the occupy 'movement' is that interested in democracy.
53. steavey (40)
The protesters never had any public support to camp illegally on the public highway around St
Paul's in the first place. The protesters only represent a tiny minority, so should not be
confused with democracy.
54. Jamie24 > Rouge77 (8)
Er, we have just had an election fought on the basis of when each party would introduce cuts
and how much.
What you mean is “I don't like the democratic result of the election so I will try to change the
government's approach through bullying and intimidation instead”.
55. Makz (3)
Has Shell done anything illegal? Doesn't look like it to me, so the question is, should anyone
be free to prevent others going about their lawful business simply because they personally
disagree with it? And if so, what kind of precedent does this set? As far as I am concerned, If
we wanted to curtail the activities of companies such as Shell, we would elect he Greens to
govern us, and the fact that we have not suggests that Greenpeace and their kind have failed to
convince us with their arguments. I find it odd that so many people think it is OK for those
who fail to get any significant support at the ballot box should in any case try and impose
their beliefs upon a public that does not share them. And is this is OK for Greenpeace, why
would it not be OK for other minority political groupings, say the EDL?
The thing is, if what I am doing is not illegal you have no right to interfere with me.
56. Utterlydisgraceful (6)
So are the Occupy Democracy people for or against democracy? The last I looked, the people
put into Parliament were put there through a democratic process. Not perfect, and if they are
campaigning for proportional representation, I hope they make it clear.
If they are pro-democracy, what exactly are they protesting? More votes? Fewer votes? Or
just that the democratic process didn't given them what they want? Unfortunately, that's a byproduct of democracy.
Or maybe they think the best way to win hearts and minds of the voters, to bring about change
through democracy, is to hack everyone off by sprawling around on tarpaulin in a small grassy
square? A hint: it won't change a single cote in Barnsley or Liverpool or wherever.
57. Ubergeekian > jameswalsh (35)
How did the protesters get a democratic mandate from the students they claim to represent?
They do have a clear democratic mandate, don't they?
58. MickGJ > ID2250637 (6)
any chance of change ever happening will come from people engaging with politics and the
political process
Funny sort of “engagement” which wants to bypass the political process completely.
59. absitreverentiavero (18)
Cuts to public services and the NHS, increases in student fees and attacks on welfare benefits
all mean that there is more and more reason to take to the streets against government policies
No. They may mean (depending on your point of view) that there is a reason to write to your
MP, or vote accordingly at the next election. If you believe that you can short-circuit the
policy process through violence in the streets, then you are not a democrat.
60. Gary Walker (17)
Revolutions are made at the ballot boxes, Dictatorships are made by people who refuse to
engage in a democratic political process.
61. Commanderzeroone >mejoshblake (6)
Whilst you lot have been pitching your tents they've been winning elections.
62. Vrager (6)
Better if all of them parked themselves in the MPs surgeries and told each of them what they
want...we elect people to listen to our concerns
Addressing your concerns at people going about their lawful business on the public highway
is not really where it is going to have much positive effect .
63. Sunshine88 (6)
Vote ! That's the only way to effect change
64. Cozmikstroll (20)
GOOD...if they want to change things you go about it in the correct way, this isn't it. They are
just thugs hanging their hat on a cause to justify their own evil. Do it the right way and you'll
have public support – keep on doing it this way and you won't. Right now, you are where you
belong and will have plenty of time to reflect on what you've done to a lot of innocent people.
If you have 'fiercely held beliefs' then form a proper group, lobby your MP...do it the right
way, now you are just thugs in jail, masquerading at activists. People are sick of the lot of you
right now, so what have you achieved? You've made it uncomfortable for the genuine, because
the public will tar you all with the same brush?
Sources;
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 21, 22, 25, 27, 31, 32, 35, 39, 38, 40
Theme Two: Tolerance for Types of Dissent
2.1 Zero tolerance of violence
1. fedupandenglish (1)
I too attended protests back in the day so have no problem with protests per se, just don't get
violent!!
2. TheRealCmdrGravy (1)
Quite a poor turnout today by the looks of it but I'm glad the students were able to make their
point peacefully and in good order.
3. TheUsualSuspects (1)
That lad who chucked the fire-extinguisher did irreparable harm to the student protests.
They went from a broad swathe of support which could've been harnessed, to an issue many
people no longer care for. Calls for students to take a non-violent approach were met with
cries of “breaking the system”. An immature approach that has led us to where we are now.
4. 50SHADESofBLUE>RSeymour (2)
you may have a problem with the march like this comment (hide your face, leave your phone
at home, stay away from EGT)
how on earth can you expect public support unless you make it clear that people who want to
riot smash in windows ect are not welcome, I would like to hear your response
6. 50SHADESofBLUE>RSeymour
oh but it does matter, the august riots of 2011 saw a surge in support for the government for
having a tough response, and so it will be again if this march is hijacked by people out for
trouble
and you can't blame the media if they film windows being smashed in, bricks thrown ect by
ninja red actervist
7. 50SHADESofBLUE (2)
british people are not militant we like law and order
8. Awoolf14 > updulator (6)
'Violent Action', as you put it, is the absolute worst and totally useless response to anything.
Wheres your common sense?
9. Aliendrum > fevriul (13)
I'm not going to lose a great deal of sleep over violence directed at the BNP although I agree
that violence is not the correct way to go about things.
10. JayPeeAre >aliendrum (13)
Wait till the UAF start saying it's not only the BNP they consider are fascists, wait till they say
Ukip or the Tories are fascists and wait till the violence isn't just assault but terrorism, will
you lose sleep over UAF violence thrn
11. toom (13)
Bit whatever you think of the BNP's politics it's not an illegal organisation but a legal political
party.
Why should anyone think they have the right to campaign violently against them.
A democracy is about persuasion not organised hooliganism and bullying, if everyone decided
to use violent protest then the result would be anarchy
12. EdForbes (15)
Does firing flare at police helicopters count as a terrorist action if done as part of a political
protest as was done as part of a recent anti-Fracking protest?
If violence is politically motivated, seems to meet the definition of a “terrorist action” to me.
13. Sondheim (21)
having a violent protest AIN'T GONNA work you idiots..any valid points they make and there
are some are being ignored because of their tactics. ….just stop buying from these shops and
you will soon see how quick they change their ways.covering your faces? What are you
hiding!!
14. TheUsualSuspects > Ominous (25)
And that attitude is precisely why the fences and police are there.
15. TheUsualSuspects > jama251 (25)
You may not agree, that's your perogative, but if you hold a view of using violence against
state institutions then don't be surprised if the state kicks back.
The thing is that ill defined, often middle-class idealism is not a revolution many will follow.
On the contrary, it actually annoys a lot of people seeing protestore use violence. It never
works unless it's aiming to get a temporary sop in extremes, history teaches us that. Look at
the Peasant's Revolt for instance.
And i'm supportive of democracy by the way, I may not be so left wing these days nor so
reactinary, but I always have believed in democracy.
16. nosretap > amazingmodpruner (38)
...people committing violent acts against property as a substitute for legitimate free speech
and peaceful demonstrations. These anarchists must be severely punished in such a way that
society retrieves some value from the miscreants.
17. Nosretap (38)
government must take action against the violent anarchists. No problem about peaceful
demonstrations – we are a free society in which freedom of speech is respected. But we must
stamp down hard on violence and destruction – no liberal standards here!
I wish the judges would hand down hard labour sentences on offenders to restore a value
which is, say, double the cost of damages inflicted on society.
18. Colinmilburn4ever (38)
Peaceful protest – Yes
Violent protest – No, crush it with water cannon, tear gas and rubber bullets.
19. toom > Jim Nolan (13)
We're not talking about what the human rights lawyer thinks (nobody takes them seriously
these days anyway) but about the principle of violent protest against a legitimate political
party.
Is that reasonable behaviour for opponents of any political party or just the ones you don't
agree with?
20. Karen York (17)
I am glad it seems to have been peaceful but I wont be putting my trust in a group that keeps
its identity secret including names and faces.
21. Terry Smith (17)
times where you say or do the wrong thing and the state doesn't like it and they're quite
willing to pass an emergency bill and make examples of people. As long as they're protest is
largely peacefull I'm fully behind them, hell I could even join them.
22. Bystander2013 34
All of these self-righteous comments are absolutely amazing, people are making snap
judgements based upon a brief article without actually having been there to witness this...
I personally was on campus during the protests and from what I saw of it they were anything
but peaceful. Confrontational and aggressive are the first words that spring to my mind after
seeing the way some of the young people were trying to get their points across.
Does a peaceful protesters physically bar access to a cyclist so much so that the cyclist had to
brake extremely hard (despite being in a cycle lane)? No.
Does a peaceful protester yell at motorists and kneel down infront of cars attempting to enter
the campus? No.
Sorry but having attended peaceful legitimate protests, I can safely say that there was a lot
more going on that day that just people exercising their democratic right to protest.
23. SussexAcademic 34
Violent assaults, criminal damage, theft and widespread intimidation do not constitute
"peaceful protest".
24. Galaxina 35
I'm all for protest, but if smoke bombs and fireworks were used they're doing themselves no
favours. It's fodder for those who want to see anti-democratic items like water cannons.
25. moosemolloy>SteB1(3)
Interference with sale and purchase of a commodity between willing sellers and purchasers
can't be considered peaceful.
26. Bazablue (36)
cannot agree with causing damage but having a go at he govt..YES...but I also understand the
fact that they are not listened to and there is no one they can get at......we are the same only
we have ukip now...what have they got? Out of that aid they could write these debts off...Only
the law abiding working class and middle kids will pay this back!
27. Levenshulme (36)
Why try to smash the windows of Starbucks or McDonalds.....and obviously full of
people....!!.....These are not students-but scum....Pay for your own education..I paid for mine
and for my kids...what ferking planet are you on...??......probably Marxists..!!
2.2 Direct action
1. jiangwenming>thesnufkin (3)
Actually I think Greenpeace have been taking note of UK Uncut, who are excellent at
bringing previously uncommitted people to direct action.
Oh wonderful, more people for Direct Action. So I guess for you, direct action has become
something of an end within itself. Which is good, because as a political strategy, direct action,
at least the way it is deployed in Western countries has proven itself a complete and utter
failure.
If all the plutocrats and bankers and oil execs got together and tried to devise a strategy by
which they might subvert the cause of progress and liberalism, I don't think they themselves
could have come up with anything more effective and deadly than direct action. The only
things it ever accomplishes is to harden the right wing, alienate the fence sitters and generate
more revenue for the sponsoring organisations which is then churned into yet more direct
action campaigns.
A tactic sheer desperation it is. If you can't do anything to stop the powers that be then at least
pretend you can eh?
2. Jiangwenming > thesnufkin (3)
all in spite of, not because of direct action.
3. Dijon (20)
...Don't get me wrong, I'm all for expressing your opinion and performing actions to get your
point across – but not like this.
4. Hedge Witch (20)
I cant condone the methods the activists used, neither can I condone animal testing. […]
5. HBSauce (3)
I do appreciate they are probably not out to physically hurt anyone, however its entirely
reasonable to suggest that interfering and damaging property as well as unlawfully preventing
businesses carrying out their functions is hardly a peaceful act.
I dont have much time for the watermelons that are Greenpeace and their continuing criminal
activities hardly endear them to me further. I fully expect the police will act professionally in
a Proportionate, Lawful, Accountable and Necessary manner when dealing with this
miscreants.
6. HBSauce (3)
So in your books Ghandi was violent?
However, Ghandi has nothing to do with this situation. Nothing. Neither has Ian Tomlinson.
This is about the criminal activities, through direct actions, by Greenpeace. Direct action by
its very definition cannot be said to be peaceful.
Its really quite simple.
7. HBSauce>SteB1(3)
Direct action might not include violence against persons (and I appreciate the Greenpeace is
neither advocating or carrying our violence against persons) but that simply does not mean its
'peaceful'. I have not suggested that something not being peaceful therefore means violence is
being used...
We could argue about the use of the word peaceful all day but I will still be right at the end of
it.
Direct action is not a peaceful act.
8. Sidney (20)
I don't agree with the tactics these people used but feel that some of the vitirol directed at
them on here is slighlty hypocritical.
9. Charlotte (20)
...I'm all for animal rights but these people are nothing but detrimental to the cause they're
meant to be supporting. They could have put all of the energy in to raising money for no kill
shelters and helping to rescue, rehabilitate and rehome abused animals. They are so many
people who do absolutely wonderful things for animals and deserve all of the praise in the
world, they guys are just acting like common thugs
10. Sw (20)
...i'm certainly no advocate of terrorism, but can understand how people could become very
frustrated at what is essentially torture/murder of defenceless animals who have no voice to
speak up for themselves...
11. mojoly760 > MirandaKeen (25)
Speak for your self.
I suspect the vast majority of the general population support peaceful protest, don't they?
Climbing statues and being a nuisance to the Police is not peaceful. Hence the relatively
pitiful attendances at Occupy protests, they are not seen as seriously as they maybe could be.
2.3 Tolerance of some 'violent' direct action
1. Rseymour >50SHADESofBLUE (2)
Sorry, but it's not up to me to placate people who are worried about a few people breaking
windows. The fact is, this will be a mass protest, and its goals will have public support. The
existence of a few groups spraypainting or engaging on petty property destruction will make
no difference one way or the other
2. SoftMick > 50SHADESofBLUE (2)
Yes, but we also like the democratic right to demonstrate and protest, you know the old
'freedom of speech and freedom of expression' thingummy, and in the grand scheme of things
I think even the little Englanders who pursed their lips and tut tutted when they watched
protesters paintballing a royal car would get a tad militant if they thought that such freedoms
were being taken away. And we cannot forsee whether certain elements are going to try to
muscle in on a march or demonstration, though certainly a government lead media will hone
in on a lone group causing trouble because that is what a government led media is paid to
do...And if the majority of the British public are going to be brainwashed by the same tactics
then I think we have already gone a bit too far down the road of sleep walking into a totally
undemocratic dystopia and we urgently need to mobilise our efforts rather than dumb things
down.
3. Umami1979 (8)
To those who say protest (sometimes violent) achieves nothing, i'd point them towards the
massive investment in estates like Broadwater Farm; the withdrawal of the Poll Tax; the
resignation of Thatcher, the effort to address the institutional racism of the Met etc etc etc
If the only achievement of students and professional 'anarchists' is a redesign or
reconsideration of this ridiculous bill, then every smashed window and trashed police van will
have been worth it.
4. Mwhouse (8)
I agree that polite, peaceful protest is a waste of time, but only in the sense that it is easily
ignored by those in power. Direct action, on the other hand, can get results. Anyone who
denies it is not being honest with themselves. Neither is it necessarily undemocratic. The
suffragettes didn't have a problem with breaking windows. We could learn a lot from their
struggle.
5. Updulator (6)
An excellent piece. But, to take just one phrase from it, what can we do? People are being
forced in the direction of violent action as the only response that might be effective.
However, since Democracy is effectively dead already, perhaps this has to be the way
forward.
6. Cornhill (8)
Gentile protest is ineffectual in a vacuum and rather more energetic protest is usually
necessary to give an anti-establisment idea traction.
7. Andy77 (18)
Kettling, legal but obviously not lawful.
If people think that the ECHR can grant rights, you are mistaken.
Not only that, but if peaceful protest becomes impossible, then violent protest is logically the
next step. Those highly paid bigwigs at the ECHR must know that.
8. Domesticextremist (32)
women did not get the vote by asking nicely and holding peaceful protest etc. etc.
9. Ominous (25)
If people are denied the right to protest peacefully, then their only option is to protest
violently.
10. jama251 > TheUsualSuspects (25)
Can't agree Usual Suspects. The suppression of peaceful demonstration often leads to violent
demonstration. That is a lesson of history and the birthplace of many movements which end
up overthrowing governments.
To state that the suppression of peaceful protest may have violent consequences is not the
same as advocating violence.
11. Dshubble> HBSauce (3)
Not so, direct action is direct – this is non-violent direct action which by its very definition IS
peaceful. Sorry.
12. worksforcommunityorg>HBSauce(3)
“Direction action by it's very definition cannot be said to be peaceful”
Claptrap.
Direct action is in itself neither peaceful or not peaceful.
13. worksforcommunityorg>HBSauce(3)
Direct action is in itself neither peaceful or not peaceful. An individual example of direct
action might be peaceful, or it might be not peaceful, or it may move from one to the other
(for example inexperienced people might succumb to police violence and respond in kind,
rather than remaining non-violent). All these possibilities are still direct action.
Certain groups of people assert that direct action is always violent, the police for example, but
they are spouting claptrap.
14. BWhale > Galaxina 35
What is wrong with smoke bombs and fireworks? They are fairly traditional forms of creating
atmosphere on demonstrations,… or should they just hold a cake sale.
15. JulesByWaterLees (15)
protest and disruption is not terror.
16. thesnufkin>jiangwenming (3)
Is direct action effective?
I don't see any GM crops growing here, I don't see many new roads being built and my wife
has the vote.
So it must work sometimes.
17. Hithlum > jiangwenming (3)
A tactic sheer desperation..
No its a well established route to publicising an issue.
2.4 Zero tolerance of disruption/inconvenience
1. HeinzTree (15)
I think it's imporant that people have a right to peaceful protest. People also have a right to go
to work and conduct their business without being threatened, harassed and intimidated.
2. CifFinanceGuy >theshrew (3)
As this demonstration shows, they fail to demonstrate any intelligence in pursuing their goals.
The only outcome today will be inconvenience to the general public (meaning less public
support), and an inconsequential blip in Shells P&L.
3. PaxGrass (3)
The tactic is worth debating. It only slightly inconveniences the public as they have to drive to
a competitors station, perhaps making them think for five minutes but unlikely to make many
of them more sympathetic.
Meanwhile the Shell HQ in Aberdeen is easily blocked...That would block a days work for
thousands of highly paid Shell staff.
4. HarHar78 (3)
More spectacular shots to the foot from Greenpeace. Piss people off. That's sure to get them
on your side. Yer right.
5. Dogdobbin (26)
well it sounds as if protesters were blocking a road and that's why they were removed by the
police, who were only doing their normal job. Should they be allowed to block traffic and
persons from proceding down an ordinary road? Why can't they protest without blocking a
normal road that ordinary people, who don't get time off work to protest, have to procede
alloong?
6. Justinjuice (27)
Blocking the road and preventing the public going about thier business? If it were EDL, you
would think differently (left versus right)
7. Ernest (28)
...completely out of order disrupting business like that.
8.Annabelle (28)
it's good to see people being concerned about unfairness in our society, but I don't think this
kind of thing helps their cause at all. It is difficult to shop at this time of year, and causing
irritation to ordinary people who are just trying to get on with their lives is counterproductive.
Why could they not just quietly stand outside the entrances to John lewis with signs illustrate
what it is they are protesting about?
9.Annedemontmorency (32)
the writer seems to believe that the right to protests is the right to impose oneself and
interefere with other peoples lives, property and privacy.
It doesn't.
10.Jebedee (32)
...and the distinction between DoS and legitimate protest seems pretty clear: if you want to
protest online, use your own website to do it, don't try to shut down or vandalise other
people's.
11.wichdoctor (32)
...even offline dissent is wrong when it disrupts people's lawful right to go about their lives in
peace.
12. allantracy (32)
hackers like LulzSec are targeting people such as PayPal who stopped taking donations for
Wikileaks, yet have no problem with accepting donations to American KKK and Neo-Nazi
outfits. I am not saying what they are doing is right, but there is a reason behind it. They are
not killing people, only causing some multinationals to lose some money. They are, in their
eyes, fighting for what they see as injustice. Of course, in our society money is often more
important than people so I do see why the establishment is so upset and worried.
There are unlimited numbers of ways to engage in legal protest on the internet and never
before have such powerful opportunities for protest been available, to those with an axe to
grind, but just because you sympathise with the aims of illegal hackers doesn't make their
activities right.
They were interfering with the rights of law-abiding companies to go about their business as
they wish and the rights of those law-abiding individuals who wish to do business with them.
Similarly, with whatever those hare brained UK Uncut protestors were getting up to at
Fortnum & Mason.
I don't quite know what law they were breaking but they bloody well should have found one
because I for one would have been seriously pissed of to have my day shopping interrupted by
those who aims I have zero sympathy with.
also
PuppyDrowner (32)
@allantracy
Good point – charity fun-runs, rememberance day parades and royal weddings should
be illegal as they interrupt my ability to shop.
Allantracy (32)
Good point – charity fun runs....
you know full well there's a difference.
I doubt very much UK Uncut sought permission, in advance to raid the private
property of
Fortnum & Mason, not least because we all know what the answer would have
been.
Thea1mighty (32)
From here henceforth, sitting down in a shop without blocking ways of passage and
gently coversing with people – shall be known as a raid.
13. Johnny Englander (33)
what's this got to do with Britain? Why are they disrupting the lives and livlihoods or British
people for something which has happened in America? If they really must get involved in
American politics why not protest outside the US embassy or better still go to the USA and
protest.
14. waxylimes > bigalan (34)
You can speak out without protesting, causing disruption and intimidating others.
15. FOARP > EbbTide64 34
"...the other is protesting the decision maker who is responsible..."
...by causing inconvenience to innocent fellow students.
16. FOARP 34
I'm a Sussex graduate - I did my BSc there in 98-2001, and then post-grad there in 2008-9, so
I've seen a few of these demonstrations. A few points:
- This is nothing new. Students were thrown out when student fee were introduced and they
refused to pay them. Students were thrown out for cream-pieing Cherri Blair when she came
to visit the university. Students were thrown out when the admissions office got trashed by
protesters back in '99.
- Very few people studying at the university support the occupations, even if they support
their goals. The occupations are always the act of a very loud, very small minority of political
extremists, and take the form of having to study/eat/work around a bunch of people who
haven't washed in a week and who periodically insist on lecturing everyone very stridently
and pointlessly on the issue du jour. The people who suffer the effects of occupations are
ordinary students, not the university administration.
17. JeremyinOz (39)
You seem to be confusing the right to protest (precious) with the right to make a nuisance
(potentially illegal).
There seems to be an attitude prevalent on cif that the means (disrupting traffic, smashing
shop windows, storming offices, fighting with police) justify the ends (effective picketing,
protesting against cuts in Government spending, letting the Tories know they are unpopoular).
Even if the mens do justify the ends (always a slippery slope) that doesn't make them legal.
Yes people have a right to protest, but that right doesn't include forcing those who just want to
go about their daily business (even if that is as banal as buying a new pair of shoes at a
Westfield Mall) to listen.
18. Finish (3)
well done to Greenpeace for making some poor sod on minimum wage working at a petrol
station have a shit day at work.
19. Aban Hope (5)
In total there were approx 100 demonstrators, far more police than them. Does everyone have
a right to demonstrate,of course,but in London,marches,protests,demonstrations etc,are
beyond a joke,every Tom,Dick,Harry thinks they have a right to disrupt the daily lives,on a
daily basis. Let them demonstrate in somewhere like Hyde Park. Also the use of
headscarves,masks,andbalaclavas should be banned.
20. David Wrench (5)
'Protest is legal in this country and I think we should be able to protest where we want.'
Really? Does that mean a right to obstruct other people's lawful activities, the enjoyment of
public spaces, or their private property? If so, for how long? The real question is, to what
extent should the right to protest include the right to deprive other people of their rights?
21. Gourdonboy (19)
the verdict was 100% correct. We can't have a tiny minority of extremists disrupting our
economy and society simply because they have decided that they are right.
As for Greenpeace, they are heading for a date in court soon. This type of behaviour must be
stamped out
22. pete (28)
all fair and well, but apart from rubbing everyone up the wrong way, its not going to make a
penny's worth of difference to all the people who are on minimum wage and zero hour
contracts, all the time they can pay a pittance to employees they will.
23. Grabn (31)
and lets not forget the ridulous acting from arrestees that comes with some of these arrests.
And the effect the actions of these not so peaceful protests have on their victims. Right to
protest does not mean right to trample over everyone else rights and cause ongoing disruption,
intimidation, stress and upset.
24. McCourtney> thesnufkin (3)
If this is a protest about the Arctic then protest Shell; don't bully small business owners who
are trying to make a living.
A legal living by the way, not like Greenpeace who raise publicity and therefore funds by
illegal acts.
25. NuReality > Torquie (12)
People are allowed to protest but not cause mass disruption.
2.5 Tolerance of inconvencience/disruption
1. EbbTide64 > FOARP 34
Protests inconvenience people. That's what they are for. If they don't inconvenience people,
they get no publicity for the cause, do they?
A bit of inconvenience is the price we have to pay for living in a country where protest is still
allowed, at least in most places.
2. shoogledoogle > FOARP 5 Dec 34
Strikes, occupations and protests are imprecise weapons, but they are pretty much the least
violent and destructive ones available. The idea is that your inconvenience is really rather
small, with any sense of perspective.
3. Nathan Murgatroyd >Dontrustany1 (6)
The whole act of being in discomfort and traveling to London from miles away and putting
effort in beyond commenting on news websites is a symbol of how much of a big deal it is to
the serious people who attended, the disruption is needed to draw attention to the cause and
reasoning behind it.
4. T0nyN > EbbTide64 34
Any protest or demonstration which is effective will be banned. You are only allowed to
protest as long as you don't make a fuss, cause annoyance, give anyone cause to feel upset.
After all what is the further loss of a few more of our freedoms in this brave new Britain?
5. toadalone 34
students, staff and visitors who are entitled to use the campus without fear of intimidation and
serious disruption.
This is all too common. "Intimidation" is constantly quoted as an excuse to ban any kind of
activity that might mildly inconvenience people. It's conveniently left undefined; and so can
be defined as whatever those in power want it to be.
Boo Hoo! Some nasty students are holding up a banner and I feel intimidated! Ban them
please Daddy!
6. Incurable (32)
sometimes working outside the law is the only way to bring change. I am not talking of
murder or violence here. I am talking about peaceful direct action.
History is filled with people who fought for what they believed was right at the time. We
rightly look up to people jesus, the suffragettes, gandhi, those who opposed the third reich,
spain's franco and the USSR, Martin luther King, Jr etc.
you may not like it but sometimes non-violent direct action is the only way to bring about
positive change in the world.
Do I agree with lulzsec's methods? no. do I agree with them that paypal is wrong to accept
donations from violent extremist groups while not allowing donations to wikileaks? Do I
agree with them that democracy and capitalism are failing, and we are being ruled by an elite,
unnaccountable oligarchy? Yes, I do. Being able to put a tick next to someone's name every 5
years is no IMO democracy. A police force telling the public to report people they suspect of
being anarchists is not democracy.
I don't agree with their methods, but if the cost of social change is some businesses losing
some money and some people being inconvenienced, well that is a small price to pay is
nobody is killed or physically hurt.
7. zapthecrap (32)
Some things are too important and if the odd life is slightly disrupted via protest it is, and has
been shown as a lesser evil than sitting on your arse in the face of injustice or persecution and
doing nothing.
8. Thomas C. (27)
If this job gets the go-ahead ad the serious damage to the environment, the water supply and
ecosystems around FRACKING areas becomes apparent, then a blocked road will be the least
of your worries.
The nature of protest is the use of peaceful means to get attention to an issue; blocking a road
for a while seems very disproportionate to the decades of damage FRACKING will cause.
9. yorkshireprat (27)
Justin
Just because a road is blocked and a few people inconvenienced does not mean that the
protest is not peaceful. There are all sorts of events that take place in the UK where roads are
blocked or closed for processions etc. Last year, when the Olympic torch procession came
through my local town, a whole morning was lost for many people because of the disruption
but I don't remember the police rushing to do anything about it.
2.6 Zero tolerance of occupations
1. bojophobe > robjmac (6)
They can go to their homes. They can go to public halls, private halls, to all sorts of parks.
They can go literally thousands of places in London and everyone will be happy.
Preferably go anywhere where the targets of their protest aren't inconvenienced.
2. Spike501 (6)
has attempted to use this space for an experiment in democratic organising
Use this space, or take control/dominate this space?
People queuing for a new I-phone don't really impede people doing other things if they want
to.
3. GizmoGizmo > Spike501 (6)
it might be helpful if you could be specific here. What is it that the OD meetings are
impeding?
4. MickGJ > GizmoGizmo (6)
Parliament square.
5. Printerink (6)
David, if you want a march or a banner waving demo you'll be allowed one.
If you want a camp with seminars, assemblies, colourful bamboo towers, sound systems, a
library, a kitchen and toilets, then rent a hall or a field and go there for your event.
6. Slipangle > baldyman01 (6)
Seems some people think that daring to criticise government should be illegal.
No it should not, but it,s not necessary to camp out in Parliament sq. to do so.
Other people have rights too, such as enjoying one of London,s major squares free of untidy
campsites.
7. MatthewH1 (6)
the people camping down for days, weeks or months on end to protest on behalf of their own
personal politics tend to piss people off, prevent other people utilising the public space on
which they're camped and waste a lot of time, money and resources.
8. AlfredJingles (6)
The very same press that provides wall-to-wall coverage of pro-democracy occupations and
police repression halfway around the world, in Hong Kong,
Perhaps campaigns in favour of electoral democracy, the right to vote and free speech under
conditions of real suppression and danger are considerably more newsworthy than muddleheaded attempts to render public spaces inaccessible to the public by 'occupying' them.
9. arkley > TheGreatRonRafferty (12)
However, isn't it only sensible that people can't just turn on public address systems and put up
tents wherever they like, whenever they like?
I also wonder what defines public and private space. Surely Parliament Square is only a
public space if people can come and go as they please. But then if people are having to
negotiate tents and speakers platforms all the time then haven't the demonstrators "privatised"
part of the square?
Our cities are shared spaces and I find the demands of the I-have-a-message-you-will-hear-it
brigade as offensive as those of the elite wanting police outriders to clear the traffic for their
limo.
10. MickGJ > TheGreatRonRafferty (12)
Freedom of speech and wild camping are not the same thing, even if I am broadly in favour of
both.
11. Billyandbenny (12)
There's a difference between 'protesting' and setting up camp in a public place....
12. Alisonfi (24)
“The mayor clearly doesn't respect the right to demonstrate as he says, or else he wouldn't be
seeking the legal power to evict legitimate protesters from Parliament Square”
the mayor clearly does respect the right to demonstrate – everyone does. But not the right to
camp out permanently wherever you please. Otherwise anyone could live as they please on
any of London's green spaces on the easiest of 'protest' grounds. I could camp out in the
Square protesting taxes. Why Jenny Jones has to lie about the difference in anyone's guess.
Green spaces are for everyone's enjoyment – not just Brian Haw Haw and Co's.
13. Worky (24)
Proper protest: get a group of people. Get in a line. Get some banners. Walk to no. 10, hand in
a petition. Easy.
Or currently: rock up to Parliament Square, pitch a dirty tent, spout some clap-trap about
globally warmed nuclear weapons, piss on the street, eat out of tins, hassle tourists and
generally lower the tone of the area.
How would you like it if 1000's of bankers and city lawyers pitched pre-fab offices all over
Glastonbury?
14. Governor2 > Ominous (25)
They are not being denied the right to protest peacefully - they can do that - but just not on
Parliament Square after taxpayers had to stump up a fortune after the last "peaceful" protest. I
hear the embankment is available for protests.
15. Kevin McAlinden (25)
They can protest the just can't camp out in parliament square and ruin it like the last lot did.
16. Jondevon (25)
surely as the majority of Londoners would I suspect not want parliament square cluttered up
with a lot of tents the democratic will of the majority is being followed here by preventing this
protest..
17. Batters56 (25)
Parliament Square is for protesting, not camping. Brian Haw was protesting the Iraq War
whilst camping, but a vague 'you're not doing democracy very well in there' is not a message
that requires a permanent camp.
Parliament Square is for all. I am delighted when I happen to go through and see the fence
isn't there in that particular day. Maybe if Occupy wasn't trying to takeover the space for their
one issue, then the rest of us would have a better chance of winning the case for a permanent
removal of the fence. Then large protests could gather peacefully on the square, make their
point and then go home.
18. fredreplies > traineeanarchist (25)
Is squatting in tents the best way to engage in politics. It just provides a backdrop for Tourists
photographs
19. ThatWouldBeTelling (25)
People have a right to protest but not to Occupy. The clue is in the name. Occupy only has
itself to blame after its attempt to permanize its tenure at St Paul's.
20. GiveMeAllYourMoney (25)
Buy do they have the right to camp there almost perfectly and stop the rest of the People from
sitting on the grass
21. spareme > Briar (25)
sitting on a bit of grass waving flags, juggling and shouting is "exercising real power"?
22. LansanaDia > cosmictim (25)
So he should of allowed them to occupy the square indefinitely and therefore block other
groups from protesting about issues that matter to them. Why should Occupy get special
treatment?
23. spareme > maceasy (25)
Don't the rest of us have a right not to have a bunch of noisy hippies cluttering up our public
spaces and generally making a nuisance of themselves.
24. heyone > AndyD1977 (34)
There are plenty of fee-paying students would like to be able to attend lectures in campus
facilities that aren't being unlawfully occupied by some other kids just because they want
to make a political statement.
25. FOARP (34)
I'm a Sussex graduate - I did my BSc there in 98-2001, and then post-grad there in 2008-9, so
I've seen a few of these demonstrations. A few points:
- This is nothing new. Students were thrown out when student fee were introduced and they
refused to pay them. Students were thrown out for cream-pieing Cherri Blair when she came
to visit the university. Students were thrown out when the admissions office got trashed by
protesters back in '99.
- Very few people studying at the university support the occupations, even if they support
their goals. The occupations are always the act of a very loud, very small minority of political
extremists, and take the form of having to study/eat/work around a bunch of people who
haven't washed in a week and who periodically insist on lecturing everyone very stridently
and pointlessly on the issue du jour. The people who suffer the effects of occupations are
ordinary students, not the university administration.
26. Staberinde > EspritDeCorpse (34)
Oh grow up.
You're paying for a higher education product. You can choose to do this anywhere you like,
provided you meet the admissions criteria. You're there for 3 years (typically). There are a
range of mechanisms available to handle complaints and concerns about the service you pay
for. And if you're not satisfied you can take your custom elsewhere. Further, if you tell the
internet about your complaints fewer people might choose Sussex in future, so there's an
incentive for the university to keep you happy.
However, if you choose to disrupt the experience of other customers, don't be surprised if
you're ejected. No other business would put up with that, and you've given no argument for
why education providers should be any different. You're on their property, disrupting their
business. If you must protest, do it on public land or your own.
27. Quaestor > ripteam (34)
I have seen this. It includes a quote to the effect that occupation is a legitimate form of
protest. It is not.
28. Quaestor > Tom Harvey (34)
Occupation is a means of disruption and that is not the same as protest.
29. JamesStGeorge (39)
In a society where private shopping malls have become the new market squares, where can
people find spaces to protest?
How about paying for adverts, posters, rather then stealing the use of other people's land and
property?
Besides anything else street protests are less and less relevant, as we shop on line ever more,
no one will notice soon! Only the media reports actually get anyone ever to hear of them.
Only trouble, criminality, violence, is worth the media reporting, as this lot realise. So forget
the faux upset about getting the long overdue eviction.
30. MeerkatSergei > SocraticJibes (39)
The point of the article, which seems to have escaped most people here, who seem bent of
churning out the same old anti-occupy guff, is that although, in theory, we have the
democratic right to protest, the locations for doing it legally have and are eroding away.
The right to protest does not mean the right to take over other people's or public land for
indefinite time by a small group of people who fancy camping in the middle of the City.
I wonder if Guardian would defend the right to protest if, say, EDL camped in the same place
with their protest? If not, then the whole attitude is hypocritical. (left vs right)
31. OakRiver > calher (40)
Engaging? You mean camping out and staging a protest that has not end goal and no road to
get there. That sounds like the a most noble endeavor, I can fully appreciate why the general
population are clamoring to support such a cause....
32. basicbridge (40)
You raise a legitimate point. But does it not occur to you that the abuse of public space
represented by the Occupy mob and the nusiance protestors around parliament square
undermine, rather than enhance, your argument?
Most Londoners are fed to the back teeth with the selfish, self-indulgent and unsightly
protestors around Parliament Square. Whatever goodwill they once had has been eroded by
their continued self-indulgent occupation.
"You have made your point, now heave off..."
33. Cyrusspitama > Bishibosh (40)
"What are we talking about here, freedom of expression and the right to Protest..."
What we don't sympathise with is the selfish arrogance of any group of people who feel that
they have a "right" to occupy a public space for weeks or month on end and subsequently
preventing others from enjoying that public space.
And finally, for many people, the idea of supporting the occupy protesters because they share
their stated concerns would be like supporting the BNP because you're worried about
immigration.
34. BessMasterton (40)
Cue the indignation. However the concept of "public" land is that it belongs to the "public".
The minute the Occupy people start pitching tents they are taking away from the public and
squatting. They are no better than those they complain about as, in effect, they are stealing
land. Our mayor rightly took away the Occupy tents in our city and his reasoning was and I'm
paraphrasing "if I allow you to "occupy" this small city park, how do I know some other
group isn't going to take over another city park and then another city park. At what point do
you stand up for the ordinary citizen who has a right to use that park too?" The 99% obviously
feel that "Occupy" does not represent them at all and the more "Occupy" is being allowed to
disrupt the public's use of public space, the more antagonistic the public will become. If you
do not like the financial sector, take your placards and walk a picket line in front of the banks
or the stock exchange. That's who you are supposed to be protesting against. Squatting on
public land is nothing more than raising your finger against the public.
35. billybagel (40)
"occupy" a quiet but resolute band of youngsters are going to fall foul of Camerons favourite
trick criminalisation, they will be removed by police and bailiffs for trespass on what to all
intents is as much their land as anyone elses.
But that's the whole point. "Their land as much as anyone else's". Well I'm one of the 'anyone
else' and they are preventing me from using that land. The sheer arrogance of these people,
assuming that they can take control of a public space and deprive others of its use, shows that
they have much the same attitude as the "1%" that they deride: "I'm here, I control this, and
I'll do what the **** I like."
36. MeerkatSergei > deludedemocrat (40)
So clever use of stealing our public land for the benefit of the wealthy and developers actually
erodes the right to protest.
The right of protest does not mean the right to appropriate either someone else's private land
or public land for indefinite use as a camping site.
37. NeverMindTheBollocks (40)
This ruling is good, and welcome, news.
As has become increasingly clear over the past few months as public attention and support for
them as waned, Occupy London represent few other than themselves.
If they have actually started a "war" over public space, their own track record clearly shows
that it will be filled with own-goals by them.
If a "war" does need to be fought for public space (and this is by no means obvious), then it
seems that it would be best left to others who are more capable of understanding the issues,
stating a clear position and making a positive difference.
38. MrsNesbit (40)
When a group of people hijack a public space and set up an encampment it is in effect no
longer a public space.
39. huzar30>MalDeDebarquement (6)
Unfortunately Parliament Square is not permanently available to any bunch of cranks who
feel they have a grievance.
40. MickGJ>Strummered (6)
But parliament square would be an obvious choice in a democracy
Why? It's not even a traditional place for demonstrations (that would be Trafalgar Square).
The purpose wasnot to “discuss ideas” but set up an illegal encampment, fluoting te law in
order to provoke a confrontation with police and then claim that “democracy” was being
suppressed.
41. isthismusic>bojophobe (6)
How would you feel if a fascist group tried to set up camp on Parliament Square? Probably
the reaction would be for UAF or some other group to pitch up as well. Then you have a
volatile situation which could lead to violent confrontation right in front of Parliament. In that
sense I can see why the police would want to move them on...
I probably hold some of the same views as those in Occupy but their whole approach is
misguided.
42. pauledwards1000>GizmoGizmo (6)
What are you going on about? If you wanted to organise a meeting for 10, 20 or 1000 people,
you could book a meeting room, village hall, community centre or conference centre in just a
few hours.
43. Robjmac (6)
But it's impossible to bring people together unless there is a location, a place where they can
always go, 24/7, to meet people and being to have conversations and make plans. This is
precisely what our political authorities have decided that Londoners must never again be
allowed to have.
Utter nonsense. They can go to their homes. They can go to public halls, private halls, to all
sorts of parks. They can go literally thousands of places in London and everyone will be
happy.
What they can't do is have the right to set up camp absolutely anywhere they choose, such
places chosen to have achieve a political visibility out of all proportion to their importance..
44. DBIV (6)
But what parliament square is not is a campsite. It isn't a campsite whether or not you assert a
political reason for wanting to stay there.
45. arkley > ub313 (12)
I think the first thing is to decouple the act of demonstrating and occupying a public space
from the cause being supported. I may be cynical but I suspect that most of those up in arms
over the closure of Parliament Square to anti-war protesters and NHS advocates would be a
lot less keen on a permanent UKIP camp (we are staying here till parliament takes us out of
the EU) or an EDL camp (we're here to protect parliament from islamic influences). I expect a
load of Voltairian responses but really?
I like the idea of symmetry, to which I would add permanence. I was in London last Saturday
and that Low Pay demo was damned inconvenient. However since it was just for one day that
was all it was and I wouldn't want it banned. On the other hand it was getting a bit silly
around Parliament Square with more and more of the pavement being permanently occupied.
There comes a point when making a point turns into preventing others going about their
lawful business. A group that calls itself Occupy is a bit sinister to me, though I admit part of
that is because I associate the word with my parents' experiences in 1940-45.
We do after all have the right to ignore political messages as well as hear them.
46. AlanJi (12)
1) it never has been allowed to demonstrate close to Parliament. A life Peer should know this
2) a squatter camp in a square is not part of a protest. It's flytipping with squatters.
I suggest a peaceful and litter free protest, as an alternative.
47. Staberinde > bobbinsbobbins 34
The market has already been created in education.
You might prefer nationalised railways too. Good for you. But the railways are already
privatised. So should you protest this by staging a sit-in on the Virgin Trains service from
Birmingham New Street to King's Cross? No. You should write to your MP, comment on
Guardian articles, go on a march, vote for a party which offers what you want, set up your
own political party or move to France.
Similarly, you may not like the new market in HE, but the universities don't have the power to
change the system. Parliament does. A sit-in at Sussex is shooting at the wrong target.
48. DannyBrown (40)
The reason why this is so important is that the removal of public rights of way also signals the
removal of the right to political protest.
Bullshit. Go protest in one of London's parks.
But preferably away from the 99.99% of the population who don't share your views. We
accept that you, the BNP and the ALF have a right to protest but we don't want it rammed
down our throats.
49. jungledrums (40)
You leftys are priceless, if they get their way there wouldbe tent cities in every park and open
space in the land, it would become a tent country.
You would love that wouldn't - unless they camped in your local park you would be among
the biggest NIMBYS.
Hypocrites
50. Republicantraveller > TheGreatRonrafferty (12)
Occupy, or anyone else, are entitled to theirs. And SHOULD be free to broadcast it in
newspaper columns, or on the streets.
If Occupy want to make their views known to other people they can, like anyone else, hire a
public meeting hall, ask their supporters to wear badges, do blogs, and, if they are extremely
lucky, get themselves invited onto BBC2's 'Newsnight'.
Anyone who wants to set up camp should seek permission of the site owners or their
appointed representative. If Occupy did not seek permission then they and their supporters
should accept the consequences. That is democracy which Occupy are flouting. So Jennie
Jones is supporting an anti-democratic outfit.
51. KraquziKapuzi (6)
There are enough places to hold assemblies, one of the important ones is called your flat, your
house, your garden. And given the outright thuggish behaviour of some of the self-styled
“protesters” (yep, I've been there) it's a miracle how restrained police were operating.
52. Vanillaicetea(6)
There's plenty of things wrong with the way democracy and liberty is going in this country,
but stopping the usual bunch of full time, professional trouble makers from monopolizing and
trashing public spaces is not one of them.
Many, many other groups manages to protest without the added components of sabotage and
squatting. I suggest you try the same.
53. Sunshine88> harry1987 (6)
Indeed, no one was stopping them protesting – as they claim – just from turning the square
into a 9 day mini Glastonbury. Why do they equate democracy with 'a right' to setting up a
camp site where they want? There is a huge difference between people sleeping outside shops
or sports venues (Wimbledon) for one night and Occupy trashing a place for weeks on end.
The sense of victimisation is laughable, if I tried to pitch a tent on my local freen i'd be moved
too.
Their last little jaunt just resulted in Giles Fraser getting the push from St Paul's – nothing has
changed.
54. shiv > experson (40)
All right here's some reasoned argument.
Occupy has no goals. It is not enough to engage with the Ruling classes by merely camping
out. You need to have aims, they have to be communicated, and there has to be some sort of
concession that is being sought to make the whole thing worthwhile.
It's no earthly use being against unfairness, if you can't tell me what fairness should look like
at the very least.
I work near the camp. They are more than untidy. They smell, they are unpleasant, and they
are blocking access to the shops in Paternoster square. You may think that's a price worth
paying for protest. I might agree if there was any sense of aims / demands, but just randomly
sitting round getting in the way isn't protest.
The land was never public land in the first place, so the idea that access has been prevented in
some way, that public access and protest has been denied in the City is nonsense. You can still
protest there, as long as you do it in the streets and you keep moving. Protest is not prohibited,
camping is.
The removal of Occupy is not the end of the world. It's not the end of democracy. It's not the
oppression of the poor, the voiceless, etc. What it is is the removal of one group of protestors
who have had three months or more to make their point.
If they ever had one.
Still I'm sure we can all rest easy knowing that so many people have had access to juggling
skills courses.
2.7 Support for occupations
1. shoogledoogle > FOARP 5 Dec 34
Strikes, occupations and protests are imprecise weapons, but they are pretty much the least
violent and destructive ones available. The idea is that your inconvenience is really rather
small, with any sense of perspective.
2. MalDeDebarquement > huzar30 (6)
It is a public space. Until 2005, it was perfectly legal to have demonstrations there, as it is in
every other public space – in parks and squares up and down the country.
3.cretter > newsed1 (40)
50 middle class trustees and 50 drop-outs fail to change world.
Next, please.....
Obviously they should have walked from A to B avoiding landmarks, got kettled for five
hours and gone home having been photographed for Police records.
Was it the fact that the protest wasn't instantly forgettable that sticks in your craw?
Or is it that Occupy didn't protest on your terms, or that the establishment were unable to
smear them with their laughable efforts at divide and conquer that you don't like?
A pitiful post.
2.8 Low tolerance for lack of clear goals
1. Creditcrunched (2)
I expect to see lot's of Farther Ted style signs “Down with this sort of thing”
No coherency
No alternative solution
No pragmatism
No clue
2. RoomSixteen > MalDeDebarquement (6)
Please stop being wilfully obtuse, it's just annoying.
People have a message they are trying to get across.
What message?
'Lack of democracy', is not a message, it's an unspeakably vapid slogan and your waffling
only confirms the suspicion that vapid slogans is all Occupy has to offer.
3. philipwhiuk (6)
...but seriously, they should come up with a cohesive manifesto that's actually realistic.
4. Lierbag (8)
Rather than marches and meetings then, where protest really start to bite is when people move
on to deploy co-ordinated actions - such as boycotts, blockades, consumer pressure and so on.
The Fuel Protesters of 2000 (love 'em or loathe 'em) didn't waste much time marching up and
down Whitehall - they got truckers and farmers to blockade the refineries, leaving the country
an estimated 7 days away from systemic collapse. Now that's a protest.
Oh, and they won.
5. edmundberk (39)
Occupy didn't so much protest as complain; the difference being they had no alternative
proposal.
And that being so, I think the balance of concerns about the use of public space, probably tilts
towards the ordinary Londoners it inconvenienced.
I am not bashing the concept by the way; had they had proposals to advance I'd be taking a
different view. But time enough was allowed for that and it didn't happen.
At that point it teeters towards self indulgence and I expect you will find public sympathy to
be generally in line with my own; waning.
6. Drew Campbell (17)
The protest should have a 'mission statement': a clear reason for why they're protesting. Most
of the time, people see them as troublemakers with any excuse to fight with police. Funny
enough, I never see 'the ordinary' from sink estates at these gatherings.... They are usually
middle class and well to do.
7. OakRiver > calher (40)
Engaging? You mean camping out and staging a protest that has not end goal and no road to
get there. That sounds like the a most noble endeavor, I can fully appreciate why the general
population are clamoring to support such a cause....
8. NeverMindTheBollocks (40)
This ruling is good, and welcome, news.
As has become increasingly clear over the past few months as public attention and support for
them as waned, Occupy London represent few other than themselves.
If they have actually started a "war" over public space, their own track record clearly shows
that it will be filled with own-goals by them.
If a "war" does need to be fought for public space (and this is by no means obvious), then it
seems that it would be best left to others who are more capable of understanding the issues,
stating a clear position and making a positive difference.
9. Fungolo33 (40)
Reclaim The Streets were concerned with the privatisation of public spaces 15 years ago.
Their response? Drug fuelled parties in temporarily blocked streets. Result? No change
whatsoever. The privatisation of public spaces continued apace.
Now we have Occupy. Concerned with the privatisation of public spaces, as well as, I assume,
inequalities inherent in our system. Their response? Pitch tents outside a church. Discuss the
situation, endlessly. Ramble on about revolutions inside ourselves. Predicted result? No
change whatsoever.
The ideals are noble but the alternatives are not forthcoming. No alternatives = nothing to act
upon = no change whatsoever. Unless, of course, anyone is satisfied that the revolution inside
themselves - 'being' revolution - is actually sufficient, actually changes a damned thing.
10. Kapunda (3)
This is the sort of thing that lost Greenpeace my support completely.
...if they took a positive stance...Greenpeace has defined itself as being opposed to everything,
rather than actually proactively pushing for the most sustainable solutions.
11. shiv > experson (40)
All right here's some reasoned argument.
Occupy has no goals. It is not enough to engage with the Ruling classes by merely camping
out. You need to have aims, they have to be communicated, and there has to be some sort of
concession that is being sought to make the whole thing worthwhile.
It's no earthly use being against unfairness, if you can't tell me what fairness should look like
at the very least.
I work near the camp. They are more than untidy. They smell, they are unpleasant, and they
are blocking access to the shops in Paternoster square. You may think that's a price worth
paying for protest. I might agree if there was any sense of aims / demands, but just randomly
sitting round getting in the way isn't protest...What it is is the removal of one group of
protestors who have had three months or more to make their point.
If they ever had one.
Still I'm sure we can all rest easy knowing that so many people have had access to juggling
skills courses.
12. Commanderzeroone (6)
I wouldn't be so bad if they actually articulated what it is they want but they aren't even
capable of that.
“What do we want – a revolution”
“When do we want it – next Friday morning – can you deliver it round the back please”
13. Commanderzerone > ID2250637 (6)
Basically if you call for change without a specific framework ….you want somebody else to do it for you.
The Occupy generation can't even tie their own shoelaces they even want the revolution to be
done for them.
14. Sardinho (8)
Protest can only be ultimately successful if it has a coherent argument at its core, protestors
also need to recognise that they need to engage with politics and policy makers.
Resistance to framing of no clear goals
1. davidgraaber >commanderzeroone (6)
actually the last day was spent coming up with a long articulated list of demands.
2. ID2250637 > davidgraber(6)
It's useless arguing although please do keep it up!
Basically if you call for change without a specific framework – you're nothing but silly
hippies who don't know what you want and have no ideas.
If you come up with demands or a specific framework – you're anti-democratic (as a
commenter above stated) and should just cast a vote once every 5 years and disengage
otherwise.
No matter what you do, you will be patronised – the thing is, I can understand why the powers
that be don't want change as it wouldn't suit them, but I don't understand the animosity
towards those calling for change from people who would directly benefit from said change
being enacted...it goes beyond foolishness and right into masochism.
2.9 Support for other methods
1. Staberinde 34
I'm a Sussex alumnus.
If the students don't like what the university is doing they should take their business
elsewhere. They should write about it on social media.
In other words, they should voice their dissatisfaction with their HE service provider in the
same manner any consumer would with any other service provider.
If Vodafone's network keeps dropping out, or if I would prefer them to pay their taxes, I can
write to them, call them and complain, Tweet about it, create an amusing YouTube video
about it and ultimately switch my network. I won't stage a sit-in at the Basildon store - and if I
did, I expect I'd be escorted from their property. Neither would I be surprised if they decided
to terminate my mobile contract.
Your choice to study at Sussex rather than Keele does not entitle you to a say in how the
university is run. If Sussex is smart, it will listen to its customers and give them what they
want. But listening to your customers is not the same as listening to a vocal minority of them,
especially when they are unlikely to make repeat purchases. Most students do three years and
move on, so the more important stakeholders for Sussex are actually staff, who have to live
with such decisions.
2. Youbloodydidwhat (1)
If you want them to care, you have to do something a damn sight more drastic and rebellious
than walking and holding a sign or smashing a few windows.
3. uhf101 (3)
Utterly utterly pointless.
If they want to make a point in the UK, target Osbourne and our transport minister.
4. Kaitain (1)
Whilst I agree with the protests in a general sense, I also feel compelled to suggest
considering other courses.
5. DamagedMagnet (3) Guardian Pick
How exactly is industry embarrassment, petrol station closures, and getting arrested going to
do anything positive for this cause? Publicly 'humiliate' Shell at the protest, and then hop in
the car home feeling satisfied with ourselves. Double dip recession here, so let's block regular
people from doing their jobs at petrol stations. Propelling an important message to the media,
and get 9+ arrested in the process.
How do ANY of these actions create positive perception for this cause to the wider public? I
often have to defend my environmental position to people, explaining I am not just an
uniformed activist.
This attitude of 'against oil companies' and 'VW is the dark side' campaigning is not positive.
Business have political clout and therefore need financially incentivising to the benefits and
business opportunities (reduced costs/risk) of internalising the environment. Politicians will
do anything for votes, so adjusting your personal consumption patterns and selectively
purchasing your products will make them act in response to your actions, if only to garner
votes.
Change will only happen when people actually understand a campaign like this, beyond the
narrow minded '99%' and 'save the cute polar bears' talk.
6. worksforcommunityorg>DamagedMagnet (3)
Disagreements about tactics are nothing new. There were tensions about tactics in the
campaign to abolish slavery (in the British Empire).
Most people these days don't realise the tensions were there between suffragists and
suffragettes in the campaign for votes for women. Suffragists frequently wrote to the
newspapers criticising some of the activities of suffragettes. In the final analysis votes for
women were not won by suffragists, suffragettes or others alone, but by all of them.
7. Commanderzeroone > BFTC80 (6)
There are plenty of jobs where you can really make a difference, change things and make the
world a better place – doctors, nurses, relief workers, drone pilot.
Why do they choose to go unwashed and live in tents on parliament green instead?
8. Werdzwerth (6)
Actually, I am not happy about protests that cause more public money to be wasted on
policing, but I am all for interesting and imaginative protesting.
How about a mass charity walk from John O' Groats to Penzance, walking slowly, talking a
lot, camping/hostelling or whatever such charity fund-raisers do, raising funds to finance
Caribbean Holidays for all MPs?
How about the funds being raised for the Police Officers' Retirement Fund?
Thank you.
9. Martin Rose (6)
What are Occupy Democracy participants actually doing there? I mean other than sitting
around, congratulating each other on how revolutionary they are and pretending to make the
world a better place. Maybe the time has come to engage with the systems you seek to
change, rather than waving a few placards, making bamboo towers and playing music.
10. ChloeBlack > Martin Rose (6)
Oh, i'll just give david cameron a ring shall I? How strange, he didn't pick up. How else are
we supposed to express our democratic displeasure by any other means that demonstrating
and protesting?
11. Christoprher Callaghan > ChloeBlack (6)
Vote! That's what it is for. Or you could try to change things for the better through action,
example and contribution rather than demonstration, protest and condemnation.
12. Matthew J Robinson > Christopher Callaghan (6)
Voting is one tool amongst many. One of the greatest tools is the freedom to assemble, not just
to give physicality to our grievances but to educate and be educated about them, and to do so
in a way that puts our issue in full view and hearing of the public. Not hidden away in some
small town hall between 6 and 9 that avoids its potential audience, but before the houses these
ideals are supposed to reside in.
13. Thesnufkin (9)
we live in a very imperfect society where police letters and reports tend to be ignored by those
with power. That does not mean that polite letters and reports are unnecessary, but sadly they
are often not enough. What these people contribute to society is not just important, it is vital
14. Deleted:Ausername:3674300 (9)
I'm not sure these “stupid stunts” drive away many people either. A surprising number of
people seem to agree with them, which is why the government tries to avoid jury trials
wherever possible to avoid a repitition of the “wrong” verdict in the Kingsnorth trial.
15. Sparky20006 (10)
As an overweight, white middle class, middle aged professional I (strangely) am beginning to
see the relevance of this type of protest and action....
16. Manduca (21)
real progress is made by persuasion. By winning a moral battle. These guys are not doing that
because they are not focussed (what exactly are they demanding here?) and they cause other
people intimidation and inconvenience, not to mention the police attention they soak up and
the criminal damage they cause.
17. republicantraveller > Briar (25)
We can't have ordinary people exercising real power now, can we.
Ordinary people exercise real power every day in the choices they make about what to buy
and where and how to buy it. I suspect that you and your ilk dont like it that they can get in
their cars and make those choices. I suspect that you and your ilk are another group of people
who want to stop ordinary people having such choices.
18. SirOrfeo (32)
by criminalising online dissent we put democracy in peril
let's be clear – I'm not for imprisoning young hackers, let alone extraditing them. Of course
it's disproportionate
BUT...hacking isn't really 'online dissent'. Online dissent is expressing one's views over the
web. Hacking is virtual burglary or sabotage. It's the online equivalent of kicking in a shop
window or stealing from the till.
There are far more constructive and mature ways to express one's dissent online. Start a blog,
email your MP, create an e-petition. But bringing down government websites is just childish.
19.Worky (24)
Ignoring that, I think you miss my point. Simply milling about on a bit of grass with a couple
of 'peace' banners and homemade placards, will not change the world. In fact it is likely to do
the opposite. Dirty looking, scruffy, homeless types do not appeal to general public.
Therefore, however genuine and important their message, it gets lost in the complete
amaturishness of it all.
This isn't an anti-war process. It is nothing more than a collective of attention-seeking
weirdoes, who can afford to spend their days, and their night, camped out in central London.
In the recent election we had a Green candidate on the ballot paper for the first time. She rang
on my doorbell and delivered leaflets with alarming frequency. She worked her socks off. Her
message was important to her and she expended every last ounce of energy in getting that
message across.
Come election night, she secured votes in the 1000's, rather than the low 100's – as you would
have expected in our area. And the lesson we learn from this? Hard work pays off. Sitting in a
tent strumming a guitar and paying scant attention to personal hygiene, does not.
Sources
1, 2, 3, 5 6, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 40
Theme 3: perceptions of dissenting groups
3.1 'Rent-a-mobs' & Professional Protesters
1.Deadskunk(4)
rent a mob in their element , yet again.
I guess it makes a change from being bussed in to support locally unwelcome wind farm
development .
3.Fangface (4)
Oh, joy.
May I suggest that probably the best thing for the Press to do is just ignore the rent-a-crusty
crowd from now on, like the rest of us do?
4.Tangentreality (4)
So the usual hard-Left rent-a-mob gets bussed in to make the 'protests' seem bigger than they
are. Typical.
5.Clandulla (4)
Rent-a-Rabble Inc. are on the march again!
Brace yourselves for verbal and physical violence, a disgusting smell and litter spread all
around their camp.
6. Billsiv (4)
Where do these professional protesters get their money from.
If they are on benefits it should be stopped.
How many of them were on the anti badger shooting protests and are hunt sabs?
7. Skygod> catweazle666 (4)
the usual profressional (i.e. benefit sponging) protesting rent a mob.
8. Skylark (4)
These are not anti-fracking protesters. They are “anti-anything and everything protesters”.
They will go anywhere to cause a bit of mayhem irrespective of the protest and its nature.
These same people were in London for the Gaza march, will have been trying to disrupt the
badger culls, chained themselves to trees to stop a motorway extension, marched to stop
public spending cuts. They will go anywhere for a fight against “the establishment”. Basically
they are a bunch of anarchists. Any protest will do.
9. Headrenter (9)
Rent-a-mob at it again, I see. No doubt we're paying for them to do this “in our name”?
Muppets.
10. Thomas Denny (17)
another load of rent a crowd lefty cranks led by Russell brand...
11. AC (21)
The usual professional free loaders
12.Chris Unwin (27)
...nimbys + rent a mob flexing their bustles
13.Chris Unwin (27)
Do you think that the "rent a mob" would travel north if fracking were to take place there, or
is Sussex about their preferred distance.
14. Wisman (27)
These are professional protesters. A good 90% of them don't give a damn what they're
protesting about. It's just a big 'social club' really. Today, anti-fracking, yesterday animal
rights, tomorrow a by pass-road somewhere else, next week anti nuclear something or other.
Maybe they should go and find paid work, I'd like to bet a majority are on benefits, hence
finding the time to be on these 'demos'. Oh, it does help if the weather is good, wouldn't want
rain or snow would or it'd be uncomfortable. News media presence helps too. Gets them on
TV for five minutes of fame. Wasting police time, polluting the village and generally making
a nuisance of themselves.
15. Neale J. (27)
good hope they throw away the key. I can't stand this rentamob if it wasn't fracking it would
be something else, bet they've never had a job between them
16. fitzy42 (27)
or a wash!
17. John S. (27)
the majority of protesters are professionals, who just love causing chaos! Interesting to know
how they survive and live, who finances there lifestyle of protest?
18. Nanuk of the north (28)
usual labour rent a mob.
19. CRM (28)
so many wannabe activists desperately searching for anything at all to protest about
20. barney (36)
RENT A CROWD ONCE AGAIN , HOW MANY ARE ACTUALLY STUDENTS OR JUST
HANGER'S ON ANY EXCUSE FOR A RIOT
21. welchers > matt2050 (38)
Also, it was mainly public sector workers protesting right? When are they not protesting?
22. Guest (38)
what is most sickening though is the sight of professional campaigners, who've decided to
dust off their marching shoes, last used at Greenham Common, the Poll Tax Riots or other
anti-Thatcher rallies. The rent-a-mob- nature of trades union activity, the heards of unionist
sheep marching down the street with their banners aloft, shouting their pre-rehearsed slogans,
exploiting their children for effect is utterly cringeworthy.
23. AuntyFlo (27)
Caroline Useless, sorry, meant Lucas. gets arrested with rent a crowd! Watched her on the
news, she was delighted. Best publicity she has ever had,
24. user665085 (27)
The nightmare for the people of this small village must be the arrival of this mass of
unemployed rent a mob. The arrival of all the likely suspects like Caroline Lucas who will
attract more anarchists and nihilists. Despite being an MP she has no responsibility for
providing fuel for the country and probably does not care a damn about providing for the
nations needs.
25. Rommel (31)
not all protesters are scum! Far from it. If you take rent-a-mob out, then there will be some
folk who are very genuine about what they are fighting for. They are usually the employed
ones.
26. Bill Stickers (31)
Look into the background of the rent a mob “protesters” might tell a story. Even their highly
paid, legal aid funded lawyers would have to admit that their pre planned efforts to ramp up a
display of public protest into a violent confrontation, whoever is put at risk.
27. Tynes (31)
what about one for Russell brand? Frankly, if it keeps the low life trouble making rent-acrowd louts and self publicists away from genuine protests i'm all for it.
28. Alex Birchley (5)
As I said: There is no automatic right to free speech in this country. Unfortunately experience
also shows that so called “peaceful protests” are often hijacked by rent a mob troublemakers
who only purpose is violence and mayhem designed to cause the maximum amount of
disruption to ordered society.
29. guest (38)
funny how the Met Police had no problem with wading into the Right-Wing Countryside
Alliance march but suddenly drop their bottle when faced with squatters, tree huggers and
rent-a-mob.
30. Eegleumaseth (6)
The same professional and semi pro protesters versus the same old Met in the same old places
chanting the same old slogans and holding the same old banners.
It's not covered because it's boring.
31. mike (31)
I don't like professional protesters and I am happy for the police to lock them up before they
can cause trouble – lets face it, the police aren't going to use this power to lock up ordinary
decent people are they.
32. fevriul > aliendrum (13)
Only problem is that the violence only starts when the UAF turn up, and they've had more of
their supporters arrested for violence than the BNP.
Where was the UAF when the jihadis where picketing British army marches? UAF are rent a
mob pure and simple.
3.2 'Mobs';
1. ChickenWaffles (1)
This demonstration, as shown by the picture, is just another example of Socialists trying to
substitute the rule of the mob for the rule of the law.
2. AC (21)
Yes I hate to see peaceful shoppers trying to enjoy a day out in London and have this mob hell
bent on destroying this and with ugly motives
3. PCMyrs (27)
I must admit to being conflicted about the merits of fracking, but the more I see the likes of
Lucus grandstanding and publicity seeking, and the mob taking over, the more I lean towards
the idea! There has to be due process, transparency and consultation which I believe to have
been skimped, but with that done properly (some hopes maybe) the mob has no place unless
we are adopting Egyptian style politics.
4. Tarpon (36)
There are few things in life worse than mobs.
5. Goingroundincircles (36)
With the intelligence of mob rule our country's future is in good hands I don't think. If you
counted the I.Q. of these idiots maybe one in ten they might get as high a reading as their shoe
size
6. GregskiPB (25)
They're fundamentally misunderstanding democracy.
Now don't get me wrong: I'm not arguing for democracy: democracy is just mob rule.
It's just that it's not the kind of mob rule they think it is.
Democracy doesn't mean that if a mob turns up and screams its demands really loudly, they
should get their way.
What it means is that you stage an election and then whichever mob wins the poll (or the
meta-poll of first past the post x 500) gets their way, backed by monopoly force, so if that
mob says you have to let someone sleep in your basement, you have to or you basically die.
Democracy's pretty dire but what these people stand for is even worse. Basically if they turn
up at your house, if you're for Democracy, you have to let them do whatever the hell they
want on your property. Your property rights are null and void by their view. Having them
ejected from your property, that just shows you don't love democracy, according to these
people.
They're like the violent wing of (inherently violent) Statism.
3.3 Resistance to 'rent-a-mob' conceptualisations
1. Banjo Nick > Deadskunk (4)
I am not rented.
2. Sinisterpenguin (9)
@headrenter: who would rent them? The powerful solar-energy lobby? They are very brave,
determined people who are attempting to stop the destruction of our planet. Some people have
motives deeper than money.
3. Sinisterpenguin (9)
@Headrenter
There is certainly a type of person who gets out into the street (or open cast mine) to protest
and ones who are too lazy/apathetic to do so and there certainly is a community spirit amongst
protesters that makes them stick together across causes (personally I think that's a good thing)
– but to call people muppets/self-serving etc. is crazy. I wonder what really upsets you about
them.
4. Joe warren (23)
'did they do what they wanted to do because it was a great deal more fun, or because they did
not have tickets to Glastonbury?' what a bizarre prosecution case. It seems more likely they
did it because they're a group of intelligent, driven young people trying to avert a catastrophe.
5. Mark McIntyre (27)
You are leaning toward the idea of pro fracking DUE to people protesting against it even
though you still have concerns over its safety?
Who is the mob?
What makes them a mob?
6. Mark McIntyre (27)
Who are the rent a mob?
7. Paul Wagland (27)
“Mob rule”? All I see is a large number of concerned and peaceful citizens exercising their
right to protest. Amazing what a bit of clever PR can do to our media these days.
8. Keirhardy (27)
all important issues, why knock others for caring when you have spent a life caring about
little...
9. Nick Yates (27)
Caroline Lucas is an MP. That's one pretty important job. I'm gonna find some gas in your
garden and get it fracked to s%&t and then watch you complaining about the 'rentamob' not
being there to save your lazy rear end.
10. Zak (27)
Good on them. There are very few left with enough spine today to stand up and assert their
rights against the abusive power of big business.
11. FrankyJ (28)
Good to see people taking action on the rising inequality in Britain.
12. AlphaOscarRomeo77 (28)
Fair play to them. They're fighting for peoples rights. Without people like this in the world,
big corporations would get away with a lot more than they already do and sometimes, protests
like this bring things to the surface.
13. Roberto (36)
at least these students have the balls to protest about what they believe in,instead of just
sitting, and complaining about things on newspaper sites,
14. kjee (2)
I think the media will be surprised how many ordinary people want to protest against this
government.
Not union members, not people trying to protect their own jobs...just people who are
disgusted with what this government is doing everywhere..
Sources
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 17, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 31, 36, 38
Theme Four: Characteristics of Individuals who Dissent
4.1 Unemployed/ on benefits
1. Cheeky Charlie (4)
Only the work shy and benefit scroungers have the time to take part in these protests against
progress. Participants should have their benefits cancelled, forcing them to to spend their time
working and not shirking.
2. Diverman01> Cheeky Charlie (4)
Not cancelled but have them signing on daily in maybe Penzance one day Plymouth the next
then Newcastle and so on, just keep them moving. Protesting then your not actively looking
for work, then no benefits, if claiming sickness for what ever cause, why are they living in a
protest camp, if they can do that, they can work.
3. Opal54 (4)
It's a pity the largely unemployed layabouts can't find something more useful to do with their
abundance of spare time. Some of them might find a dip in the ocean to be more beneficial to
their health and safety than sniffing the aroma of the makeshift camp sight gatherings of like
minded, but sadly unwashed nuisances therein.
4. Gruntfutock (4)
How many protesters on benefits? If you can find the time and effort to protest than go get a
job.
5. Lord Wistful (4)
I'm all pro a spot of police brutality to move these scumbags.
They are not needed or welcome.
Dirty, smelly eco warriers, sod off back to your bedsits and dole cheques.
6. Leedschris (4)
Time WE took direct action – cut off all their social security and housing benefits that they
must have and get the 'fire brigade to hose them off': probably the only wash they have had.
When will Government's not allow us to be held hostage by the unwashed 'swam pies' of this
world, all of whom contribute nothing and take everything and wreack everything for
everyone else.
7. Jp99(4)
...most of these protestors will be taxpayer funded
8. Billsiv (4)
Where do these professional protesters get their money from.
If they are on benefits it should be stopped.
How many of them were on the anti badger shooting protests and are hunt sabs?
9. Puntamax>billysiv (4)
Perhaps if life wasn't so cosy on benefits they'd be glad of the job opportunities that facing
might bring.
Then again who would employ this useless bunch?
10. Skygod > banjo nick (4)
LOL don't give up the day job.
Oops I forgot you don't have one.
11. Skygod > banjo Nick (4)
...post your NI number so you can be investigated for benefit sponging.
12. Puntamax (4)
Sponging wastrels. Teargas and water cannon please.
13. Catweazle666 (4)
1,000 protesters?
Most of whom are perfectly able-bodied social security scroungers no doubt.
14. Patrick Joseph (5)
Usual bunch of scruffs with nothing better to do. If they don't like the democracy here, scoop
them up and send them to China for a few weeks. If everything they do is so legal why cover
their faces ? Taser them all. Scroungers and dossers with too much time on their hands.
15. Stuart Rivers (5)
none look old enough to had payed into the system obliviously one got a sign from his mother
n.h.s or trident?
16. David Read (5)
“Peaceful protesters” don't use scarves to hide their identities. Just the usual bunch of the
great unwashed with nothing better to do until their next welfare payment.
17. ProletarianReaction (6)
unemployed?
Surely, if that is the case, they should be out looking for work instead of playing
revolutionary?
18. Hugh (7)
Get a job.
19. Nv1121 (7)
Bet their claiming benefits!!!
20. James Surrey (7)
GET A JOB
21. Pellican123 (7)
I don't understand why people insist on being so harsh about them. Are they really causing
any harm? It is their choice! - Pearla
They are. They're sucking up benefits. Living off other people's hard work, thereby depriving
those people of the rewards of their efforts,
22. David (7)
Funny how they're packing their bags on the same day the Universal Credit starts to roll out.
23. Pardonmeforbreathing (7)
and all living on welfare no doubt.... could it be that some of the noise about tightening
welfare is finally bearing fruit? Losers!
24. Boucher (7)
on benefits all these years?????????????
25. tigger0470 (7)
Layabout lefty hippies that don't work and claiming benefits. Personally I would have sent in
the Army to clear their illegal camp years ago
26. JJ Horn (7)
Get a job!
27. Freddy Johnson (7)
What a vivid illustration of a bunch of very strange folk, all on benefits, fighting such a
ridiculous cause.....And we are paying for them to protest.
28. alan_john7 (7)
the word “Activists” seems entirely to be misplaced as it conjures up, well, an active or
dynamic life style. Try scroungers or spongers instead.
29. Tony (7)
How much taxpayers money was given to them in benefits? Who authorised the payments?
No doubt WE will be paying for the cleanup after they go?
30. JustAnotherPasserby (7)
I wonder how many are on benefits?
31. Deckard B26354 (7)
What a sorry bunch of losers. Now get out there into the real world and earn a living so you
can get a hot bath, because you all certainly need one.
32. Jessica (7)
If their benefits had been stopped this would have ended decades ago.
33. Toad (7)
Oh no does that mean getting...a...JOB!
34. Big Rich (7)
Around the same time as the benefit cuts kick in.......more than a coincidence methinks!!!!!
35. JD (7)
They should never have been allowed to live there. The place is disgusting and all claiming
benefits while obviously no intention of looking for work. I worked in the naval base and had
to drive through their protests whilst being shouted at. I told them all to 'get a job'.
36. JamesB (7)
Brilliant set of photographs which i'm sure will be of benefit to those doing history research in
the future as a reminder of a misguided bunch of freeloaders who like many in the UK
preferred to live-off workers tax payers money rather than work for a living.
37. Frank3323 (7)
GET A JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
38. Bglad1 (7)
Good god! Does that mean they'll have to get a job?
39. MrArmChair (7)
Get a job and have a wash
40. MD (7)
Apart from living like pigs, do any of these people actually work?
41. Rdfranklin (7)
perhaps these soap-dodgers can now get down to the Job Centre.
42. The Cuban (7)
A pececamp financed by the welfare state no doubt.
43. GoalforRossicio (7)
...get a job, and a shower!
44. Farmer Giles (7)
…soap-dodging, benefits claimants...
45. DB (7)
Get a real job !
46. Steve (7)
Maybe now these people can look for work?
47. Boredofthis (7)
….GET A JOB AND PAY TAX...
48. StevieK (7)
An absolute blight on the landscape......a bunch of no good hippies sponging off the state,
living in dross, adding no value to society.
49. James (7)
My guess is that these people live entirely on benefits and charity. I also guess that anywhere
they go, they will continue to do the same. I am sure they will write a column or even a book
or two. Cant see them making much of a contribution unless they decide they actually have
the guts to go and protest at Westiminster. The UK is now full of poverty and I would also
guess that they have the training now to survive in the new UK.
50. Overlyopinionated79 (10)
Losers, get a job!!
51. kenryhing (10)
Get a job.
Tommy321 (10)
They have one, they help people.
Dr Mike R (10)
No. They help themselves.
52. Rach (10)
bet none of them work and pay tax.. bludgers
53. Lah (10)
Maybe if they paid taxes i'd give them some credibility.
54. You know it (10)
Losers go and get a life and a job.
55. Jim (10)
Quickest and easiest way to disperse these people? Just start handing out job application
forms
56. sosia (10)
call themselves taxpayers: I very much doubt it
57. pp (10)
these re the lazy people who never in their life earned money honestly. They are a burden on
society. Use the cane to teach them lesson it is not repeated
58. Richard Jung (17)
Maybe if they decided to find a job they would not have so much time on their hands.
59. Diana Donald (17)
Gutless fools hiding their faces; most aren't working or they would be at work. Russell Brand
should be done for blasphemy and the old lefty BBC has been giving him far too much
publicity. Never mind likening him to Jesus Christ, more like Satan.
60. Hobgoblin01 (19)
Now the authorities should investigate how many of those convicted were intending to or did
claim unemployment benefit/jobseekers allowance for the week they were going to be in the
power station and take it back.
Its about time these wasters got their come uppance.
61. Barbryn (19)
that will both show the wasters, and go a long way towards cutting the budget deficit...
62. NeverMindTheBollocks (19)
the dole has never been available to strikers, while should these people be treated any
differently?
63. Hobgoblin01 (19)
@barbyn
except it wouldn't be for just one week. Partly because these criminals turn up time after time
at such stunts and if they have made one fraudulent claim for benefit they will be prevented
from claiming any more.
Overall that means an annual saving of almost £400,000 for this bunch alone let alone any of
the hundreds of others who try to disrupt the lives of millions of law abiding citizens.
64. Peter (21)
all the usual layabouts turn out for a day of fun only stopping to draw their benefits on the
way, has nobody told them the meeting is in N. Ireland.
65. Anonymous (21)
good, anti-capitalist and pro what exactly? Sitting about making a mess and not working. If
any of them are on benefits cut them now.
66. Albiedunn (22)
I just wonder how many of these “protestors” are actually drawing benefits from this capital
society?
67. LikeitHot (25)
Haven't they anything else to do or are they living on handouts from taxpayers or being
financed by trouble makers.
68. zurichilux (27)
these people need to get jobs.
Werba (27)
How do you know that they don't have jobs? One of my godsons was there, and he is a
dentist.
Zurichilux (27)
Why wasn't he fixing people's teeth?
Patrick M. (27)
He was exercising his right to protest?
Zurichilux (27)
Yeah but he should be working?
Patrick M. (Latuea) (27)
Maybe he took a day off?
69. Pete L. (27)
Why are these protesters not working?
Why do most of them look as if they need a good wash?
70. richardherbie (27)
Didn't Lucas find out how many were claiming benefits while she was there, that would make
more sense.
71. Ian S. (27)
The DWP join the police in roadside checks for people being transported to do agricultural
work, looking for illegal immigrants and people claiming benefits whilst also working. I
wonder if the DWP were checking the people blockading the lawful activity being carried out
by this company. IDS you are removing benefits from the sick and disabled, why were checks
not being carried out on the demonstrate, if they were there they were not available for work,
72. Harlequinxv (27)
All on benefits.
73. Ian W. (27)
Don't suppose the DWP will show up....asking for peoples names...and stopping their dole
money as they aren't available for work...or are they all on a gap year?????
fewthinkers (27)
so what work was who unavailable for?
74. allbollox (27)
At last. The Police have done all their risk assessments and found it is now safe to clear these
people. I suppose it must have been good overtime pay over the past two weeks.
I hope they ran these people through the social security computer. Anyone claiming benefits
and attending this protest should have their benefits withdrawn.
Lets hope they frack off and stop blocking the Balcombe road.
75. imbkevin666 (27)
have a wash and get a fracking job you druggies.
76. Stuart Rivers (27)
what i would like to know is why so many men there on a work day?if they are unemployed
then they are not looking for work so lets stigntise them as benifit scrongers yes i am on
benifit due to being disabiled i have worked until my accident i have had my atmos interview
and was found unfit to work these people remind me of greenhan common you can do what
you like to much money involved for it to fall so pack up and go home sorry about the
spelling
78. Les (28)
and just how many of these left wing anoraks are working – yes you guessed it.
79. Wolfshead (28)
I wonder how many of these protesters actually have jobs themselves?
80. Corey88 (31)
Go and get jobs you stinking righteous protesters.
81. Rommel (31)
not all protesters are scum! Far from it. If you take rent-a-mob out, then there will be some
folk who are very genuine about what they are fighting for. They are usually the employed
ones.
82. Hawk4878ds (31)
before you go on complaining about British Police, I suggest you go abroad and see how they
do it. Most of the so called demonstrators in this country are anarchists, who go around the
country involving themselves in every time of demonstration, while gladly excepting the
benefit payments most of them receive, from a country they despise. The great unwashed.
83. Xpatman (33)
what on earth has an incident in New York got to do with London? It must be nice for these
people who one has to assume are either unemployed, “students” & by the looks of it,
immigrants, presumably on benefits to disrupt the lives of hard working people going about
their business Christmas shopping. Any excuse to cause mayhem.
84. Mikemsn (38)
we are paying taxes to keep these morons in the style they prefer. Anyone on a public
order/criminal damage charge found guilty should have his “benefits” withdrawn for a year.
85. stevec(33)
the soap-shy and work-shy just trying to validate their existence.
86. Forberry (10)
Yeah right !! Just either trust fund kids or lazy bas#### who are fit and healthy but don't want
to work for a living.....
87. FuriousRob (7)
Who cares? Just a bunch of hippies living in caravans in the woods hardly much of a protest.
Get jobs, pay taxes and vote. That's how it works. Join the real world then people might listen
to what you have to say. Do you think people will listen to politicians and scientists on issues
such as nuclear weapons or will they listen to the dirty smelly people that live in the woods
cut off from modern life and technology? Maybe they could set up a new camp in North
Korea where it might be considered relevant.
88. Droo (7)
Perhaps todays youth have grown up and understand the importance of a nuclear deterrent.
Either way, this bunch of dropout aging hippies might actually get jobs now and pay their
way.....yeah right!!!!
89. UndyingCincinnatus > cockneygeezer (6)
I suspected as much when the article featured a picture of the police presence rather than one
of the...”protesters”...themselves.
A handful of unemployed idiots demanding something that doesn't make any kind of sense in
a world that actually has to deal with practicalities doesn't make a particularly inspiring call to
arms.
90. C.Thing (7)
Perhaps just a bunch of escapists but if they truly are self-sustaining and not benefit
scroungers and support a cause, well, good luck to them.
91. George W (7)
Has no one told these pathetic old Trots that their beloved USSR is no more. Hello, it's all
over for you. Democracy surpassed your revered Communism. The Berlin Wall came down.
Now, going to be difficult, but get a life, get a job and, most of all, get real.
92. Headrenter (9)
They contribute nothing to society as a whole, and are invariably supported by our taxes or
trust funds. That is why they are muppets.
93. Michael Waugh (17)
The big earners are helping to carry the great unwashed, these people, on their backs.
94. Floridahummer (28)
bet non of then can even spell work let alone do it, russell brand wannabes
95. janette (36)
These aren't students, they are work shy yobs/foreigners/immigrants... who won't show their
faces...Intent on damage and injury....They wouldn't know what study or work was !!!
96. EnglandandStGeorge (10)
Thought it was made illegal for the militant unwashed benefits claiming scum to do this?
Another one of the coalition's failures, just arrest them and lock them away and stop their
benefits!!
97. badgerboy (10)
Should have sent the dogs and used water cannon. Just a load of soap dodgers who in the
main are on benefits
98. Dreamtime (31)
Anyone in a demonstration who causes trouble should be jailed and if on benefits,
investigated why they can demonstrate but not work!
99. Paul Henry (20)
...anyone who is receiving any benefits and identified as taking part in any such protests are
obviously not looking for meaningful employment so this should also be stopped
immediately.
4.2 Resistance to unemployment frame
1. Worksforcommunityorg> dealornodeal (3)
“Who pays the activists”
Either their employer or taxpayers.
Some of them may be employed by Greenpeace, in which case I don't suppose going on the
action is a problem.
Other employers allow their staff a certain amount of time off. Staff can't work 24/7 for long
and they also have statutory holidays. I imagine most of the protestors were on time off from
their work.
Unemployed people can volunteer for things without affecting their payments. Taking part in
politics strikes me as an excellent thing for the unemployed to volunteer to do.
2. Imi Rogers (5)
I don't study for 3 hours a day, pay for my education, work to make society better and attend
protests and rallies for the rights of others to be told that i'm a dosser. We all know we're
studying hard and fighting for ourselves, so your words are baseless.
3. Edwarice> ProletarianReaction (6)
Maybe they are lucky enough not to have to work long hours 6 days a week on min wage zero
hour contracts.
Some people can take a day off work you know, or they maybe some people are retired?
Unemployed? Or between zero hour contracts?
You really need to get out more.
4. MontysLeadp > ProletarianReaction (6)
...People like you are the problem, all generalisation, stereotyping, hate and no insight....
5.Pearla (7)
I don't understand why people insist on being so harsh about them. Are they really causing
any harm? It is their choice!
6. Jedsy (7)
How do people know that these protesters were claiming benefits? Are you just stereotyping
to fit your agenda?
7. Andrew (7)
Whatever their politics or chosen lifestyle, at least unlike the vast majority of the UK they
stand up for what they believe in, whilst the rest of us are more concerned about won wins the
x factor or our latest facebook pose. I do not agree with their ideas but I admire their
convictions of belief and the willingness to actually do something about what they believe in.
8. flossie-faslane (7)
In response to the accusation that we do nothing for our cause: something that is in itself hard
to measure but we TRY by hosting workshops and trainings all over Scotland and
campaigning via lots of different political organiosations and movements for social change.
We all work for a number of anti-nuclear and human rights groups based in Glasgow and
Edinburgh. Living at the camp enables us to do this work for free so that we can address the
things that we see as wrong in society, without using benefits or recourse to any of the
precious public funds so poorly needed for squandering on weapons and war. When we run
out of the little bit of our own money that keeps us in little luxuries... guess what? WE GO
AND WORK IN A PAID JOB and save the money so we can keep on challenging the
injustices we see (some of us even have degrees, work AND study!). Perhaps you could get in
touch and find out some facts before making ridiculous judgements based on your own
prejudices and lack of info.
9. Joanne24 (7)
I am utterly horrified by the illiterate, selfish and shallow comments which gathered most
green arrows. Bloody hell, some people are so narrow minded, it frightens me. The protesters,
regardless of their appearance, beliefs, employment status etc followed an IDEA – something
bigger and better than consumerism, nimbyism and greed. We need people like that, otherwise
we will be not better than rats.
10. Kev R. (KJR42)
I see people's right to peaceful protest is derided as usual. 'job dodgers', 'lawbreakers', 'soap
dodgers' just a few of the remarks bandied around amongst the derision by the Daily Mail
drones.
It amazes me that Ghandi, King Jr & Mandela (albeit a terrorist) are lauded for the stands they
took and for protecting the rights of the people being trampled upon, what do we have in the
UK?
"Arrest them, after all they are blocking the road you know?"
11. Magpies_view (27)
I find it quite interesting that the comments against this protest reveal two lines of attack
1. Look how dirty/smelly/lazy the protesters are - therefore we not only can but SHOULD
ignore their reasons for protest and the arguments they have.
2. Britain needs energy therefore these need to be allowed because there is no 'viable'
alternative. (solar, wind and wave power are all deemed 'nonviable' as if the technology is at it
peak rather than in it's infancy - and there is the gross but relevant fact that urine has been
used to recharge a mobile phone battery).
I also find it ironic that an MP has been arrested for acting in the way she stated she would
when campaigning for election.
12. Bamba Gascoigne (27)
Excellent!
And your point is that perhaps they are all a bit ignorant and don't know very much about
fracking, I suppose.
Well, nothing like a well informed person who makes a generalised comment, not actually
knowing anything at all about the people they're speaking about.
Well you put them in their place, didn't you?
Feel better?
13. alexsubway 25
Protesters and groups that seek to occupy Squares in Russia , Hong Kong , Beijing are hailed
as hero's and martyrs by our corrupt politicians ... Yet the same youth and groups that dare to
occupy Parliament Square are branded anarchists , trouble makers and spongers .... Talk about
double standards.
14. Sarah_witney (27)
is it illegal for people on benefits to attend a demonstration?
4.3 Middle-class/future political class
1. ProletarianReaction (6)
Most of these 'occupiers' are middle class/upper middle class kids, living off the bank of
mummy and daddy, who read a bit of Marx, Kropotkin, Lenin (insert lefties hero here) and
decided to role pay revolutionary. If they were real revolutionaries, they'd be in prison or
would have been shot by now, just shows how ridiculously juvenile the whole thing is.
Don't forget that most of these kids will be in positions of power in a few years/decades.
They're basically the baby boomer 'radicals' of this generation.
2. slipangle>ProletarianRevolution (6)
Don't forget that most of these kids will be in positions of power in a few years/decades
No doubt in positions well to the right of where they are now,decrying their youthful
activities.it,s a well trodden route into politics.
3. Slipangle > vibrationpix (6)
Really who is interested in the already over reported opinions of Russell Brand and a few
white middle class people who can afford not to work?
Some people have to work and the World has far more pressing problems.
4. Enemde (7)
NO DOUBT THEY WILL GO BACK TO LIVE WITH MUMMY AND DADDY IN THEIR
12 BEDROMMED MANSIONS.O.K. YAH!
5. Nats_London (10)
I bet their from wealthy families and not genuinly homeless, just wanting to be a nuisance.
However, the UK really does need to look at how best to use all the empty properties scattered
around the country i.e. for people who are genuinely homeless!!
6. greatbrittan (27)
well said mate...daddys got a few bob, this is a gap year for most of these till they become
social workers
7. Jenia100 (27)
orchestrated by the “protesters” while their nannies look after their kids.
8. Jenia100 (27)
ah a guardian reader, free time to jump on the bandwagon then go home to a meal prepared by
the nannie.
9. ColdPenguin (34)
Its good to see a bunch of wholesome middle class kids letting their hair down before they
start their chartered accountancy jobs.
10. Greabtbrittan (27)
load of soap dodgers, if it wasnt this it would be about a road, a tree, or an immigrant being
deported...middle class, trouble makers,
11. Forberry (10)
Yeah right !! Just either trust fund kids or lazy bas#### who are fit and healthy but don't want
to work for a living.....
12. Warwick Hunt (17)
“Worldwide” middle class kids mostly having a laugh.
13. Vader (20)
...animal rights activists are over privileged morons...
14.SP (21)
I have no doubt most are irritating fools living off wealthy parents...
4.4 Other negative qualities
4.4.1 Unwashed
1.RortyDog>CifFinanceGuy (3)
and...you forgot to say...in need of deodarant?
2. Lord Wistful (4)
I'm all pro a spot of police brutality to move these scumbags.
They are not needed or welcome.
Dirty, smelly eco warriers, sod off back to your bedsits and dole cheques.
3. Leedschris (4)
Time WE took direct action – cut off all their social security and housing benefits that they
must have and get the 'fire brigade to hose them off': probably the only wash they have had.
When will Government's not allow us to be held hostage by the unwashed 'swam pies' of this
world, all of whom contribute nothing and take everything and wreack everything for
everyone else.
4. Skygod (4)
I wish these soap dodging, Kremlin useful idiots would just foxtrot oscar. They will be first in
line moaning if there's no electricity to charge up their ipods etc.
5. Deckard B26354 (7)
What a sorry bunch of losers. Now get out there into the real world and earn a living so you
can get a hot bath, because you all certainly need one.
6. MD (7)
Apart from living like pigs, do any of these people actually work?
7. Rdfranklin (7)
perhaps these soap-dodgers can now get down to the Job Centre.
8. GoalforRossicio (7)
...get a job, and a shower!
9. Farmer Giles (7)
…soap-dodging, benefits claimants...
10. Gladiatrix (10)
One's thing's for sure – they wont need a bathroom with hot running water and soap.
11. Pete L. (27)
Why are these protesters not working?
Why do most of them look as if they need a good wash?
12. imbkevin666 (27)
have a wash and get a fracking job you druggies.
13. Harry (33)
...this bunch of unwashed...
14. Greabtbrittan (27)
load of soap dodgers, if it wasnt this it would be about a road, a tree, or an immigrant being
deported...middle class, trouble makers,
15. stevec(33)
the soap-shy and work-shy just trying to validate their existence.
16. Just pondering (10)
aaah the great unwashed... all you need is tacky Russel brand, and job done!
17. Troy (7)
Unwashed, scruffy, hippy layabouts.
18. FuriousRob (7)
Who cares? Just a bunch of hippies living in caravans in the woods hardly much of a protest.
Get jobs, pay taxes and vote. That's how it works. Join the real world then people might listen
to what you have to say. Do you think people will listen to politicians and scientists on issues
such as nuclear weapons or will they listen to the dirty smelly people that live in the woods
cut off from modern life and technology? Maybe they could set up a new camp in North
Korea where it might be considered relevant.
19. DJJenks (7)
ha ha ha at last the great unwashed get booted out.
20. Mehere (7)
The great unwashed.
21. Robineff (7)
...Crusties...
22. Michael Waugh (17)
The big earners are helping to carry the great unwashed, these people, on their backs.
23. Worky (24)
bunch of dirty, ageing crusties ruining the square. Unless i'm mistaken there are no toilets or
shower facilities in Parliament Square, why should anyone be forced to endure interaction
with unwashed oddballs unless they wish to?
24. borninthe80s (25)
...the great unwashed love to bang on about...
4.4.2 Hypocrites;
1.Toby (20)
I see that they are all wearing rings or studs – I wonder what type of disinfectant they used?
Tested on animals?
2. TomMeehan (3)
I wonder what their mini van runs on? What their helmets are made of? Where those PVC
banners came from?
Hypocrites.
3. Kenny Palmer (27)
I take it all these |Frackers protesters when all of this is over will go home and put the ketles
on and the tvs on and computers on and not wonder wher the power for these items came
from or will do so in the future...I applaud the MP who put her money where her mouth was
and got herslef in the midst as most would just sit on the fence,
Before anyone takes a pop at me TELL me where the future power is coming from???????
4. Ned222 (27)
These green protesters have dyed their hair with dye produced by a gas or fossil fuel energy.
Their tents, the litter and plastic bags they leave everywhere were produced by fossil fuel
processes and the food they eat needed fossil fuel for production.Fertiliser is very difficult to
produce on the larger scale we need to feed everybody without fossil fuel and fossil fuel
energy.
These people are simply hypocrites who could not last five minutes without the benfits of
fossil fuel energy.
Most used transport powered by fossil fuel
5. Thesnufkin (3)
I really hoped they walk there (and back), and did not use any kind of fossil fuel powered
transport, like cars, buses trams etc. I hope all the food they eat of drink was self grown or
acquired. I hope that their clothes were produced without resorting to any fossil fuel powered
industry, otherwise they could be accused of doing one thing, but taking the benefits provided
by exactly what they are attacking
So if you're not perfect your opinion is worthless?
6. David Fullard (17)
What a pathetic bunch of absolute fools . Protesting against capitalism in their designer jeans
and trainers; led by Baron Hard Up Brand, multi millionaire, with city bankers backing one of
his "projects", driven to interviews in high end Mercs, what utter hypocrisy, what stupidity.
They do have an absolute right to protest. BUT: perhaps if they hate capitalism so much and
aspire to communism perhaps they should consider emigrating to a country that meets their
ideology. I wonder how many of these "protestors" come from middle class well off families
who like the luxury just not how it is acquired? Like I said pure hypocrisy for the most part, I
am willing to concede there are always genuine people at these protests, people who live to
the ideological beliefs they protest about but most of them couldn't live without capitalism!!
That's my opinion!!
7. David Redmile (17)
Always make me laugh when these fanatics take to the streets, “Anti Capitalists,” as they are
just a bunch of complete hypocrites. Just look at the photo's..
4.4.3 Unintelligent/Ill-informed;
1. Jan M Kidacki (17)
What a bunch of ill informed socialist pillocks
2. CifFinanceGuy (3)
I am yet to meet a Greenpeace 'activist' who wasn't highly irritating and, frankly, a bit dim.
3. Mable Thorpe (7)
...Complete wasters with little between the ears, except some very thin air.
4. Alastair Scott (27)
I bet you could combine the scientific knowledge of the people on this protest and barely
come up with an A level.
5. Shauny1 (28)
these protesters have no idea of how the industry works. Ludicrous.
6. Headrenter (9)
As for “brave and determined people”?!? Will these brave people be heading off to protest in
China or India.....No. But you can guarantee they do the circuit of G8, Mayday, anti-niclear
(Faslane Peace Camp anybody?) protests s they are unable or unwilling to contribute
intelligently to the problems facing the planet.
4.4.4 Other negative comments
SmikeyJ77 (7)
Because maybe the weeds run out, man...
JSmed622 (21)
Im not just saying this as a general insult to these protesters.
But their actions do seem to be that of people with mental health, drug and drink problems.
Dont they realise that all the large businesses that they target, were once small, family owned
independent stores.
Where their owners would have worked all hours, risking their own money on a dream.
They could have failed and lost everything.
So what gives these people the right to damage these businesses.
Jaxed (27)
Well,let's be honest,half of them probably didn't know they were there,and the other half
probably thought it was a miners strike.
Nick Yates (27)
I doubt it, half of them probably live in squats and get their entertainment from tryptamines.
Not much has been invested in wave power which as far as I'm aware has the capability to
provide a lot of energy, wind works but not all that efficiently. I think more time and thought
needs to be invested in wave and water energy.
ProletarianReaction (6)
Where do these protesters get money to sit around all day and night doing nothing? Most
people don't have the privilege to stop work and attend a camping trip filled with drug taking,
anti-establishment lefties. Time for occupy to check their privilege.
Rxxx(3)
I'm no fan of the oil industry; but i'm even less a fan of the soy-bean latte Starbucks brigade.
David Baker (7)
Losers.
Patrick Joseph (5)
Usual bunch of scruffs with nothing better to do. If they don't like the democracy here, scoop
them up and send them to China for a few weeks. If everything they do is so legal why cover
their faces ? Taser them all. Scroungers and dossers with too much time on their hands.
Fap836 > rutger (38)
I agree, I think these protesters are students, idealists and other people who do not have a
proper stake in society (yet...or may never do).
Countryman (10)
Seized by the people for the people. Not in my name. Get out, go and do something useful
with your lives.
Kingss (10)
Idiots and waste of lives
Bill (7)
I think they are wrong to leave, because if they do they could soon be in my area with their
clapped out vans and dilapidated gaudy caravans protesting about whatever they protest about
to make themselves feel important.
Mac (7)
They were a feckless bunch throughout their time there. Never heard them asking the
Russians to give up their weapons.....what a waste of time and energy.
Kev Bant (5)
Students again!! Nothing to do and to much time to do it in....
ItsAnOutrage2 > ProletarianReaction (6)
They'll all be voting Tory in ten years time.
Exodus20 (3)
Idealists.
moosemolloy>Exodus20 (3)
No, just stupid gits.
Hopefully Shell will sue every single one of the scumbags as well as Greenpeace itself.
GoogleWhack (8)
These protests are pointless, the students do not know what they are protesting for.
Negative terms (15);
self-important crusties, tree-hugger, as delusional as the rest of the so called
environmentalists, low life,
4.5 Good qualities of dissenters;
Susan Bolson Griffiths (5)
I should imagine there are more truthful, honest and trustworthy people amongst them, than
soddin parliament or the House of frauds.
Sensem (8)
there is very little that is new in this article. You have assumed that the students are not
sophisticated in their thinking. And your evidence is?????
Elle (8)
This article makes me really angry. I think the students are fantastic for sticking up for what
they believe in, goon on them.
Terces (8)
I can only assume that Ms Orr assumes she can understand the varied and nuanced agenda of
the student movement on the basis of having read a few street placards and heard the odd
chant; maybe she's found them wanting in depth of analysis. I'm afraid that while there may
be a certain loss of analytic rigour in catchphrases, slogans and songs, if you actually go and
talk to the students involved in the protests you'll probably find the depth of general economic
understanding among this generation far exceeds the previous - they are growing up in a
world where it is more and more needed but also one where hard statistics and the tools to
understand them are more and more available.
Sinisterpenguin (9)
@Headrenter: “They contribute nothing to society as a whole, and are invariably supported by
our taxes and trust funds. That is why they are muppets.”
They contribute to society by trying to change it for the better, rather than sitting behind their
computers and spouting bile. You might disagree with them, but their actions are continuing to
keep a very important issue on the agenda.
ShellySweety (10)
I admire their good intentions.
symbolicform > FOARP (34)
I have been a lecturer at Sussex for the past seven years. Your account of the protesters as
unwashed undermines the credibility of your so-called first-hand knowledge of campus
politics. The unwashed (patchouli-smelling, hippified) protester is a trope of right wing
discourse; it doesn't square with the truth: it doesn't wash, you might say.
For instance: the students who stood with us at the strike on Tuesday were as clean scrubbed
(or not) as the students who told me to fuck off as they crossed the picket line.
Moreover, your reference to the issue 'du jour': more empty words. Every issue worth fighting
for is someone else's issue 'du jour'. In fact, these protesters are very carefully focussed on the
privatisation of the university's labour force, which is a real ongoing process, one celebrated
by Sussex's management. It is not a chimera.
I take it you've taken your advanced degree to greener pastures. Good luck to you. I only hope
you're not in charge of educating anyone.
Sources
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38,
Theme Five: Criminalisation of Dissent
5,1 Police State
1. SevenSeas7>strummered (6)
Yes, but parliament square would be an obvious choice in a democracy. They weren't going
there to start an armed revolution, just to discuss ideas.
Exactly! All these new acts put in force are making the UK a police state – no exaggeration.
It's so sickeningly infuriating; being able to peacefully protest should be a basic right
especially just outside parliament.
Bravo Occupy!
2. Will D (6)
It confirms that
a) Britain is now a police state,
b) all public gatherings for a non-entertainment purpose are perceived as a threat, c)
protesters/demonstrators are considered dangerous, and
d) the UK & other Western governments don't want true democracy.
3. Peter Locke (11)
A disturbing article. However, the emerging police state is the predictable and inevitable
consequence of the efforts of liberal institutions to appear impartial between 'communities' –
any and all measures and tactics directed towards brown Islamofascists, including the use of
Agent Provocateurs, must be employed against political gatherings that tend to attract a whiter
hue of activist.
(Not for nothing is liberalism regarded as the philosophy of the lowest common denominator.)
4. Phil James > Briar (11)
However encouraging the UK to be turned decade by decade into a police state under the
guise of protecting the population from terrorism is at best a deceit and at worst a very
slippery slope.
5. Raymond Ashworth (11)
As somebody who has lived and worked in a old-fashioned communist country, the UK is a
police state.
6. GregskiPB (11)
we are marching towards an out-and-out police state.
This has to be stopped, ideally entirely peacefully, by the State rolling back programme.
Here's one way you can help with this: stop campaigning for the growth of the State and its
power. That means don't call for higher taxes, higher spending, fewer cuts and so on, and don't
call for greater control over what people say, think, do and for that matter eat.
If you avoid doing these things and thereby growing the power of the State, the State will be
less well positioned to take away your freedom.
The two sides (the wanted clampdowns and the unwanted clampdowns) of that particular coin
are the same coin: State power.
Stop it. Oppose it. Reduce it. Eliminate it.
7. the_bogeyman (14)
A country whose police force works undercover amongst the populace as members of lawful
societies and organizations is a police state.
Is there any room left for pretence now about this country?
8. Snowman (14)
If Kennedy is speaking the truth, two of the things that he has said should be cause for the
utmost alarm. Firstly, the claim that there are 15 other undercover officers involved in the
green movement - surely a massive overkill for a movement which is essentially a reasonably
law-abiding bunch of idealists, not a bunch of deliberate homicidal maniacs like the animal
rights fanatics or Islamic extremists. Secondly, the claim that his intelligence was used by
Tony Blair and other European leaders. Does this mean that the UK police state is linked to a
Europe-wide police superstate?
9. boeingboy (14)
Labour moved Britain towards a police state.
10. Colonialdave (14)
The UK has the highest number of CCTV cameras per capita on the planet watching people at
all times. Secret police infiltrators are sent into environmental groups to report on their
activities.
Can anyone explain to a simple colonial the difference between the British state police, the
Eat German Stasi and the old KGB
11. Jackthesmilingblack (14)
no need to wonder what it would be like to live in a police state, Britisher pals. You're already
in one.
12. JonSwan4 (14)
I think the state has always spied on its citizens in different ways...But perhaps this police
state stuff has gone too far – cameras everywhere, all email communications read, telephone
calls...and now infiltration of groups of protesters of every ilk. This all costs vast amounts of
money that Britain doesn't have. Time to wise up a little, cut down on all this totally
unaccountable (and inadmissable in court) stuff and time to get back to real policing – I don't
know about the rest of you but i'd like the police to get back to catching criminals.
13. David Robbins (17)
Don't these idiots realise that the establishment want these protests(protests that tend to end in
violence)?
They just waiting for the perfect excuse to bring in tougher police state laws.
14. mallinson1 25
Yet another step on the road to a full Police State.
15. whitecross 25
Yep the police state is with us ok.
16. Vivien Cruickshank (26)
we have a police state where the Tories and their rich friends do what the hell they like. Any
one who threatens their freedom, to kill and torture wildlife, pays a high price.
17. RV (31)
this being arrested for twitter comments = police state UK.
18. North60 (31)
it is official! Great Britain is now a Police State. We must learn to love Big Brother, and I
don't mean the TV program.
19. Grumpy Old Geeza (31)
1984
20. ParticularCrab (11)
Nick, they are called secret police for that very reason. They are a secret and the public don't
know about them. It's only when we look back with hindsight we can see how the secret
police operated.
In this country it is possible to be tried in a court that is held in secret. No press. No public. So
therefore theoretically someone can be arrested and tried without the public ever knowing
what offence (if any) was committed. If that's not the foundations of a police state then I don't
know what is.
As for calling Britain a democracy you're actually joking aren't you? Ever 5 years we vote for
a member of the lower house of parliament. We don't vote for the upper house and we don't
vote for the head of state. These are the people who sign in to law things suggested by the
House of Commons (the house for the common people).
This isn't democracy. We are only very rarely allowed a direct say on what happens.
5.1.1Poem
1.Toasterface > GiveMeAllYourMoney 25
First they came for the social democrats.....
2. Mofooks > Mark Anthony (14)
first they came for the communists, and I did not speak out-and-out
because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unioniststs, and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the jews, and I did not speak out
because I was not a jew.
Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.
This quote is very relevant to our times
3. Scoobiesnax (8)
'First they came for..........'?
5,2 Suppressing/criminalising dissent
1. Donalpain (8
...the government is learning how to suppress legitimate protest and increasingly doing so.
A police force that polices supposedly with the consent of the people should consider
carefully how it reacts to these suppressive demands being increasingly place upon it. Chief
Constables, one would hope, would scrutinize carefully the border between enforcing the Law
and enforcing Party Political expediences disguised as good government.
2. Petrifiedprozac (8)
donalpain
Chief Constables, one would hope, would scrutinize the border between enforcing the Law
and enforcing Party Political expediences disguised as good government,
The police crossed this line long ago. In the miners strike the police were in effect Tory
uniformed thugs.
The police are there to protect property, not people.
3. Emma Friedman (6)
I was there on 2 separate days. The orders the police received were out of order, the prejudice
in law enforcement atrocious and the peaceful discussion was inspiring
4. Emma Friedman > ID6540271 (6)
The police in London have been brutal and allowed breached in law to some and arrested
others for the same.
5. Emma Friedman > Micheal Martin(6)
The police reaction to peaceful protesters was brutal and totally disproportionate.
6. TheDudleyOmmer (6)
The comments so far seem to highlight the paucity of numbers of Occupy members in square.
If this is true, then surely the question the media should be addressing is why the over the top
police response and under whose direction they are acting. If we are living in a police state,
where even small protests are stamped on, we all need to know.
7. Carlos Malleum (11)
There's been a worrying trend towards political policing over the last 30 years. It's getting
worse and worse. What's particularly disturbing is the right to free speech is being
undermined by police misinterpreting the 'hate' law (a bad bit of woolly legislation if there
ever was). The BIG problem with hate speech laws is that they put an immense amount of
power into the hands of whoever decides what constitutes hate.
8. NinthLegion (11)
We are on the road to tyranny.
9. Bwhale > truthspeaker (13)
What is also really frightening is the deafening silence from the media, politicians and Trades
Unions and organisations like Liberty.
Unbeknown to the public, the MET police made 3 of its biggest mass arrests in history in the
space of a few months, without a sniff from the political sphere or the media.
The BNP counter demo, the Tower Hamlets anti-EDL demo and the 'cops of campus' demo in
Bloomsbury following some quite severe police violence on students there.
The numbers were about 54, 175 and 39 respectfully.
The police commandeered public resources; that is, the literally stopped red London buses in
the street and loaded all these protestor on board after no violence, no crime being committed.
This is pure and simply political repression. The idea is to data collect and keep people on
ridiculous bail conditions and in fear in order to send a chilling effect through the protest
movement.
On top of spy cops infiltrating democratic protestors and the surveillance super state, we are
one of the most repressive countries in the western world when it comes to protest.
10. Boeingboy > mofooks (14)
Now I agree with you. Labour totally abused anti-terrorism laws and turned them on ordinary
British citizens. I don't recognise Britain anymore. I fully supported the student
demonstrations.
11. Samsson>Driffer (1)
Yes. And what a lot of policemen there were to suppress a democratic right on the part of our
young people to protest over the right to education for all our young people.
12. HomerJS >NeverMindTheBollocks
I don't think the 'protest' itself was necessarily newsworthy.
However the police actions certainly were of great interest to anyone interested in democracy.
…
13. Dmccarthy > BFTC80_28 (6)
contributer
the protests set out to demonstrate that Westminster Politics is no longer democratic but
merely a front for the corporations who money and lobbyists now control them, along with
the billionaire owned press.
The over the top suppression of the pro-democracy protests starkly demonstrated the reality of
this.
14.Steeply (15)
The police have rarely respected or afforded dignity to protestors.
And the state no matter what party is in power is giving the police licence to respond
increasingly violently
These are dangerous times for the future of our country.
15. ScorchTheBlueDragon (18)
This is just a move to stifle protest.
People will be less inclined to turn out for demonstrations if they think it's likely they'll be
held without charge for hours on end without food, water or toilets.
Another small step towards tyranny.
16. Nocausetoadopt(3)
“nine campaigners arrested”
For what?
Campaigning?
17. ID0233897 > borninthe80s 25
They put the fence up because they were doing work to restore the grass in the square yet in
the ten days that the occupiers were there they did nothing in the way of groundwork. Before
they left, a group of occupiers threw grass seed over the fence, half expecting to be arrested
for criminal damage. That fence has been up and down like a yo-yo depending on which
protests are coming along. Selective right to protest facilitated by the state.
18. Felipe1st 25
Attempts to stifle dissent simply means that protests will become more creative.
19. ID7678903 25
This is to prevent the image of parliament with protestors in front being created and used.
They are very scared that the population will wake up,to austerity and occupys message. It is
a suppression of civil liberties and an awful inditement of our pseudo democracy.
20. Libbyme (26)
It won't be long before any campaigner who stands up for fairness and ethical principles i.e.
those principles that oppose the current governing system, will be under threat. It's a sign of
the times.
21. Suzanne Jones (17)
Agree with the march or not, there will come a time if we are not careful, when they too will
be banned!.
We British still have the right to peaceful protest, just!!
Without people willing to protest, our government past and present would now be on a par
with China and North Korea.
By stifling our way of life, criminalising us for what we say and most importantly putting
foreign national's interest's above our own, there is no one to blame except our government if
people feel so strongly as to take to the streets.
Do not forget that we are proud, patriotic and tolerant, but only to a point. After which many
of us now feel undervalued, ignored and not our government's No 1 priority, which because
they act on our behalf is a contributing factor as to why these marches take place.
22. eliz-l, (37)
police seem to think that they are above the law, that if they assault someone who is
peacefully protesting, then that is okay. it scares me that we seem to be losing our right to
protest, big brother is watching..
5.3 Labelling dissent as terrorism
1. 3genders (12)
Governments tell us that they are tightening laws and increasing surveillance in order to pre-
empt terrorist attacks, but examples such as this demonstrate that in the long-term these laws
may actual do more harm to Britain than the actual terrorists themselves.
The history of the last century should tell us how freedom can be easily lost but is infinitely
harder to win back again.
2. Tbombadil >neiallswheel (15)
We are all terrorists now, or at least we are whenever the government decides we are.
The only question is “Who is Big Brother, or is that Big Sister?”
3. ellatynemouth (15)
right wing governments don't need much to go on to label you a terrorist. Bleack your hair or
get a tattoo and theresa may will want you detained.
4. Ellatynemouth (15)
if this stupid, right wing bastard government is not careful, they are going to label anyone
who protests about anything a terrorist. What effect this will have is to change the meaning of
the word to that of a word that means cool, radical, sound integrity, fearless etc.
5. Tom Czerniawski (15)
We're all terrorists now. All of us, threats, to be catalogued and observed.
6. Emmagoldmann> Tom Czerniawski (15)
Exactly, any threat to capital expansion, money grubbing and environmental destruction is
terrorism in the eye sof the money worshippers.
7. Matthew2012 (15)
This is an interesting line to try to draw in the sand.
At some point the courts are not only going to let off protesters for being spied on and for
stopping coal being produced but rule that the governments are acting illegally with ministers
being arrested.
The point is that terrorism is not just a general criminal act but has a distinct definition. The
fracking protesters don't have a militant wing and even where direct action is deemed illegal it
still cannot be classed as terrorist.
My current reaction to this is to seek a political solution via not my vote but via finding new
candidates and form a new political party. I still have not done this but it is certainly well into
a planning stage.
Governments are currently playing games they cannot win in a democracy. Abuse of laws
risks a breakdown of society far greater than any threat of terrorism.
8. anonymous (21)
why does everyone get so annoyed? Are the protests causing harm or distress? To protest is
fundamental to a free society, which day by day is becoming obsolete, its all down to profit
over people and the ridiculous war on terror which is becoming a war on the people, see Ed
Snowden
9. Matthew2012 > ardvark2 (26)
we are approaching a stage where rather than listen to experts over issues such as climate
change that instead groups with no violent past are being treated like terrorists
10. Benjamin the donkey., (37)
No doubt students and others who offer protest will become subject to Terresa May's new anti
extremist legislation which is ostensibly being enacted to protect us from terrorism but which
is likely to be used to curb dissent and social unrest: could be referenced as Homeland
Security US where it's widely used against those peeved at the excesses of the Banksters.
11. Phil James > Briar (11)
However encouraging the UK to be turned decade by decade into a police state under the
guise of protecting the population from terrorism is at best a deceit and at worst a very
slippery slope.
12. Boeingboy > mofooks (14)
Now I agree with you. Labour totally abused anti-terrorism laws and turned them on ordinary
British citizens. I don't recognise Britain anymore. I fully supported the student
demonstrations.
5.4 Police instrument to protect property/ruling class
1.Petrifiedprozac (8)
donalpain
Chief Constables, one would hope, would scrutinize the border between enforcing the Law
and enforcing Party Political expediences disguised as good government,
The police crossed this line long ago. In the miners strike the police were in effect Tory
uniformed thugs.
The police are there to protect property, not people.
2. Ellatynemouth (13)
The police are just the ruling class's bully boys.
3. Fixintodie > ellatynemouth (13)
Their entire reason in life is to protect property.
4. thinkingloud (18)
When schooling doesn’t achieve the aim of instilling people with the illusion of living in a
free world whilst making them compliant to the existing power regime, and making people
fearful of the consequences of not conforming e.g. losing job etc. no longer keeps them inline, then the State will use stronger measures to control dissenters. This includes inciting
violence, in order to justify violent action. The Police, like the Army are instruments of the
State, which itself is an instrument of the rich and powerful. The Police do not exist to serve
the people. They exist primarily to keep order for the benefit of those in power. You can
expect more violence from the Police as civil unrest grows – especially from the headbanging sadistic members.
5. Paul Watson (5)
Remember the main job of the police to protect the establishment from the citizens.
6. Summerhead (3)
Funny how the police always find the resources to defend the property and rights of big
business but not individuals.
7. Portachio (27)
You cover your face because the police get a kick out of targeting people over a long period of
time once you've been earmarked as a protester. They film and record everything and once
you're known they will then go out of their way to make your life a misery - repeated, petty
stops from patrol cars checking your documents, checking the state of your car, breathalyser
tests et al. Their way of persuading you not to stand up for your beliefs in a country where
you are supposed to have the right to protest. The police are supposed to 'police' through
consent but in fact they are simply government bully boys.
5.5 Critical of surveillance/spying
1. Frustratedhistorian (11)
I think Nick tries to paint this in as dark a light as he possibly can so having a reasonable
debate might be almost impossible. I can understand why such tactics are used, the question
becomes about circumstances, control, oversight and parameteres and it is clear the police
have on some occasions gone too far.
2. Mintaka >frustratedhistorian (11)
It is appropriate that the police do some monitoring of the extremist fringes of dissent groups.
It is not appropriate that the police monitor all dissent. It is not the author of the article who
seems not to understand the difference, but the police themselves. Or at least the people who
have risen to high rank in the police.
3. Sean Thorpe (11)
Police spooks and informers have been all up in the protest and reform groups of these islands
for centuries. They were inside the Luddites, the Chartists, Young Ireland and the Fenians. But
sometimes protest and dissent spills over into sedition and violently breaking the law; and the
cops know this and so that's what they're watching and waiting and spooking people out for.
Her majesty expects no less. Right now though in all fairness they're helping stop dissident
Shinners and crazy Alan Ayckbourn fans from dropping the bomb under you, and so you must
admit that they're not all bad, in a sense their eternal vigilance is the price of liberty just as
much as yours it.
4. ItsAnOutrage2 >worksforcommunityorg (11)
until something nasty happens, and then you'll be complaining that they took too long to
arrive.
5. Stevefawc > It'sAnOutrage2 (11)
That's supposed to be one of their jobs though. Spying isn't one of their jobs.
6. ItsAnOutrage2 > stevefawc (11)
'Spying' is such a loaded word, though, isn't it?
Let's use the word surveillance instead. It protects the public from criminals, terrorists and
sedition, and prevents illegal acts from being carried out by well-meaning, but over-zealous
protesters and campaigners.
7. Worksfromcommunityorg> ItsAnOutrage2 (11)
The spies are often the ones egging people on. The rat Mark 'Flash' Stone is one example.
Next.
8. Bluecloud (11)
Contributor
As an activist of many years I must add that undercover agents are like poison in any
organisation. When everyone becomes suspicious, trust is lost and everything falls apart.
This is the aim and the effect of spying on peaceful groups. The government are paranoid
about dissent in any form and so the police state will arise and protect the status quo, even
after it no longer serves the majority of the population.
When people and protest are driven underground, extremist individuals will start to make life
much more frightening for us all
9. changeisinevitable (11)
Do the police attend meetings of 'the frackers' and ask for lists of owners, share holders and
workers in that industry?
If not then there is a clear case of misuse of police resources.
10. Lamofthegreen (14)
I was brought up with the comfortable and proud feeling that Secret Police were a feature of
some foreign parts, but not England. Now it's become common place here; it should be
stamped out by law.
11. Quinx (14)
In the end, secret police destroy every regime that resorts to them.
12. OldSchoolDisbelief > demagogue8(15)
It is a valid point of view...but people must be allowed to protest without being intimidated or
spied on.
13. Bwhale > Whoyougonnacall (30)
The secret political police should be disbanded immediately.
No place in a democracy.
5.6 Kettling as repression of dissent
1. NJS1964 (18)
The right to protest and allusions to rioters has got nothing to do with passers-by who were
swept up in this.
I don't see the point of a Human Rights court if they don't recognise being stopped from going
about your day as a restriction of liberty.
Then again I'm always happy to see things like this as the more people who realise the police
aren't on their side the better.
2. Wewawu (18)
The dangerousness of the precedent is beyond the context of public protest - it applies to all
situations where the state wants to control or restrain individuals.
3. Imageark (18)
Which is why a leaf has to be taken out of the protest movement in the former East Germany.
Faced with a totalitarian police state, they had to find other ways of protesting, which would
have made the state look silly if they resorted head bashing tactics.
Protesters have to be aware that even the most peaceful demonstration can be hijacked not
only by more 'passionate' protesters, but also the state itself.
The authorities have and do 'engineer' riots.
And the media report the 'official' line.
Thinking caps on.
Style of thing
4. BobJanova (18)
This does seem a dangerous precedent. Freedom of movement about the country is an
essential part of open society, and you need a very good reason to keep people penned in one
place. I don't think that 'there might be a few troublemakers in that crowd with you' should be
a good enough one and it scares me that the ECHR, which is supposed to look out for
ordinary people, seems to think it is.
5. FrankLittle (18)
Of course the ECHR favours depriving peoples right to protest, when European states are
imposing austerity measures to ensure the ordinary people have to pay for the recession
caused by the bankers, the judges want to make sure that people 'toe the line' and do not
interrupt the livelihoods of corporate crooks and criminal bankers, these judges may make a
few 'liberal' decisions occasionally, but when it comes down to defending the capitalist
system, they know which side their bread is buttered.
Kettle the bankers, the corporate crooks and the tax dodgers and we will not have much to
protest about.
6. Padav > speedkermit (18)
Agreed but this judgement sets a dangerous legal precedent
For a start off - who determines where the line between lawful and unlawful protest is drawn?
Doubtless, senior police officers will be emboldened by this judgement - "it's OK to kettle
because the courts will back us up"
Kettling is the equivalent of a pre-emptive nuclear strike, attack being the best form of
defence, etc. etc. GIve the forces of law & order an inch and they'll take a mile. If this
judgement goes unchallenged it won't be long before we hear accounts of demonstrators
arriving for a planned peaceful and completely lawful demo being corralled by the police and
not allowed to proceed to their rallying point, all of course in the interests of maintaining
public order - let's not mince our words here - the police use kettling as a tactic to cow
potential protestors into abandoning their actions from the outset.
The police have a duty to operate in a manner that serves wider society and the kettling tactic
does not sit well with that broader goal, plain and simple.
7. Padav > Haru (18)
So it's now lawful to detain people without providing good cause – what planet are you living
on?
8. Padav > sppedkermit (18)
For a start off - who determines where the line between lawful and unlawful protest is drawn?
Parliament.
You've missed the point here, which is who determines "on the day" what is lawful / unlawful.
The answer of course is a senior police commander who, to cover his/her arse, adopts the preemptive strike tactic represented by kettling and shuts off potential dissent, justifying his/her
decision by claiming that they have prevented potential public disorder - technically correct
but the bigger question here is "are the wider long term interests of society served by
empowering the police to act in this manner - I'd argue it isn't but what do I know - I don't
possess the wit to discern these complex issues!?
9. RouterAl (18)
hells teeth these posts look like a bunch of Tory research assistants had a quiet night and they
could not think of much else to do. Its quite simple morons if people cause damage and break
the law they should be arrested, I believe the police have snatch squads for that kind of thing.
Lawful assembly and protest are legal forms of political descent. To tar thousands of people
with the wrong doings of a few people is plain intimidation. One day they will come for you
my friends and unless you can join the Bullingdon Club you'll be done for.
I can remember during the miners strike when most of the law breaking was done by the
security services and police special branch pretending to be miners and I have a funny feeling
that's why these "law breakers" are never arrested during these "riots", but hey I'am just a
white old left winger so feel free to mock me , kettle me and intimidate me into silence.
10. IronCurtain (18)
the public may be called on to endure restriction on freedom of movement or liberty in the
interests of the common good".
When was it in the common good to give balaclava wearing baton wielding thugs the green
light to arrest and detain members of the general public while practicing their right to protest?
I have little faith that this ruling will not be fully abused by the Police and that the effect will
be very bad for us all, another restriction on one of our freedom’s, snip here, trim there all for
the “Common good” its death by a thousand small cuts.
We’re talking about the indiscriminative encirclement and detention for possibly hours and
hours of Men, Women and Children, no independent oversight, no appeal, no redress, this is
not good,
11. Conanthebalbaering (18)
....has led to fears that it is being deployed as a routine crowd control measure.
Not only that, the fear is it is being rolled out as a weapon of fear designed to deter healthy
peaceful protest.
Arm to arm if need be but policing should always be carried out in the knowledge that respect
is earned. Treat people with respect and you will be treated accordingly. Are the police being
used to further the political agenda of a minority or to protect the rights of the many?
12. JinWales (18)
This judgment in favour of kettling is a missed opportunity
This judgement in favour of kettilng is an out and out disgrcace!
Couple it with the right to use rubber bullets and water canon and out students, our left wing,
our human rights are simply gone.
I think the police will use this judgement against people like me who have marched since
1977 for human rights. They'll use it against students and those marching for employment
rights.
Just a bloody disgrace!
13. ohjesusmygoodness (18)
No kettling to my knowledge anywhere else in Europe. Yet demos don't get better or worse
there than in the UK, except in Greece. Explain the virtue of kettling then, except making sure
that whoever might want to demonstrate one day anticipates the suffering of kettling.
Thatcher & co. made demonstrating (as almost any other form of organized collective protest)
immoral/illegitimate, and kettling is making it physically and psychologically painful.
14. Briar (18)
Kettling punishes ordinary citizens exercising their democratic right to protest for having
exercised that right. The very fact that the police are ready to do this, and that large numbers
of the public support it, demonstrates the weakness of democratic sentiment in this country.
Keeping your head down, not drawing attention to yourself, tut-tutting when other individuals
do draw attention to themselves by protesting, voting or not voting every five years does not a
citizen make, and certainly not a democracy. That opinions formers, judiciary, politicians and
others are so keen to encourage apathy and discourage activism shows us clearly enough who
benefits - not us.
15. DonkeyHotee (18)
Kettling is designed to put put people off protesting and it works, I haven't go on a couple of
protests because, softee that I am, I don't fancy being detained for 8 hours.
So now apparently human rights legislation prevents the deportation of dangerous people but
not the detention without charge of innocent protestors or even passers-by.
16. BABELrevisited > afinch (18)
Kettling isn't a lawful option at all. Taking people hostage is criminal.
We're doing it for your own protection. Ha ha.
This is just the first step it is not the finality of state oppression.
The police are increasingly the initial cause of civil strife and are losing the support and
approval that they require from ordinary citizens.
17. Matt (16)
People seem to assume the police only attempt to kettle trouble makers,,,they'll kettle anyone!
They'll start kettling when the protest has only just started and it's still peaceful,then use the
fact that people left the march route (because there was a line of police in the way) as
justification for more kettling. It seems to me that, despite what the Chief officers say, they're
just trying to stop marches all together, in service of our dirty government.
18. Valten78 > ObviouslyNot (18)
This is a classic false dichotomy. It isn’t a black and white choice between kettling and water
cannons.
I’m all for the police doing all that is reasonable to remove troublemakers from protest
groups, that shouldn’t however extend to the ability to stifle freedom of movement for those
breaking no laws.
This is just another example of the trampling of civil liberties that the Tories promised to
reverse. It seems that politicians love to harp on about freedom from the comfort of the
opposition benches, but soon quiet down once in power.
19. Outrage (18)
@kristinekochanski
Fair point, but most despots start with modest curtailments of liberty. You should read about
how Hitler rose to power to see how supposedly moderate constraints on free expression
became supported by more extreme methods. The simple fact of the matter is that once you
deny human rights in a defensible manner, you move on... kettling is the thin end of an antidemocratic wedge.
5.7 Resistance to criminalisation of dissent conceptualisations
1. MickGJ>TheDudlyOmmer (6)
If we are living in a police state, where even small protests are stamped on, we all need to
know.
There are protests all the time in London, big and small, and they are not “stamped on”.
Occupy have chosen to challenge a democratically enacted law relating to a very small space
in London as if this was the only place in the country where they could possibly protest.
To claim that being prevented from erecting an encampment (with kitchens, toilets, sound
systems and libraries) wherever you like equals the suppression of democracy is completely
childish.
2. MickGJ (6)
You picked this fight, the police are not aggressors, the law was democratically enacted by
Parliament.
Now shut up and go somewhere else to protest.
3. Mc1ronny (6)
So when the police turn up to a large group of Occupy protesters sitting on a large piece of
tarpaulin without prior notification then it's not unreasonable (given the actions of Occupy in
the past) to assume that they intend to stay there.
I have seen quite a bit of footage of the incident. The police don't “attack” anyone. They
spend a long period of time trying to get people to move of their own free will.
4. Sunshine88 > Will D (6)
Nonsense, the recent – trouble free – huge protests against the NHS cuts and austerity show
we still have a right to protest. We do not have the right to set up camp where we please and
haven't for a good number of years – as anyone who has had travellers invade local green
spaces will tell you!
(see also theme four)
5. Dennis Voller (17)…
These people have no idea what political oppression is.
6. 6ofclubs (18)
I think we have plenty of freedom to protest. We're not gunning down protesters like Syria. Its
foolish to allow protests without at least some mild police prescence.
7. copperanne > JinWales (18)
If you bothered to read the judgement rather then the Guardian headline, it really isn't. The
judgement simply agrees with the police argument that "kettling" is, when used
proportionately, an appropriate crowd control technique. As the alternative is in effect sitting
back to watch large scale disturbance, it is hardly a bad compromise.
There is always some balance between maintaining law and order in society and what others
crudely deem "our human rights". Personally, I felt my human rights were threatened far more
by large scale riots last August than anything I have seen from the police.
8. GSR1 > BABELrevisited (18)
Kettling isn't a lawful option at all. Taking people hostage is criminal.
We're doing it for your own protection. Ha ha.
This is just the first step it is not the finality of state oppression.
The police are increasingly the initial cause of civil strife and are losing the support and
approval that they require from ordinary citizens.
Funny how us law-abiding citizens (let's call us the "99%") have no problem with the police
and have never been taken "hostage" by them. It's always the people who throw bottles at
police that complain that the police are criminals. Why do you think that is?
9. Nockster > GSR1 (18)
Funny how us law-abiding citizens (let's call us the "99%") have no problem with the police
and have never been taken "hostage" by them. It's always the people who throw bottles at
police that complain that the police are criminals. Why do you think that is?
You mean the quiet kind that takes what they're given and says "thankee sir" while tugging a
forelock? I wish you well with your approach to life, and I hope you never find yourself taken
with the urge to dissent on a matter of principle that matters to you enough to get noisy about
it for wont of not being heard via the normal polite means. I fear you would be ill-equipped to
deal with the potential consequences, being a model citizen and all that.
10. GSR1 > Nockster (18)
Not really. I just mean the kind of person who doesn't feel the need to chuck glass bottles at
the police to protest against tuition fees or whatever else they were pissed off about on the
day.
11. Douglas66 (32)
This is not the criminalisation of dissent.
This is crime which is justified as dissent. And that is no defence.
12. Meltingman (11)
How naïve and wet is it to claim that all “radical” movements are stuffed full of peace loving
intellectuals? The ALF is stuffed full of extremely dangerous anti democratic lunatics using
tactics Hitler and Stalin would delight in. The IRA and Islamic terrorists could easily hide
under Cohen's wet definition of “Free Speech”; there is no way you can get away from the
fact that these dangerous people need to be monitored and tracked-under cover being the best
way.
In Cohen's naïve world, he would be one of the first to experience the results of these peoples
“Free Speech”, which would bring about the end of any free speech and thinking anywhere
differing from their own narrow and bigoted line.
The fine line needs to be defined, but to suggest and say what cohen does is dangerous
stupidity.
Sources
1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13,14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 37
Theme Six: Policing Dissent
6.1 Police (will) act proportionately/ use legitimate methods
1.HBSauce (3)
I do appreciate they are probably not out to physically hurt anyone, however its entirely
reasonable to suggest that interfering and damaging property as well as unlawfully preventing
businesses carrying out their functions is hardly a peaceful act.
I dont have much time for the watermelons that are Greenpeace and their continuing criminal
activities hardly endear them to me further. I fully expect the police will act professionally in
a Proportionate, Lawful, Accountable and Necessary manner when dealing with this
miscreants.
2. UltraNationalist > GiulioSica (12)
The real disease is the debt-based socialist governments that want to steal my money and
which Occupy are trying to inflict on us. They need to be hosed down and washed away. The
police are just doing what the vast majority of people outside this tiny leftwing bubble want.
That's real democracy.
3. We Are The Brits (14)
#climatecamp was a complete and utter scam – delighted that these left wing extremist groups
have been infiltrated and are being spied on from within
4. Mark Anthony >seethetruth (14)
Pete Doherty is a drug dealer and a member of the UAF, also an activists for the greens.
They are not innocent people. The police were right to take the actions they did.
A typical low life
5. corbiere (14)
Of course the police should be infiltrating such groups, but they should pick them with more
care, mentor them properly and regularly, and rotate them more often to avoid any possibility
of Stockholm Syndrome. Can't we do ANYTHING properly these days?
6. Terence (16)
How else ARE you supposed to control a riotous mob that are throwing missiles at you
without resorting to tear gas and water cannon? How can you make a judgement call as to
what is reasonable in a situation like this which is changing by the minute? I'm with the
police on this one they don't deserve to have bottles thrown at them.
7. John (16)
So they used unlawful restraint in the camp kettle and then using unacceptable violence to
break up the camp situated outside the European Climate Exchange. The question that has to
be answered is were they justified in their actions? Anarchists organising a riot intent on
causing the utmost disruption and destruction to the city was not lawful either. So the end
justify's the means in this case. What needs to be sorted out is the way these abusers are being
funded out of the public purse to pursue their undemocratic endevours.
8. ObviouslyNot (18)
Kettling is, sadly, essential due to the fact that there is a hardcore element of people who not
only want to protest, but also wreak havoc on the lives of innocent people.
Would you prefer that the police used guns? Or watercannon?
9. Readingboy (18)
Seems that some common sense has at last resonated in the ECHR!
10. SuburbanFox (18)
Um I hate to say this, but what are the police suppose to do? I keep hearing people talk of
'proper policing' but what does that mean?
If a protest gets out of hand or if a group splits off onto an unauthorized route should they just
be left to it? To kick the front of Fortnum and Masons in and smash up the Supreme court? If
so, why don't the police let people who get drunk and smash up town centres off too?
11. vercol (18)
It is disingenuous, to use a lawyers word, that this about restricting the right to demonstrate. It
is about restricting the right to smash windows, set fire to buildings (with people in them), to
loot and to steal the motorbikes of passers by. These are just a few recent examples of what
Louise is pleased to call demonstrations of anger aganist the government.
Kettling is far preferable to water cannons and plastic bullets.
12. concerned (31)
the police are doing a great job. These protests usually turn violent with attacks on Police
Officers, property damaged and businesses looted, they never end peacefully as most are
infiltrated by Outsiders. Anything that protects our Police and properties should be
implemented immediately.
13. Pete (31)
How else should the police who are protecting us and our property deal with this scum?
14. DWW (31)
i'm pretty sure that those who this happen to, are known to the police. I genuinely believe that
the police don't know innocent people, why would they know them! They tend to concentrate
of those who are 'customers' and are regularly in conflict, hence the police contact....
15. mike (31)
I don't like professional protesters and I am happy for the police to lock them up before they
can cause trouble – lets face it, the police aren't going to use this power to lock up ordinary
decent people are they.
16. TOWERBRIDGE, (37)
Good job by the Police. Well Done, minimum use of force to bring the students under control.
Hope they were all arrested for the violence against their own security staff.
17. Aydindril, Pontefract, (37)
Good, fully support the police. Students should have stopped the sit-in when the police
arrived, by stating there they were looking for trouble which the police gave them. Well done
police.
18. Corplug, (37)
Once again the police castigated for doing their job, crazy.
19. To Each His Own, (37)
If the protesters had done as the police had asked in the first place this would not have
escalated . They did not so the officers moved them , when the officer took hold of the
belligerent female she should have stood up and would have been lead away , but she didn't ,
again escalating the situation . The officer then had to remove her , at each turn the officers
actions were dictated by the protesters . If you act aggressively towards the officer he/she
responds . It is not the officers who were escalating the situation it was the protesters . The
officers ended the situation and that is what these people and the rest of you bleeding heart
liberal lefties don't like . If you think you can improve and do a better job than the police at
present then get off your backsides join your local force and change things .
20. Scotland Votes No, (37)
Well done the Police for reminding these students that they are not above the law.
21. OrkoStrike (11)
I think part of the problem is that in some of these protests the protesters have turned up and
caused damage and even assaulted people. As it's the Police who have to turn up and stop the
protests getting out of hand it's understandable that they'd want to have an idea of what's
likely to be happening so they can prevent any serious damage or harm taking place.
22. Gazza (16)
As usual, the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. How about we let the
next demonstration in London go ahead with no Police there and see what happens? Just a
thought!
23. AntID (18)
If it's a straightforward protest, then the judgement of the court does not permit kettling. The
right to protest is entirely unaffected.
However, if people are committing crimes, intent on disorder, damaging property and putting
lives at risk - they can be kettled.
If you want to protest, go for it, but if people start to behave badly, don't associate with them.
They are not protesting and are damaging your cause. Their actions mean that the police could
be left with little choice but to employ kettling.
24. AntId > BeautifulBurnout (18)
Kettling is now a planned tactic - a form of collective punishment pour encourager les autres.
It would be illegal for it to be used in the way you describe and the court ruling says
absolutely nothing that legitimises such a use.
It is used for safety reasons frankly because the police have very limited options when it
comes to crowd control. I'm sure they would prefer to use other tactics.
25. DoingItForVanGogh (18)
If certain protestors could conduct themselves in a civilised manner then there would be no
need for kettling, however until such a time occurs when these protestors can protest without
resorting to vandalism protests then kettling or similar methods are needed to prevent damage
to private & tax payers property, other citizens & to a much lesser extent the protestors
themselves.
26. Haru > Padav (18)
An appalling judgement that flies in the face of common sense reason
Oh come off it.
Every human right other than the right to not be subject to torture/degrading treatment is
subject to exceptions in the interests of the public, where other human rights might be at risk.
If it looks like a protest might turn into a riot, the fact the protesters are deprived of their right
to leave the kettle is superceded by the perceived threat to the property and safety of people in
the area who might suffer harm in the case of a riot.
27. robertblue (18)
The short term detention by police of individuals for the common good seems justifiable as an
example terrorist explosion possibility of other explosions individuals are held to protect
themselves & others
Without this ability you could percieve chaos
As for the protesters If you think your cause is just why would some minor irritations like
being held for 5-6 hours really bother you,
As an example look at the protests in the middle east or russia
28. absitreverentiavero > kristinekochanski (18)
I had my liberty curtailed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I repeatedly asked
the Police to be let through their line as I was there by accident. They were not interested.
I'm sorry to hear that. But if you read the article again, a bit more carefully, you'll notice that
the mother mentioned in it was "at the demonstration as a protestor". Most people would have
a lot more sympathy for the three other people mentioned, who were caught up in the incident
by accident. The rightful target of their anger should be the protestors, not the police, for it
was the demonstration which provoked the deployment of this "kettling" tactic.
29. TheRealCmdrGravy > BeautifulBurnout (18)
The point is that if the protesters don't police themselves, make a distinction between those
who are genuinely there to protest and those who are there to cause trouble or make a
nuisance of themselves then they leave the police no option but to do it for them.
If a genuine protester witnesses someone trying to erect a tent then they ought to immediately
notify the police and stand aside as the police then speak to the potential criminal and
determine whether or not a criminal offence has occurred. If the police decide an offence has
occurred and drag the offender away to face their punishment then the genuine protesters
ought to applaud and congratulate the officers involved and curse the criminal undermining
their protest.
30. TheRealCmdrGravy > discuz (18)
But what you don't understand is that the police simply can't let large crowds of people
wander around unopposed and do what they like. Yes, most protesters are peaceful but there's
numerous examples of situations where non peaceful elements can cause a great deal of
damage to people and property, witness the man killed during the riots whilst trying to
intervene and put out a fire.
So if you make it impossible for police to employ kettling when they believe they need to do
so then what you're forcing them to do is employ something even more severe which you will
like even less. We've already heard discussions as to whether the police should employ water
cannon or plastic bullets, something no sane person would ever want to see on our streets, but
which we will see employed if they are left without other options.
31. RosieInLondon (18)
Kettling is the best way to keep violent demonstrators away from the peaceful marchers.
Its no joke for the police when demos get taken over by thugs.
32. Afinch > BABELrevisited (18)
Kettling is obviously and comprehensively wrong. If the state can indiscriminately imprison
large numbers of people for hours on end what is the next progression of their tactics.
Demonstration should be a legitimate part of our democracy
Kettling is about controlling unruly crowds. Such crowds are inevitably made up of some
peaceful people, some violent, and some there by mistake. That's unfortunate, but not an
excuse for do nothing, and allowing the crowd to harm other innocent people who are not part
of it.
Whichever way you look at it, when a crowd turns violent, some completely innocent people
*will* get harmed as a result, whatever the police do - including simply not showing up at all.
The only question is what the best practical response of the police should be to such
situations. Expecting them to cleverly arrest only those people causing the trouble, while
being terribly polite and courteous to everyone else, is a fantasy.
Kettling isn't nice, but nor is teargas, nor are watercannon, nor is having your
shop/pub/business smashed up, and nor is being trapped in your house because you are too
scared of the mob in the street to leave it. The police have to do something. Kettling isn't a
bad option.
33. Lokischild (18)
Damned if they kettle: damned if they don't. If they do incidents like the death of Ian
Tomlinson become more likely. If they don't, as in Tottenham then incidents like the death of
the chap that we cannot remember the name of, because his death was not attributable to the
police but to criminals, become more likely. Tottenham was said to have got out of hand
because there was a lack of a strong police reaction to it. It is highly likely that police are able
to better police planned protests because they are notified of the event in advance and struggle
with riots because they are spontaneous. The planning may in actual fact be the fundamental
difference between a protest and a riot.
In other words protest/riot are not simple things to control, we want the right to protest but we
do not want the mayhem of riot and these two are intimately linked. One solution might be, at
least for the three named people who were not protesting but were caught up in the kettle, to
bring an action against the author's client who clearly bore some responsibility for the 'kettle'
being imposed.
34. sparrow10 > Lokischild (18)
The matter is actually quite simple, the job of the police in public order situations is two fold:
1. To enable those who wish to demonstrate peaceably
2. To ensure those who don't wish to demonstrate to go about their business without
hinderance, to ensure that property is not attacked.
How the police carry out (2) depends on the intention of the protestors some of who are intend
on causing mayhem, some countries allow their police to use water cannon or baton rounds
(plastic bullets). Do those condemning the police use of kettling want to see water cannon or
plastic bullets used. Afterall no one has been killed by kettling
35. Kyza06 (18)
Ban kettling, bring in the rubber bullets, CS gas, riot foam & water cannons.
Cos those are your choices laydeez & gents. As has been pointed out, the riot cops across the
EU use methods & tactics that would make UK protesters squeal in outrage at the level of
violence.
36. Kyza06 > ScorchTheBlueDragon (18)
People in Egypt, Syria & elsewhere as well as our ancestors, braved bullets, bayonets, horses,
artillery strikes and imprisonment & torture when they protested.
I think it says more about people's attachment to thinking they can get easy results and, when
confronted with the reality of power, shy away from it, that allows tyranny to happen, not
having to wait around so long they piss their pants.
37. expatstu (18)
It has now been decided that kettling is lawful when used proportionately. So this means it is
GAME OVER for those who say the police were committing unlawful imprisonment when
using it. They should now accept that and move forward.
The police should only use kettling where they have clear justification and necessity to protect
life and property, and protesters should understand that they have a responsibility to keep their
protests peaceful, to comply with reasonable instructions from the police and to distance
themselves immediately from trouble makers.
38. Emillio (27)
I didn't see any examples of Police brutality...I saw them doing their job, clearing the
Highway for other pedestrian and vehicular traffic, arresting a few that didn't want to be
arrested and the usual agitators taking pictures and handing out notes/business cards to the
arrested persons. I must admit the Police were very restrained. I think you are naturally biased
against the Police and all they stand for...had this been China or Russia they would not have
been allowed to be in sit in the first place. Good morning.
39. Bog off bog off (31)
well, if these so-called “innocent” protesters are truly innocent, and not the ones who turn the
protest marches into dreadful violent clashes complete with injuries and looting, then I
sympathise with them. However, I am far more inclined to believe our police have a handle on
these yobs, and this is why they are being treated this way. Don't try to pull the wool over our
eyes, yobs, and well done the police for nailing them down before they do any damage. Stop
being an apologist for them, DM.
40. MFL (31)
these are violent protests and the people concerned have a track record of violent conduct at
these protests. It is possible to protest peacefully and those who do so have no problems with
the police (or vice versa).
41. Pixie13 > potato77 (35)
Of course it is completely legal to kick down doors, daub graffiti over 100 year old buildings,
throw smoke bombs thus terrifying staff and students and putting staff in fear of immediate
physical danger (ie committing assault) and stampeding en masse into a locked building.
I fully support the right to peaceful protest. This was not peaceful and there was every need to
bring the police in before it escalated.
42. Chris N, Bristol, (37)
Standard whinging about police 'disproportionate over-reaction' to a 'peaceful' protest.
43. Austin11796, (37)
Always makes me laugh how the 'peaceful' protesters footage only starts when the police turn
up and captures none of what went on before. Protesters stage sit in, get violent with security,
police get called, police used what appears to be reasonable force to lawfully disperse them.
Can't really see what the police have done wrong here. Surely better than a criminal
conviction for affray or similar, jeopardising the students future careers...
44. Imperial Trooper, (37)
What the video shows is a bunch of leftist students obstructing a police officer in the legal
administration of his duty. The officer keeps pushing the wannabe anarchists back whilst his
colleagues arrest a suspect for assault. The protest was allowed to continue despite the
students childish behaviour. The self righteous students caused the fracas and then bemoan the
police when they arrive and take control. Watch the video. You can see the moment the female
lunges toward the officer who has to step back to keep her away. It's telling that the video
stops just as the officer tries to tell the rabble to calm down and keep back.
45. TheRealCmdrGravy (18)
The main problem here is that some people just do not want to protest peacefully, they seem
to think they have some right to inconvenience others simply in order to get their voice heard
or that they have the right to break the law simply because they believe that no one is
interested in what they have to say.
If people didn't do these things then the police wouldn't have to respond with tactics such as
kettling.
We hear a lot here about how the police should do this or that or have been remiss in their
responsibilities but absolutely nothing about how everyone interested in the right to free
protest should be doing all they can to bring troublemakers and malcontent's to swift justice.
If you see someone breaking a window, or trying to erect a tent in a public space photograph
them, bring their actions to the attention of the police and do not rest until they have been
arrested.
46. 16081819 (30)
I wonder why the police had people undercover in animal rights organisations? Could it be
because there were so many instances of them breaking into Labs, causing criminal damage
and using violence and intimidation against people involved in completely legal activities of
which they disapproved?
It is stretching credibility to the limit to imagine that hard line activists would only consider
breaking the law if encouraged to do so by an undercover policeman.
47. Pixie13 > jameswalsh (35)
The protest was planned and allowed on campus. The police were only called after many
hours when the missiles were thrown and criminal damage committed. Protest have always
been allowed on campus, there had been a peaceful protest a few months before. Violent
thuggery is not. Defend Education are not the victims here, it is the staff and students who
were terrified during their rampage.
48. CforCynic > jameswalsh (35)
What the fuck do you expect PC Plod to do?
"Yes of course sir, please carry on kicking the doors in, and throwing fireworks and smoke
bombs at us". Acting like a twat has repercussions. Such as kettling.
6.1.1. Country comparison
49. Alan Saunders (16)
so the courts want to allow these protesters freedom to wreck London at their will. Compared
to other European nations our police exemplary in their behaviour.
50. Tony (16)
Kettling is a brilliant, clever and advanced form of crowd control despite what a bunch of dogooding judges and their right-on mates may say. Look how foreign police forces manage
with plastic bullets and tear gas. Our police should try this tactic next, then these liberals will
see how good kettling is.
51. Give me a break (16)
Can anyone name any country in the WORLD that would have delt with those rioters as fairly
as the Met did. No other country would take that much from criminals. If I'm wrong please let
me know. The recent TUC march in London, showed the police can get it right certainly in
terms of the main march anyway. We have to stop pandering to these liberals who seem to live
in some sort of dream world. Its these people that are ruining our country. Our police are not
perfect but I can not think of any force anywhere in the world that are better, they need our
support not constant moaning.
52. Ahmed (16)
How very luck that these campaigners are in the soft UK.. Other countries use gas, buckshot,
stained water and actual live ammo to disperse demonstrations. Go and have a demonstration
in the Ivory Coast, where they will shoot you. Go on, I dare you.
53. Nottodaymate (12)
They could try it in most Middle East and Asian countries to see some real oppression.
54. San1 (18)
they could never declare kettling illegal when you see crowd control tactics in the rest of
Europe ,,,,, in fact its pretty micky mouse compared to the tactics of the CSR etc.
6.2 Support for stronger policing
1. Lord Wistful (4)
I'm all pro a spot of police brutality to move these scumbags.
They are not needed or welcome.
Dirty, smelly eco warriers, sod off back to your bedsits and dole cheques.
2. Puntamax (4)
Sponging wastrels. Teargas and water cannon please.
3. David H (10)
Send in the heavy squad, no three weeks to leave get out.
4. EnglandandStGeorge (10)
Thought it was made illegal for the militant unwashed benefits claiming scum to do this?
Another one of the coalition's failures, just arrest them and lock them away and stop their
benefits!!
5. Eruditus (10)
The police should go in and drag them off to jail.
6. Troubled (10)
should be evicted immediately and charged for breaking and entering and any damage done.
7. Keith64 (10)
Taser the lot of them if they don't leave quietly
8. Nattie (10)
I thought these scratters were the reason tasers were invented
9. badgerboy (10)
Should have sent the dogs and used water cannon. Just a load of soap dodgers who in the
main are on benefits
10. Nonyabiz (16)
if it was up to me, the tactics used by the Police and other Home office agencies would be a
lot more severe than kettling.
11. farrightofghengizkhanukemenow (38)
another police failure.
They had months to prepare for this demo and more than anticipated anarchist rioting. It's
time the police got real and stopped pi,,ing about and got some water cannons to wash this
filth off our streets.
12. Guest > Guest (38)
If they were given proper powers whereby they could smash the anarchists heads in and tear
gas them, the 'riots' wouldn't have got beyond 100 yards from where they started.
But that wouldn't be very PC would it?
13. Londinium > davidxkr (38)
the police act like constant babysitters. No one has respect for them.
They should be given permission to use a stungun on these hooligans as soon as they spot
them. Shoot them in the f***g leg! If they started acting like police we would have reduced
crime and more order. Lets see how many demonstrations would end with trouble makers like
this if police didn't constantly have to act like your old nan!
14. Londinium > rourkesdrift (38)
use force on criminals. That will teach them to think twice.
15. Wolfiesmith (38)
firstly, the police should have the power to arrest any coward hiding their face during a
peaceful protest. Why dont they want to be seen...because they intend to cause trouble.
16. neverontime (38)
harsh perhaps, but in my book the only thin these “anarchists” will understand is a cracked
skull, water-cannon using brightly coloured dye with a twelve month degrade span, rubber
bullets...and a minimum ten years period of imprisonment with hard labour and no parole.
17. Pigeon_774 (38)
the police need to be given the same powers as european police and then they could deal with
the idiots in the proper way. A good dose of water cannon, tear gas and baton charges would
sort them out. And if they are genuine anti-capitalists and not just thugs, why don't they go
and live in a communist country?
18. Dan Solo > Guest (38)
That's where the banning of face coverings at public gatherings/demos comes in. You could
arrest them before they riot just for wearing the gear. Win win in my book.
19.Grumpyoldman9 (38)
...I am perplexed as to why the police were not ready in full riot gear...
20.Countryman (10)
don't be ridiculous. It doesn't belong to them. Nobody gave them permission to be there. They
should be VERY forcibly evicted.
21. AntID > Grabyrdy (18)
My goodness, you are naive. What chance do innocent bysaders, going about their lawful
occasions, have to express any view on whether they are associating with protesters at all?
None. There's a denial of liberty right there.
Yep, and the individuals creating disorder are responsible. How would you like them dealt
with?
Me, I'd say truncheon those intent on causing violence and disorder into submission. It's far
easier to target that then a mass control device such as kettling. Unfortuntately there are far
too many people worried about the rights of criminals to allow that so we are left with
kettling.
Don't rubberneck when people are engaged in serious criminal activity and you are unlikely to
be kettled.
22. Mags1234 (36)
Why don't they use the water cannon on these students also make them pay for the damage
caused
23. Sokrates (38)
this should not come as a surprise to anybody. It was widely trailed, even here in the DT this
morning. It was quite preventable if both the organisers and the police has taken firms action
before and during the event.
We need a more robust approach to these protests. At the very least, anyone who wears a
mask, or otherwise attempts to conceal his or her identity, should be subject to instant arrest
and dealt with severely by the courts.
6.3 Police acting disproportionately
1. paradigmshift (10)
These protesters are acting as our conscience. The police on the other hand appear like lawless
thugs.
2. James (16)
the pictures above are incredibly selective, making the police out to be the struggling dogooders against a rampaging mass. These were entirely non-violent protests and there are
dozens of videos of a masked army of thugs with their ID numbers hidden beating the 7
shades out of protestors standing, hands in the air, chanting 'This is not a riot'. Like it or not,
the right to peaceful protest is one of the steadily shrinking number of legitimate means to get
a point to the government. When we have none of those left, what do you think will happen?
Kettling is a tactic which should be dropped from the police books. The police are not the
government's private army, they are there to keep the peace and enforce the law. Taking a
group of people acting peacefully within the law, then trapping them and confining them until
boiling point (you know, like a kettle) is NOT productive to keeping the peace. Most of the
student marches only turned violent when they were kettled.
3. Ashley Moore (16)
They weren't wrecking London! They set up a (perfectly legal) camp for their protest. Watch
the video. The protesters are shouting “this is not a riot”, over and over and even tried sitting
down to appease the police. Nothing worked and the police instigated the violence. Look,
everyone knows the police have a tough job but this time they WERE heavy handed and have
been given a slap on the wrist for it.
4. Matt (16)
People seem to assume the police only attempt to kettle trouble makers,,,they'll kettle anyone!
They'll start kettling when the protest has only just started and it's still peaceful, then use the
fact that people left the march route (because there was a line of police in the way) as
justification for more kettling. It seems to me that, despite what the Chief officers say, they're
just trying to stop marches all together, in service of our dirty government.
5. Christopher, (37)
Unarmed quiet peaceful protesters sprayed with pepper spray and threatened with a tazer. This
is not a report from a third world dictatorship! It's here in England I can't explain how angry I
am.
6. Silverwing, (37)
well done police for reminding us that you are the law and make the law and pretty much can
get away with anything you like, you taught those students a thing or two you Bullies !!
7. richard10 (18)
now, can it be legal to arrest a crowd of anonymous people and hold them for hours without
recourse to the toilet?
I suggest we carry out a control experiment by doing the same to a group of policemen, Home
Office officials, and the sort of lames on these pages who support this action, and see if they
feel like their rights have been violated.
Kettling is arrest without charge, pure and simple. The fact that a bunch of double lunchers at
the Court of Human Rights say otherwise is neither here nor there.
8. Rebeccazg (18)
Sorry to quash your idealistic idea of the police, but they do not use kettling to calm or control
a potentially non peaceful demonstration.
If this was the case, then people would not be held for 5 hours.
They would be isolated, and after an hour at most, allowed out in small groups.
But this does not happen. Large groups, usually peaceful ( as any violent protestors have
either been arrested or run ) are kept for hours, as a form of punishment.
Punishment for what ? Punishment for protesting, punishment because someone else on the
same protest became violent. Or just punishment.
This is not lawful. This is not a policy that enables peace. If anything, it is a policy which is
deliberately confrontational. it becomes a symbol of the 'us and them' attitude that is the worst
and lowest form of policing.
9. marsattacks, (37)
Maybe the footage only starts when the police were called because the truth is... there was no
assault and it was peaceful and the police did use disproportionate force
10. Grabyrdy > AntID (18)
My goodness, you are naive. What chance do innocent bysaders, going about their lawful
occasions, have to express any view on whether they are associating with protesters at all ?
None. There's a denial of liberty right there. I hope that this bizarre judgment will be revisited.
I just hope it's not as the result of a fatality.
11. Valten78 > ObviouslyNot (18)
This is a classic false dichotomy. It isn’t a black and white choice between kettling and water
cannons.
I’m all for the police doing all that is reasonable to remove troublemakers from protest
groups, that shouldn’t however extend to the ability to stifle freedom of movement for those
breaking no laws.
12. earhole (18)
Has anyone explained how confining a vast number of men women and children in a confined
space for hours on end is supposed to deal with "troublemakers" - I would have thought it
would be more likely to provoke breaches of the peace than otherwise - but then perhaps that
is the aim
13. Outrage (18)
Kettling is a fundamental breach of human rights. The police have NO rights to prevent
people going about their lawful business just because it is convenient for them to do so. The
police have been pulling this stunt in many guises for as long as I can remember. During the
Wapping Dispute I couldn't get home and had to stay at friend's houses for no other reason
than it was too much bother to work out if I was a local resident or not. If the objective is to
give people a lifelong mistrust of the police, kettling is a damn fine strategy.
14. outrage (18)
All kettling does is control the obedient many. The violent activists are far too smart to be
caught up in it. I haven't seen any evidence that kettling actually works. A load of right-wing
trolls have implied it is a useful weapon in a police operations armory, but nobody has
demonstrated it has any benefit except to force people to piss in the gutter.
15. Georgethe4th (24)
sorry but you can't have people camping wherever they want for as long as they want in
Central London it doesn't work. To move people on is not some fascist act. The bigger point is
about the fact that protest has to be 'authorised', and the behaviour of the police in breaking up
lawful demonstration, kettling, assaults etc...
Sources
3, 4, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 24, 27, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38
Theme Seven: Dissent and the Law
7.1 Support for the rule of law
1. mc1ronny (6)
At the end of the day there are some petty bye laws covering Parliament square which means
you are arrestable if you contravene them, so moaning about police officers arresting people
for knowingly breaking a law is a bit silly. Obstructing the officers by holding onto the people
they are trying to arrest (happens a lot in the footage I've seen) is also an offence, so don't
moan if you get arrested for that either.
2. AnOldBoy > dmccarthy (6)
Nonsense – the police were merely enforcing the law, as they should do. A bunch of deluded
prats decided to break the law. The police stopped them. Move along.
3. Alfie56 (10)
Aren't the police enforcing the law which is what you want them to do
4. Alfie56 (10)
But they're still enforcing the laws, I suggest you take your complaint to the government who
set the laws.....I'd also like to know what laws the public have say over.
5. Demagogue8 > OldSchoolDisbelief (15)
but people must be allowed to protest without being intimidated or spied on
I have no problem with people protesting if they do it within the law and don't cause
disruption. However when they go out to cause disruption and break the law I have zero
tolerance.
6. Haru > padav (18)
This is not just idle speculation, this is law. The EctHR has followed the law. I would rather
we live in a society governed by the law than one governed by the whims of leftists.
7. Kerrygold (19)
let justice take its course. This is a very serious offence and could have caused great damage
to the economy.
8. NoGaol (19)
They trespassed and they got convicted for it.
Simple as that.
Whatever the deranged activists or campaigners agenda was, they broke the law and suffered
the consequences.
9. MattJames370 (19)
A great win for law & order, and a great loss for people who justify violence by citing the
climate.
10. Huroner (19)
Everyone who believes in the rule of law should hope that these self righteous, conceited
individuals are given the maximum custodial sentences. What a pity that seems to be only
three months
11. NeverMindTheBollocks (19)
call me old-fashioned but, I'd like to see theft and tresspass prosecuted in any jurisdiction.
12. Maxine (20)
I really dont understand how these people can actually have the ordacity to call themselves
“activists”. Look it up in the bloomin dictionary, it doesent mention anywhere about bringing
distress, fear and mysery to your fellow man. No matter what these people do for a living,
they have no right to take the law into their own hands and damage property etc. ...these so
called activists I think are even sicker.
13. mojoly760 (25)
The GLA says that the Occupy demonstrations were unauthorised
The mayor supports the right to peaceful protest, but it must be done within the law.
There you go Occupy. Comply with the law, don't climb on historic monuments, don't fight
the Police, let the GLA and the Met know what you're doing, then maybe the authorities and
the rest of us might have a little more respect for your plight. It's pretty hypocritical to claim
the fences are unlawful if you can't follow simple rules yourselves
14. Spoldge4514 (25)
I agree with Boris Johnson. 'People have the right to protest peacefully within the law.' If the
Occupy Movement do not have permission to occupy Parliament Square: they can't protest
there. It is as simple as that.
The Occupy Movement only seem interested in aggressive confrontation with the police, in
my opinion, that is not a 'peaceful protest.' Attacking police whose job it is to uphold the law
is morally indefensible.
I'm currently reading Russell Brand's Revolution, it shows how 'mad' the extreme left's ideas
for society actually are. They have no workable ideology to deal with the wealth inequality we all feel very strongly about.
I support the Mayor's actions to uphold the law, and I hope Occupy fails in its endeavour.
15. Spoldge4514 (25)
I don't understand how Occupy can threaten legal action; if they don't have permission to
occupy Parliament Square: then you can't protest there. I don't believe there is anything
unreasonable about the mayor's actions. The law must be upheld, after all, what's the point in
having laws if they are not enforced? Does anyone else find Occupy's stance on this issue
bizzare?
16. GrandMoffTanner > ardvark2 (26)
Doing it when a court has order you not to is indeed against the law...which what he received
a minor non impacting sentence for.
17. basilseal > Roger broad (26)
Firstly, i've passed no comment here on whether the badger cull is right or wrong as this is
irrelevant. The issue is whether Mr Tiernan's sentence is appropriate. He's allowed to make
lawful protests against the cull, what he's not allowed to do is use standard animal rights
tactics of harassment and intimidation of people directly and indirectly involved with the cull
(such as family members and employees of participating farmers).
He has chosen to break the law, now he has to face the consequences, that's how society
works.
18. westerman111 (27)
so if these people break the law they should not be arrested, Clearly you believe in one rule
for the people and one for the Guardians intelligentsia,
19. Bill. S (27)
If you participate in illegal protests what do you expect
20. ned222 (27)
she believes if you are a green MP and you are fighting for green issues you are above the
law.
Green issues are not above the law unless you want a situation like egypt
give her 3 years as a warning to others.
21. Mark G. (27)
Law makers should not be law breakers, Lucas should resign her seat.
22. John Mcmillan (27)
She should be sacked for breaking the law they think they are above the law because they are
MPs
23. Stevie (28)
Paying a living wage is not the law...paying the minimum wage is...jail these idiots.
24. SergueiP (32)
But protest often outside the realms of the law, is a tradition of politically active youth
throughout the ages.
So Guardian supports breaking law and violent protests?
If anything put democracy in peril breaking law when the country is democratic enough to
allow lawful protest.
25. Farga (32)
no-one is criminalisation dissent...last time, I looked there were no laws against disagreeing
with the government
what you are saying is that if someone breaks the law, all in the name of registering their
disagreement with whoever, that's ok....cos we have to nurture our future leaders
which is idiotic to say the least!
26. 50SHADESofBLUE>HarryTheHorse (2)
this is not France, British people are not militant. we like law and order
27. Kristinekochanski > absitreverentiavero(18)
I have already stated earlier on in the thread that protesters should be law abiding. The vast
majority of them are. I protested against Iraq that doesn't make me a bad mother.
28. Kurt Wallander, (37)
Student protests! Get on with your education and getting your (probably noddy) degree and
don't think that you can shout and scream at the police and then put on a show of bravado that
is in itself often intimidation to the public, tutors AND the police and expect to get away with
it. Ooooo we were threatened by the nasty policeman, yes but obey the law and leave when
told and don't riot! Fed up to the back teeth with whinging students.
7.2 Stronger law needed
1. Steve Wilson (38)
its about time the powers that be, passed a law banning the use anything that covers the face,
ie:- masks, bandanas, disguises etc etc etc..as far as I am concerned, anyone covering their
face in public is up to no good and needs to be arrested so that the rest of us can go on living
as law abiding citizens. Charge could be “going equipped to cause alarm unrest and criminal
violence and or damage”.
2. Jackofhearts (38)
after the events of the last year, I am of the opinion that all marches should be banned by law.
All future demonstrations should be static in order to be more controllable by stewards and
the police.
3. Wanderingone (38)
there is always a question of balance between the right to protest and the responsibility to
obey the law. Today and the events of the 'students' rallies earlier this year show that the
balance is now gone. There is, among us, a population that has no cause other than mayhem, a
sizable number that has no belief except destruction. I believe that, in the near future, no
protest can take place without these enemies of our way of life causing havoc and injury.
That being so, I will write to my MP and urge her to propose that the right to march on public
thoroughfares be suspended for five years and that anyone assembling and marching without a
licence be arrested and jailed for a minimum of one year.
If that is not acceptable to Parliament, I will urge my MP to propose that all marches for the
next five years be limited to a number where the on-duty police force will be double that
number and will be given license to arrest any lawbreaker with the use of force if necessary.
The children of this country for too long have been allowed to believe that freedom comes
without responsibility. That must change now.
4. edinspain >mikemsn (38)
...anarchists should be treated like anarchists, with the laws that protect law-abiding citizens
being suspended for them. After all, as anarchists that is what they are seeking. Give it to
them.
5. Joolsaitch > Guest (38)
...The deliberate destruction of property and the direct attacks on authority have nothing to do
with whatever legitimate public demonstration provided a background.
One way to put a stop to it would be to ban, temporally at least, all public marches, gatherings
and demonstrations or hold them in enclosed arena's to better isolate trouble-makers when
they appear.
I know it would interfere with peoples legitimate right to peaceful protest but whilst antisocial behaviour and thuggery is being spawned by such events perhaps it would be better not
to have such events at all for the time being.
7.3 Critical of the law
1. Philip Duval > AnOldBoy (6)
Ah... “the law”.
And the law is whatever our lords and masters say it is.
2. Mojo14 > AnOldBoy (6)
a bunch of deluded prats pushed through the law in the first place....it is deliberately
undemocratic.....
3. dereckjames (10)
No Alfie56. They are enforcing laws which we have little say over and which change to suit
the needs of the powers that be!!
4. MrDron > demagogue8 (15)
You wouldn't have been to keen on rights for Women and Black people then, chum.
Sometimes unjust laws have to be broken.
MrDron > MrDron (15)
*peacefully of course!
5. Telff (26)
I couldn't believe this when I read it. 2 year sentence and the fine is staggering, equivalent to a
UK adult's average salary.
The justice system in this country really does suck big time. Badger baiters in Liverpool for
torturing animals to death recently got a £200 fine and community service yet someone for
wearing a t shirt and standing around talking gets 2 years and £25k?????
The nfu meanwhile are beyond the law, countless cases of pro cullers crossing the line yet
nothing is done about it. This is going to backfire bigtime.
6. feral (32)
it is rather ridiculous that “hacking” laws are so draconian. The fact that a charge of computer
tresspass can result in 10 years imprisonment means that teenagers can be imprisoned for a
very long time for a crime that is harmless.
7. SashaAutonomous (32)
By making a rule law doesn't make it just.
8. Domesticextremist (32)
hmmm, if a law is unjust, the people have a duty to disobey it (or live in tyranny).
If a law, any law, is selectively enforced, then by definition it becomes unjust.
9. David Smith (26)
Contemptible laws have to be treated with contempt.
10. Splat64 (18)
it is naive to expect law and legals systems that are set up to protect private property and class
interests, and to facilitate business over democracy, to protect the rights of the marginalised,
the disempowered or most protesting groups.
law protects power....ocassionally when it can be subverted and turned to support progressive
movements amendments and legal shennanigans soon result to re establish process in the
name of conservative consensus and private rights over public good
lawyers/judges etc fleece you and steal your taxes good and proper too...but no one seems to
mind that...obsessing as folks ever are with bankers salaries
11. Cynical007 > mojoly760 (25)
The law says that peaceful protest requires advance written permission from GLA. That is a
violation of the right to free expression and the right to peaceful assembly.
12. Vivien Cruickshank > Basilseal(26)
Yes, we do endorse such actions when we are dealing with thugs who kill innocent animals.
Cameron is appeasing farmers who do not take any care with animal movements. Bovine TB
is exactly that, Bovine. Farmers are guilty of passing it on to wildlife, and it is they who
should be prosecuted. We all want to be law abiding, but not when the law is so woefully
wrong.
13. LeftOrRightSameShite > heyone (34)
The keyword is 'unlawfully'. Do anything unlawful and expect to be thrown out / arrested.
Legality doesn't determine ethics. That an act is deemed "unlawful" doesn't make said act bad
or morally wrong.
Protest and acts of dissent often cross this grey line.
It is perhaps a bit much to expect security staff or police to understand policy/law and
subtleties ethics.
But there is a danger in rushing to label protests disruptive or intimidating, as "obstruction" or
"occupation" (unlawful acts).
7.4 Courts/sentences too light
1. Gourdonboy (19)
...these are terrorists and they were lucky not to be charged for planning a terrorist act.
2. Johnny Johnson (20)
these crimes are nothing short of terrorism and the sentences are FAR too light. 25 years per
person would have been far more appropriate.
3. Paul Henry (20)
considering what they have done, these are extremely light sentences that won't deter any of
the fanatics at all. It seems that violence, threats and terrorism is perfectly OK as long as it is
committed by bunny-loving half wits. The report does not make clear if any of these idiots
were receiving any benefits - this will be important as those who are protesting are obviously
nor using every minute of their free time to seek employment and should therefore not receive
anything. This is an immediate law change that the government should implement as soon as
they possibly can.
4. Anon (20)
I am an animal lover and my animals are a very big part of my life but I would never stoop to
terrorism and hurting another human to get a point across. They are supposed to be for
animals but will go to any length to hurt a human, a skewed logic they have. They got off
lightly in my eyes.
5. HK (20)
conspiracy to blackmail carries a maximum 14 year sentence so why did they only receive 6
and 4 years respectively. Yet another example of the sentence not fitting the crime.
Unfortunately this will not deter anyone.
6. Greg (20)
these sentences are far too lenient.
7. Rob (20)
Doubling the sentences would have been better. These people are the lowest of the lowest. If
the don't agree with what is happening, there are legal ways to protest but these resorted to the
law of the jungle. Obnoxious group.
8. Paul Henry (20)
...anyone who is receiving any benefits and identified as taking part in any such protests are
obviously not looking for meaningful employment so this should also be stopped
immediately. I think that these prison sentences are absolutely pathetic and new laws are
obviously required so that there is a mandatory minimum sentence for these types of offences.
9. Don (20)
vile individuals and cowardly liars with it! The sentences should have been far longer.
10. Liz M (20)
I hope these thugs get heavy sentences and SHAC should be forcibly shut down.
11. Alimac (23)
utterly pathetic and worse still the maximum penalty is 3 months! What is the deterrent for
what are no better than terrorists. No wonder the UK is a laughing stock!
12. Michael O'Conner (23)
they all should of got at least 2 years in jail and was this a fix by power from above who dont
want raving looney enviro nutters sent to prison...
13. Blogster (38)
a mandatory six month prison sentence for anyone covering their face at a public
demonstration is essential.
14. mike_shenzhen (38)
what would be the point of arresting any of those causing criminal damage? Would the courts
put them in jail or would they get a few hours of community service or a token fine.
More than likely they would get a fine to be paid how exactly? They have nothing to lose
from a good day out rioting. The justice system needs to change that.
It might be a little different if causing criminal damage within a certain area on the day of a
political march meant a lost of benefits for a period of 5 years or another reasonable
punishment.
15. Huroner (19)
Everyone who believes in the rule of law should hope that these self righteous, conceited
individuals are given the maximum custodial sentences. What a pity that seems to be only
three months
16. Rawheadrex > funnybone (38)
...put the scumbags in jail. Or do you think that these 'morons' are freedom fighters?
17. Cheddargeorge (38)
these losers should get good long jail sentences. I doubt that most of them would even know
how to spell anarchist, let alone have any idea of what it means to be one, other than to attack
the police, destroy private (and public) property and claim unemployment benefits.
18. Nosretap > cheddargeorge (38)
jail is far too comfortable for these anarchists!
7.5 Courts disproportionate
1. ephemerid>50SHADESofBLUE(2)
the response in the courts was disproportionate (prison for nicking a bottle of water) and the
rhetoric after the event was ridiculous.
2. Englishandproud (20)
They did not kill or injure anyone and yet they have longer jail terms than murderers.
3. Deekin > ks009746 (26)
Unjust sentence.
4. David Smith (26)
Contemptible laws have to be treated with contempt.
...I don't always agree with Jay but this sentence and the costs are disproportionate when
compared to those handed out to animal abusers.
5. A rational mind (26)
utterly outrageous and disproportionate.
6. Vivien Cruickshank > Monrover (26)
Mr Tiernane was not at all lucky. The sentence is harsh, and even harsher on the poor
Badgers. I consider all who take part in the cull as criminals and thugs. […]
7. GerryP (32)
yet another ignorant over-reaction from the British Establishment. Exactly the same behaviour
as we saw with the student-fee protests last year and the excessive prison sentences handed
down.
8. Truebluetah (32)
10 years is harsh, but some punishment is clearly necessary.
9. Bourdillon (32)
Anyone who thinks ten years imprisonment is a proportionate response to a DoS attack is a
complete lunatic. It's the equivalent of knocking over a pyramid of cans in a supermarket. It's
like supergluing the lock of a bank, at the very worst.
10. JamesBall (32)
Staff
SergueiP; it's a difficult issue and i'd struggle to say I think such attacks should be legal. But I
think at the very least the punishment should be closer to the crime (as with aggravated
tresspass).
Sources;
2, 6, 10, 15, 18, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 34, 37, 38
Theme Eight: Dissenters Depoliticised
8.1 Dissenters as criminal
1. Username81>realistnotcynic
What you actually mean is “If you want to smash shit up and get into a fight with the
police...”. Just saying.
2. NeverMindTheBollocks (3)
Glad to see that the police are taking these criminals seriously and arresting them. Their
vandalism and vigilante behaviour is unacceptable and has no place in our society. Moreover,
the wilful damage they are causing does no good for the environment either.
3.Anonymous (29)
usual students... claim police brutality then have a protest about it... however when the police
didn't turn up or react the 'students' decided to maraud around london looking for police and
causing damage! Scum!
4. Skygod (4)
These people are committing economic sabotage...If they misbehave they should be treated
like the animal rights terrorists.
5. John Standard (5)
Democracy has nothing to do with it they have just seen a protest party upset the
establishment. They just are out for trouble using the freedoms available in this country which
are not available to others.
As soon as they pay the orice for this disruption the sooner it will go. Slaps on the wrist
achieve nothing.
6. Thephon > GoldMoney (13)
Agreed,
UK uncut is an excuse for mindless violence and hatred.
7. GoldMoney > thephon (13)
Agreed,
UK uncut is an excuse for mindless violence and hatred.
That's right - and its very dangerous too stiring up such hatred with the public.
Imagine say if a Vodafone executive was attacked by people who were swayed by UK Uncut's
hatred and propaganda.
Say a person who was lead to believe that their benefits were cut because Vodafone didn't pay
enough tax.
8. Poppy23 (13)
The problem is that the Met, UAF and the BNP are all quite thuggish. It is difficult to feel
much sympathy for any of them.
9. Mm58347 (13)
i'm not sure if protester is quite the right word here – both sides are effectively political street
brawlers for their respective left or rightist causes.
10. Martin Watchme (17)
How do you know they are English ? They hide their faces and identities..how do you know
they are not a group of overseas troublemakers ? (race)
11. Sylvia Cavanagh (17)
They act like animals with their masks on, how brave.
Sorry to the animals.
12. Brian Clark (17)
Yes peaceful protests are allowed in this country and I am all for that, but if you call
intimidating the general public and vandalising cars, as happened on this demonstration, then
I think they are mindless idiots and don't get any sympathy from me.
13. Anthony Sykes (17)
What was this about then? All I can see are decenters using this masked event to abuse Police
Officers and just cause trouble. Left Wing thuggery and Boot Boys. They don't actually know
why they were there. One was there because of the Rotherham rapes another about Fracking.
What disgraceful behaviour. These people are trouble makers. Russel Brand did not have a
mask on I see. The Police should not have to endure this stress with the jobs they do. Utter
disgrace.
14. Jeffrey Bogenbroom (17)
...I cannot understand the need to wear masks either. Unless of course the marchers had set
out with the intention of doing something criminal. They don't speak for me, nor do I suspect
for the majority of the population, says it all really when they shout abuse at ordinary
members of the public and surround a motorist in his car. What's that all about?? I'm just an
ordinary bloke but their aims and statements just seem so nebulous.
15. DA Brighouse (20)
their actions had nothing to do with animal rights. They are evil criminals with no conscience,
getting a kick from the suffering of others.
16. Steve (20)
activist garbage, more like. I'm all for HONEST protest, but people like this want an excuse to
vent their violent and spiteful impulses.
17. Cozmikstroll (20)
...They are just thugs hanging their hat on a cause to justify their own evil.
18. manduca (21)
...this is not a political movement, its a lifestyle/fashion choice. I am serious. Their own
material reads like stuff you get out of glossy magazines in the newspapers, but rather than
promoting ikea, it is promoting 'death to the G8' and other equally pointless, meaningless
memes.
Newsflash: political movements have specific, achievable, reasonable objectives. The stuff
demanded by this lot is absurd. 'Smash the G8', 'Death to capitalism', 'end poverty'
etc...infantile indeed.
They are nothing more than contemporary football hooligans. Its exactly the same mentality.
19. Bodkinn (22)
I think for most people who take part in these sort of protests it is just really a way to party;
there is little serious intent. Democracy sometimes allows us to behave like spolit brats.
Making up the numbers will be those who like to have a go at the police from within the
safety of a crowd and of course the pickpockets and others of their ilk.
20. Spoldge4514 > christopher22 (25)
Just to clarify. I agree something needs to be done about the unfair system we all live under.
But Occupy offer no solutions on big corporations or wealth inequality. All they are interested
in, in my opinion is causing trouble or scrapping with the police, which will solve nothing.
21. NeverMindTheBollocks (26)
Unable to use reason to persuade others to do what he wants, he has to resort to such actions.
Encouraging this criminal does not make him a hero, it just displays his contempt for others.
22. Theodore Thomsons-Gazelle (29)
the rest of us would probably like 'cops off campus' too, as they're needed elsewhere. If the
lefite rabble could behave themselves in the first place, then there'd be no need to divert
police resources to deal with their crime and disorder.
Idiots.
23. NotaAGWsheep (3)
Arrest the tossers and hold them until Shell can sue them for the loss of income, that might
make a few of these idiots think about their unlawful, unwanted and unsupported actions, I
long to see the day Greenpeace is bankrupted by one of its victims.
24. Jsmed (29)
these were not students, but the usual left wing thugs intent on costing the hard working tax
payer as much as possible by destroying public property, who do they think pays for their
violent criminal rampage?
Once again they played there game of incitement last week by purposefully getting arrested so
they could have two days demonstration.
No doubt we will be having yet another bout of mindless criminal damage next week as a
protest for this weeks arrests.
25. Threegenrev (30)
these criminal were hell bent on breaking the law for their 'cause'.
It's a good job these officers were able to put a stop to it before anybody got hurt.
26. Red Sabbath (31)
“Knock” the Old Bill again. Personally I am sick to the back teeth of the so called protesters,
most of whom just see a “legitimate protest” as a chance to have a go at the establishment and
cause disruption & vandalism. Trouble is that the PC brigade have taken over the country.
27. Brother anthony (31)
now we have the internet, we can protest as much as we like. MP's and local Councillors get
lots more e-mails from me than when I had to write letters. I'm not too sure that street protests
have not been bankrupted by the world wide web. Unless of course you do like a bit of
pushing'n'shoving with the Police, and seeing your photo on the 6 o clock news.
28. Douglas66 (32)
the majority of people arrested and convicted, whose cases have hit the headlines, have
commited good old fashioned ordinary crimes, dressed up as “dissent”
28. Snodgrass (33)
This has nothing to do with the UK or with race relations in this country, these people are just
left wing activists who have found social media so they can cause trouble whenever they feel
like it.
They spoil Christmas for everyone. We should lock them all up until Christmas is over...
29. SussexAcademic 35
This is exactly the same sort of violent law-breaking that we've had to endure at Sussex. By
sheer coincidence, among those those involved in the "demonstrations" at Birmingham were
some of the Sussex students currently awaiting disciplinary action for the same sort of
"peaceful protest" (i.e. violent assault and criminal damage).
It's unfortunate that so many people who haven't seen them in action have been duped by
these thugs into believing that they are being oppressed by some sort of management
conspiracy, when actually they're just plain common-or-garden hoodlums.
Yobs off campus!
30. gooner4thewin > Scousescot 35
only trolls are the ones who use any opportunity for legitimate protest to do criminal damage
to 'stick it to the man'.
31. Oliver Cromwell - The Eastern Association (36)
It has nothing to do with tuition fees, but all to do with having a go at authority. This "scum"
disrupt law abiding citizens going about their daily business for their own disgusting ends.
Inane idiots. But this is the result, once again, of the mamby pamby left wing luvvies. Those
arrested need a good public "birching".
32. Scarlet_Pimpernel (36)
And last time students's concern with society and education saw one try and kill police by
throwing a fire extinguisher from a roof. These animals take every opportunity to trash and
harm the society it wants to fund their education. Hypocrites, theyre not fit to function in
society, let alone demand it see to their needs.
Without exception these 'marches' are mob-fests of testosteroned militant youths whose only
idea of 'campaigning' is to demand with the application of violence and set upon police. As for
kettling, use it. And force the lot to 'campaign' in a field outside major cities for the protection
of law abiding society. Utter scum who eliminate any sympathy from wider society every time
they open their demanding self-indulgent mouths.
33. Scarlet_Pimpernel (36)
You seriously think society wants animals like those pictured teaching their children or
treating their healthcare needs, and with a history of torching inner cities and coffee-shops on
'marches'? Or is a criminal record something to add to their post-graduation CV next to
qualifications acquired? I hardly think the animals rampaging have the intellect to complete
courses anyway.
34. 420404 (36)
What us most disconcerting is that you have to mask your faces, shows you are planning on
bing as destructive and riotous as possible. I would stop you being able to stay in your classes
and refuse you a place if I had anything to do with this. You pay or you don't attend simple.
35. Hedda (38)
these thugs belong in jail for a considerable time. Time and again they're doing their absolute
best to flatten London, and this simply can't be tolerated anymore. They're the scum of the
earth and shoulds be treated as such!
36. Guest > Hedda (38)
It's a few vandals getting together from some trouble making. The sort of idiots you can find
in any city centre (and suburbs) at the weekend. If you think they are the “scum of the earth”
what are serious sex offenders or murderers? …
37. 441 > funnybone (38)
F*** **** yes, also as an afterthought the rioters claims to be anarchists....but and here's the
thing anarchists do not believe in government at all, not big govt not small govt but no govt...
by that reconing they are “protesting about cuts then” then by rights should be in favour of
100% cuts as they do not believe in an ordered state?...answer that lefty.
The alternative is that they are not anarchists and are infact criminals bent on destruction and
as such should be S***...
38. Guest > Ben Johnson (38)
the 'anarchists' who take to London's streets exploit legitimate protests and have no interest in
any outcome other than criminal acts against the forces of law and order and symbols of
capitalism. For many engaged in violence, it is simply a 'fix', a bit of sport if you will, with no
real agenda or outcome desired, other than to see how much damage and mayhem can be
caused.
39. JonSwan4> Guest (38)
And your plan is to outlaw marches of all kinds? Not very democratic are you?
I do think it's up the organisers and the police to root out this criminal element, find them,
arrest them, charge them serious amounts of MONEY for the criminal damage they have
caused. They are a bunch of louts who are partly there for the thrill of it, and partly mindless
thuggery which really needs stamping on, very hard.
40. Beverlee> saudisimon (38)
these thugs are trying to destroy the country and you applaud them? Get a job. Maybe then
you would learn right from wrong.
41. Franckofile > Guest (38)
...This is merely an excuse for a bunch of thugs who have no time for democracy to enjoy a
few thrills using those guillible enough to actually believe they have a cause worth fighting
for. They don't.
42. Perla (38)
these hooligans are not members of Unions or workers afraid of losing their jobs. These
animals are what was once called the “militant left”...
43. Dan Solo > ebbi (38)
no, it's a bunch of spoiled brats who probably don't work for a living who are using this as an
excuse for violence and to smash some windows for like entertainment n that innit.
44. Barry G Kneller (17)
Susan Bolson Griffiths Or hiding cos they know there going to cause trouble, lets face it ever
demo we have in this country ends up in injury of both sides and destruction of property..
8.2 Resistance
SD1000 > SussexAcademic (35)
The only violent assault I have ever seen on Sussex campus was by the police against Sussex
students.
Kai Tungsten (17)
Masks are worn as a matter of principle, people often wear them on the back of their head.
Nobody is hiding. Your point is invalid.
Paul James (17)
They? A very small minority caused disturbance. It's a world wide peaceful protest for change
that helps the most vulnerable in society. Hardly animal behaviour.
Sources;
3, 4, 5, 13, 17, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38
Appendix B. Commentary of Themes
Theme One: Dissent in a Democracy
The first theme relates to perceptions of the role of dissent that were apparent in the public's
online discourse. This theme encompasses two contrasting streams of thought about dissent in
a democracy, and some other mixed opinions.
Firstly, as might be expected a priori and has been reported in the public attitudes surveys
cited in the literature review, there is consistent support in online public discourse for dissent
in democratic society. Sixty-three comments of the 127 comments that comprise this theme,
made reference to the importance of dissent and protest across thirteen different articles.
Typical perceptions for example were:
Jbowers (3)
“...Protest is endemic to democracy...”
DustDevil (8)
“Protesting... is a way for a group of human beings to show that they are unhappy with
what another group of human beings are doing to them.
It is a fundamental right in this country for a reason. It disturbs the lazy idea that there
is some sort of consensus on the way we are governed.
Without protest it is possible to kid the populace that 'there is no alternative' and 'if
you are unhappy about it you are isolated and there is nothing you can do'.
No. Protest is very relevant.”
Thoughtandmemory (8)
“If we were to roll over and take it without a peep, it would be far easier to sweep the
human cost under the carpet. Protests show that we are more than mere economic
units.”
Sammi79> Brandybaby (12)
“Peaceful protest is more than tolerable, it is a basic human right and should never be
denied in a public space.”
Some went further, suggesting that protest and dissent were the only options for change in
present times, for example:
Chris Icarus (3)
“...all of these causes require imaginative and brave direct action. Our vote counts for
nothing now. But feet marching on the streets and legitimate civil disobedience does
still have value. The courageous are needed now like never before.”
In contrast to these public perceptions of dissent as fundamental to democracy, there was
roughly equal sentiment that the role of dissent in democracy was far surpassed by the
importance of parliamentary methods. Sixty-four comments out of 127, viewed dissent
negatively for example stating that:
Anduu90 (1)
“Protests achieve nothing. If you want a revolution go and create a new political party
that represents your aims and get the majority of the population to vote for you, then
you can do
what you want with the country”
Danny brown (8)
If the democratic system doesn't reflect the will of the people then the only recourse is
to protest. What other mechanism is there.
“Voting.”
Steve John (5)
“It is very important to protest about democracy – you can do that on a Thursday at the
ballot box next May!”
Jerry Levy (17)
Why would there be an “anti government” demonstration in a democracy? If you don't
like your government, just vote them out, Right?
TheRealCmdrGravy > Bauhaus (18)
For a start, we have a coalition, which nobody voted for.
“Just because people can't, or don't understand how the voting system works and what
a coalition is doesn't automatically give them the right to go off protesting and doing
what they like.”
These perceptions of dissent view conceive of democracy narrowly, in relation to what are
considered legitimate methods such as voting, lobbying MPs and forming political parties in
contrast to other political actions such as dissent, protest and direct action.
Although the main streams of thought within this theme were competing views about the
importance of dissent, some contributions were cynical about how much dissent could achieve
based on negative perceptions of British democracy:
Keith Christian (5)
Protest is only 'permitted' when it's out of sight in silence. When permission to protest
is needed....you know you are in a dictatorship.
StGeorge (8)
Of course protesting is pointless, that is why it is allowed. Whatever the issue.
Briar > FelisLunartik (25)
Democracy? This is a consumer society. You are free to buy what you like, if you have
the money. That's where it stops.
Happytolive (6)
I agree that there's been an erosion of democracy
I would say that there's never been a democracy, and cannot ever be. What you say is
allowed because that does not make any difference to the position of the powerful.
Democracy for the people contradicts the built-in injustice of
capitalism.
Theme Two: Tolerance for Different Types of Dissent
Theme two explores the specifics of the way dissent is perceived in online public discourse,
particularly what types of dissent are tolerated. There are different elements to this theme,
namely, low or zero tolerance of dissent involving violence, direct action, occupations, and for
protest with no 'clear goals', or which is disruptive and inconveniences the public. However in
the public online discourse there was resistance to these perceptions, some more so than
others.
In the discussions of dissent and violence, twenty-seven comments made which perceived
peaceful protest as essential and had no tolerance for the use of violence:
fedupandenglish (1)
I too attended protests back in the day so have no problem with protests per se, just
don't get violent!!
50SHADESofBLUE>RSeymour (2)
[…] you may have a problem with the march with comments like this (hide your face,
leave your phone at home, stay away from EGT)
how on earth can you expect public support unless you make it clear that people who
want to riot smash in windows etc. are not welcome
Awoolf14 > updulator (6)
'Violent Action', as you put it, is the absolute worst and totally useless response to
anything. Wheres your common sense?
toom (13)
...A democracy is about persuasion not organised hooliganism and bullying, if
everyone
decided to use violent protest then the result would be anarchy
Direct action was also perceived negatively, and considered unpeaceful by some:
HBSauce>SteB1(3)
Direct action might not include violence against persons (and I appreciate the
Greenpeace is neither advocating or carrying our violence against persons) but
that simply does not mean its 'peaceful'. I have not suggested that something not being
peaceful therefore means violence is being used...
Direct action is not a peaceful act.
mojoly760 > MirandaKeen (25)
I suspect the vast majority of the general population support peaceful protest, don't
they? Climbing statues and being a nuisance to the Police is not peaceful. Hence the
relatively pitiful attendances at Occupy protests, they are not seen as seriously as they
maybe could be.
Resisting the above perceptions of violence and direct action, were seventeen comments,
including such contributions as:
Mwhouse (8)
I agree that polite, peaceful protest is a waste of time, but only in the sense that it is
easily ignored by those in power. Direct action, on the other hand, can get
results. Anyone who denies it is not being honest with themselves. Neither is it
necessarily undemocratic. The suffragettes didn't have a problem with breaking
windows. We could learn a lot from their struggle.
Ominous (25)
If people are denied the right to protest peacefully, then their only option is to protest
violently.
Andy77 (18)
...Not only that, but if peaceful protest becomes impossible, then violent protest is
logically the next step...
The next element of this theme is that dissent which causes the public inconvenience and is
disruptive was perceived negatively in 24 comments, for example including the following:
Annabelle (28)
it's good to see people being concerned about unfairness in our society, but I don't
think this kind of thing helps their cause at all. It is difficult to shop at this time of
year, and causing irritation to ordinary people who are just trying to get on with their
lives is counterproductive. Why could they not just quietly stand outside the entrances
to John lewis with signs illustrate what it is they are protesting about?
HeinzTree (15)
I think it's important that people have a right to peaceful protest. People also have a
right to go to work and conduct their business without being threatened, harassed and
intimidated.
Annedemontmorency (32)
the writer seems to believe that the right to protests is the right to impose oneself and
interfere with other peoples lives, property and privacy.
It doesn't.
wichdoctor (32)
...even offline dissent is wrong when it disrupts people's lawful right to go about their
lives in peace.
However like with violence and direct action, other people contradicted these perceptions:
shoogledoogle > FOARP (34)
Strikes, occupations and protests are imprecise weapons, but they are pretty much the
least violent and destructive ones available. The idea is that your inconvenience is
really rather small, with any sense of perspective.
zapthecrap (32)
Some things are too important and if the odd life is slightly disrupted via protest it is,
and has been shown as a lesser evil than sitting on your arse in the face of injustice or
persecution and doing nothing.
As well as the general negativity towards disruptive and inconveniencing protest, there is
some negativity specifically towards occupations as a method of enaging in dissent:
Alisonfi (24)
“The mayor clearly doesn't respect the right to demonstrate as he says, or else he
wouldn't be seeking the legal power to evict legitimate protesters from Parliament
Square”
the mayor clearly does respect the right to demonstrate – everyone does. But not the
right to camp out permanently wherever you please. Otherwise anyone could live as
they please on any of London's green spaces on the easiest of 'protest' grounds.
Batters56 (25)
Parliament Square is for protesting, not camping. Brian Haw was protesting the Iraq
War whilst camping, but a vague 'you're not doing democracy very well in there' is not
a message that requires a permanent camp.
Quaestor > ripteam (34)
I have seen this. It includes a quote to the effect that occupation is a legitimate form of
protest. It is not.
DBIV (6)
But what parliament square is not is a campsite. It isn't a campsite whether or not you
assert a political reason for wanting to stay there.
Perceptions of dissent were also particularly negative when perceived as having no clear
goals:
philipwhiuk (6)
...but seriously, they should come up with a cohesive manifesto that's actually realistic.
edmundberk (39)
Occupy didn't so much protest as complain; the difference being they had no
alternative proposal.
And that being so, I think the balance of concerns about the use of public space,
probably tilts towards the ordinary Londoners it inconvenienced.
I am not bashing the concept by the way; had they had proposals to advance I'd be
taking a different view. But time enough was allowed for that and it didn't
happen.
At that point it teeters towards self indulgence and I expect you will find public
sympathy to be generally in line with my own; waning.
OakRiver > calher (40)
Engaging? You mean camping out and staging a protest that has not end goal and no
road to get there. That sounds like the a most noble endeavor, I can fully appreciate
why the general population are clamoring to support such a cause....
shiv > experson (40)
All right here's some reasoned argument.
Occupy has no goals. It is not enough to engage with the Ruling classes by merely
camping out. You need to have aims, they have to be communicated, and there has to
be
some sort of concession that is being sought to make the whole thing
worthwhile.
Much like theme one, types of action that were proposed as legitimate, were those which
could be defined as 'conventional', for example, supporting consumerist actions;
Staberinde (34)
I'm a Sussex alumnus.
If the students don't like what the university is doing they should take their business
elsewhere. They should write about it on social media.
In other words, they should voice their dissatisfaction with their HE service provider
in the same manner any consumer would with any other service provider.
DamagedMagnet (3)
This attitude of 'against oil companies' and 'VW is the dark side' campaigning is not
positive. Business have political clout and therefore need financially incentivising to
the benefits and business opportunities (reduced costs/risk) of internalising the
environment. Politicians will do anything for votes, so adjusting your personal
consumption patterns and selectively purchasing your products will make them act in
response to your actions, if only to garner votes.
republicantraveller > Briar (25)
We can't have ordinary people exercising real power now, can we.
Ordinary people exercise real power every day in the choices they make about what to
buy and where and how to buy it. I suspect that you and your ilk dont like it that they
can get in their cars and make those choices. I suspect that you and your ilk are
another group of people who want to stop ordinary people having such choices.
But also support for other non-confrontational methods rather than direct action:
Commanderzeroone > BFTC80 (6)
There are plenty of jobs where you can really make a difference, change things and
make the world a better place – doctors, nurses, relief workers, drone pilot.
Why do they choose to go unwashed and live in tents on parliament green instead?
SirOrfeo (32)
BUT...hacking isn't really 'online dissent'. Online dissent is expressing one's views
over the web. Hacking is virtual burglary or sabotage. It's the online equivalent of
kicking in a shop window or stealing from the till.
There are far more constructive and mature ways to express one's dissent online. Start
a
blog, email your MP, create an e-petition. But bringing down government
websites is just childish.
The next two themes, relate to how the public perceive the individuals and groups that engage
in dissent.
Theme Three: Dissenters as Groups
This theme pertains to the different ways dissenters are perceived in public online discourse.
Dissenters, including environmentalists, anti-capitalists, students and hackers were perceived
regularly as being 'rent-a-mob' and 'professional protesters'. Thirty-two comments referenced
one or both of these terms, and this always carried negative connotations:
Clandulla (4)
Rent-a-Rabble Inc. are on the march again!
Brace yourselves for verbal and physical violence, a disgusting smell and litter spread
all around their camp.
Headrenter (9)
Rent-a-mob at it again, I see. No doubt we're paying for them to do this “in our
name”? Muppets.
Wisman (27)
These are professional protesters. A good 90% of them don't give a damn what they're
protesting about. It's just a big 'social club' really. Today, anti-fracking, yesterday
animal rights, tomorrow a by pass-road somewhere else, next week anti nuclear
something or other.
Guest (38)
what is most sickening though is the sight of professional campaigners, who've
decided to dust off their marching shoes, last used at Greenham Common, the Poll Tax
Riots or other anti-Thatcher rallies. The rent-a-mob- nature of trades union activity, the
heards of unionist sheep marching down the street with their banners aloft, shouting
their pre-rehearsed slogans, exploiting their children for effect is utterly cringeworthy.
A few challenged the idea of 'rent-a-mobs' for example asking:
Sinisterpenguin (9)
@headrenter: who would rent them? The powerful solar-energy lobby? They are very
brave, determined people who are attempting to stop the destruction of our planet.
Some people have motives deeper than money.
Six other comments referenced the term mob in characterising dissenters, without specifically
referencing 'rent-a-mob', or professional protesters, but as a means of describing the mentality
of dissenters and the general characteristics of groups protesting:
ChickenWaffles (1)
This demonstration, as shown by the picture, is just another example of Socialists
trying to substitute the rule of the mob for the rule of the law.
AC (21)
Yes I hate to see peaceful shoppers trying to enjoy a day out in London and have this
mob hell bent on destroying this and with ugly motives
PCMyrs (27)
I must admit to being conflicted about the merits of fracking, but the more I see the
likes of Lucus grandstanding and publicity seeking, and the mob taking over,
the more I lean towards the idea! There has to be due process, transparency and
consultation which I believe to have been skimped, but with that done properly (some
hopes maybe) the mob has no place unless we are adopting Egyptian style politics.
The use of the terminology of a mob, has very specific connotations, and seems to symbolise
an emotional group of people, filled with anger acting on the spur of the moment, rather than
symbolising a considered action by dedicated, political subjects.
Theme Four: Dissenters as Individuals
This theme refers to the ways in which dissenters have been characterised in public online
discourse, specifically in terms of their individual qualities and lifestyles. A key aspect of this
theme is that the way dissenters are perceived in the discourse is heavily stereotypical and
negative.
By far the most substantial characterisation of protesters, was that they were unemployed, on
benefits and should have their benefits revoked with ninety-eight comments referencing one
of these issues across fourteen articles, including environmentalists and anti-capitalists.
Some typical comments in this theme were:
Gruntfutock (4)
How many protesters on benefits? If you can find the time and effort to protest than go
get a job.
ProletarianReaction (6)
unemployed?
Surely, if that is the case, they should be out looking for work instead of playing
revolutionary?
Hugh (7)
Get a job.
Jim (10)
Quickest and easiest way to disperse these people? Just start handing out job
application forms
Mikemsn (38)
we are paying taxes to keep these morons in the style they prefer. Anyone on a public
order/criminal damage charge found guilty should have his “benefits” withdrawn for a
year.
Some attempted to challenge this stereotype, fourteen comments questioned the basis of
stereotypical claims, and were less negative about the nature of unemployment, for example
some said:
Sarah_witney (27)
is it illegal for people on benefits to attend a demonstration?
Imi Rogers (5)
I don't study for 3 hours a day, pay for my education, work to make society better and
attend protests and rallies for the rights of others to be told that i'm a dosser. We all
know we're studying hard and fighting for ourselves, so your words are baseless.
Along generalisations about unemployment and benefit scrounging, there were twenty-four
comments that referred to the personal hygiene of activists, suggesting that they were dirty,
soap-dodgers or branding them as 'the great unwashed', term associated with the lower
classes, and the masses. In addition, to being called 'soap-dodgers', dissenters were also
ridiculed for supposedly, being middle-class, over-privileged, and living off their parents.
However this was far less common in the discourse than references to employment and
benefit scrounging.
Other less prevalent, but still present perceptions of dissenters, were that they were
hypocrites, for example in relation to environmentalists one commenter asked:
TomMeehan (3)
I wonder what their mini van runs on? What their helmets are made of? Where those
PVC banners came from?
Hypocrites.
Others were questioned whether anti-capitalist protesters ever wore designer clothing,
whether animal rights activists used disinfectant tested on animals for cleaning piercings,
whether anti-fracking campaigners would go home and use kettles and watch TV, thus
implying that because activists may be engaged in practices which they seek to change their
opinions are not worth much.
Finally, some characterised protesters as self-interested, egotistical and questioned their
general intelligence and information basis for the issues they were protesting, for example it
was said that anti-fracking protesters did not understand science or the energy industry and
that anti-capitalists and anti-cuts demonstrators were ill informed about economics. A few also
suggested those at protests or camps were on drugs.
Like the unemployment/benefits stereotype, there were comments which challenged other
negative stereotypes, perceiving activists instead in more positive ways however these were
few and far between.
Theme Five: Perceptions of Criminalisation
This theme consists of eighty-eight comments which refer to perceptions of the
criminalisation of dissent in public online discourse, including general perceptions of the
situation such as conceiving of Britain as a police state, and a state in which generally there is
attempts to stifle and criminalise dissent, and specific actions/processes that may be thought
to increase criminalisation/stifle dissent such as the perceptions of spying, surveillance, antiterrorist and other legislation and police tactics like kettling.
The perception of British society as currently, or moving towards a police state, was found in
twenty comments, for example one contributor argued in relation to restrictions on Occupy's
ability to protest in Parliament Square:
SevenSeas7 (6)
“All these new acts put in force are making the UK a police state – no exaggeration.
It's so sickeningly infuriating; being able to peacefully protest should be a
basic right especially just outside parliament.”
Others, who did not reference a 'police state' perceived the UK to be in a situation where
dissent was increasingly becoming suppressed and criminalised, for example in twenty-one
comments, typical statements were:
Donalpain (8)
...the government is learning how to suppress legitimate protest and increasingly doing
so.
A police force that polices supposedly with the consent of the people should consider
carefully how it reacts to these suppressive demands being increasingly place upon it.
Chief Constables, one would hope, would scrutinize carefully the border between
enforcing the Law and enforcing Party Political expediences disguised as good
government.
Bwhale (13)
This is pure and simply political repression. The idea is to data collect and keep people
on ridiculous bail conditions and in fear in order to send a chilling effect through the
protest movement.
On top of spy cops infiltrating democratic protestors and the surveillance super state,
we are one of the most repressive countries in the western world when it comes to
protest.
Some explained the nature of the criminalisation of dissent with a distinctly class-analysis of
the police, perceiving them as protectors primarily of property, the ruling class and corporate
actors:
Fixintodie > ellatynemouth (13)
Their entire reason in life is to protect property.
thinkingloud (18)
When schooling doesn’t achieve the aim of instilling people with the illusion of living
in a free world whilst making them compliant to the existing power regime, and
making people fearful of the consequences of not conforming e.g. losing job etc. no
longer keeps them in-line, then the State will use stronger measures to control
dissenters. This includes inciting violence, in order to justify violent action. The
Police, like the Army are instruments of the State, which itself is an instrument of the
rich and powerful. The Police do not exist to serve the people. They exist primarily to
keep order for the benefit of those in power. You can expect more violence from the
Police as civil unrest grows – especially from the head-banging sadistic members.
Paul Watson (5)
Remember the main job of the police to protect the establishment from the citizens.
Others, discussed the criminalisation of dissent with reference to anti-terror measures in the
UK:
Ellatynemouth (15)
if this stupid, right wing bastard government is not careful, they are going to label
anyone who protests about anything a terrorist.
Matthew2012 > ardvark2 (26)
we are approaching a stage where rather than listen to experts over issues such as
climate
change that instead groups with no violent past are being treated like
terrorists.
Benjamin the donkey (37)
No doubt students and others who offer protest will become subject to Terresa May's
new anti-extremist legislation which is ostensibly being enacted to protect us from
terrorism but which is likely to be used to curb dissent and social unrest...
In addition to these perceptions about the general aspects of criminalisation, the use of
surveillance, spying and kettling were perceived as threats to freedoms to dissent and for
many represented attempts to criminalise and stifle resistance. A few commenters also
referenced Pastor Martin Niemoller's poem about the cowardice of German intellectuals under
the Nazi regime:
Mofooks > Mark Anthony (14)
first they came for the communists, and I did not speak out-and-out
because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unioniststs, and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the jews, and I did not speak out
because I was not a jew.
Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.
This quote is very relevant to our times
Across the articles, eleven comments were made that challenged perceptions of any
criminalisation of dissent, for example in response to an article which suggested that online
dissent was increasingly criminalised, one commenter stated:
Douglas66 (32)
This is not the criminalisation of dissent.
This is crime which is justified as dissent. And that is no defence.
Another commenter, gave this response to the idea of the suppression of dissent in relation to
Occupy being unable to protest in Parliament Square:
MickGJ>TheDudlyOmmer (6)
If we are living in a police state, where even small protests are stamped on, we all
need to know.
There are protests all the time in London, big and small, and they are not “stamped
on”. Occupy have chosen to challenge a democratically enacted law relating to
a very small space in London as if this was the only place in the country where they
could possibly protest.
To claim that being prevented from erecting an encampment (with kitchens, toilets,
sound systems and libraries) wherever you like equals the suppression of democracy is
completely childish.
Another stated in response to an article about kettling being a disproportionate technique that
stifles protest and liberty:
6ofclubs (18)
I think we have plenty of freedom to protest. We're not gunning down protesters like
Syria. Its foolish to allow protests without at least some mild police presence.
Theme Six: Policing Dissent
This theme explores perceptions of the policing of dissent in public online discourse. It is
composed predominantly but not solely of perceptions that suggest current policing of dissent
is proportionate and legitimate, that stronger policing is needed to control dissent both often
suggested based on justifications of threats of violence and fringe troublemakers and
comparisons of policing in other countries and also suggestions that policing methods are
disproportionate.
Fifty-four comments perceived the policing of dissent as legitimate and unproblematic across
of a range of issues, more often than not considered justifiable because of the threat of
violence and disorder presented by dissent and as preferable to other more lethal options:
ObviouslyNot (18)
Kettling is, sadly, essential due to the fact that there is a hardcore element of people
who not only want to protest, but also wreak havoc on the lives of innocent people.
Would you prefer that the police used guns? Or watercannon?
Emillio (27)
I didn't see any examples of Police brutality...I saw them doing their job, clearing the
Highway for other pedestrian and vehicular traffic, arresting a few that didn't want to
be arrested and the usual agitators taking pictures and handing out notes/business
cards to the arrested persons. I must admit the Police were very restrained. I think you
are naturally biased against the Police and all they stand for...had this been China or
Russia they would
not have been allowed to be in sit in the first place. Good
morning.
Tony (16)
Kettling is a brilliant, clever and advanced form of crowd control despite what a bunch
of do-gooding judges and their right-on mates may say. Look how foreign police
forces manage with plastic bullets and tear gas. Our police should try this tactic next,
then these liberals will see how good kettling is.
Although not as frequent as support for current methods, there were also perceptions that
policing of dissent could be strengthened in twenty-one comments:
Nonyabiz (16)
if it was up to me, the tactics used by the Police and other Home office agencies would
be a lot more severe than kettling.
Wolfiesmith (38)
firstly, the police should have the power to arrest any coward hiding their face during a
peaceful protest. Why don't they want to be seen...because they intend to cause
trouble.
In a challenge to the acceptance of police power and desire for more control of dissent,
fourteen comments referred to the methods policing of dissent as disproportionate,
illegitimate and ineffective:
Christopher (37)
Unarmed quiet peaceful protesters sprayed with pepper spray and threatened with a
tazer. This is not a report from a third world dictatorship! It's here in England I can't
explain how angry I am.
Valten78 > ObviouslyNot (18)
This is a classic false dichotomy. It isn’t a black and white choice between kettling and
water cannons.
I’m all for the police doing all that is reasonable to remove troublemakers from protest
groups, that shouldn’t however extend to the ability to stifle freedom of movement for
those breaking no laws.
Outrage (18)
Kettling is a fundamental breach of human rights. The police have NO rights to
prevent people going about their lawful business just because it is convenient for them
to do so.
Theme Seven: Dissent and the Rule of Law
This theme explores the way in which dissent is perceived in public online discourse in
relation to the rule of law. Twenty-nine comments (the majority) within this theme constitute a
perception that the law is absolute and is not to be broken regardless of any reason or
justifications and that anyone who breaks the law should be punished:
Haru > padav (18)
This is not just idle speculation, this is law. The ECHR has followed the law. I would
rather we live in a society governed by the law than one governed by the whims of
leftists.
NoGaol (19)
They trespassed and they got convicted for it.
Simple as that.
Whatever the deranged activists or campaigners agenda was, they broke the law and
suffered the consequences.
Maxine (20)
I really dont understand how these people can actually have the ordacity to call
themselves “activists”. Look it up in the bloomin dictionary, it doesent mention
anywhere about bringing distress, fear and mysery to your fellow man. No matter what
these people do
for a living, they have no right to take the law into their own
hands and damage property etc.
...these so called activists I think are even sicker.
Spoldge4514 (25)
I don't understand how Occupy can threaten legal action; if they don't have permission
to occupy Parliament Square: then you can't protest there. I don't believe there is
anything unreasonable about the mayor's actions. The law must be upheld, after all,
what's the point in having laws if they are not enforced? Does anyone else find
Occupy's stance on this issue bizzare?
SergueiP (32)
But protest often outside the realms of the law, is a tradition of politically active youth
throughout the ages.
So Guardian supports breaking law and violent protests?
If anything put democracy in peril breaking law when the country is democratic
enough to
allow lawful protest.
In addition some commenting on the TUC march in which anarchists were apparently 'on the
rampage' felt that stronger laws were needed to control dissenters;
Steve Wilson (38)
Its about time the powers that be, passed a law banning the use anything that covers
the face,
ie:- masks, bandanas, disguises etc etc etc..as far as I am concerned,
anyone covering their face in public is up to no good and needs to be arrested so that
the rest of us can go on living as law abiding citizens. Charge could be “going
equipped to cause alarm unrest and criminal violence and or damage”.
Whether this response is highly dependent on the way this article constructed the protest as
being out of control or refers to a belief that overall there is not enough control over dissent is
difficult to say.
Resistance to the perception of the law as absolute were present in thirteen comments across a
number of issues, in which the law was discussed critically, and in relation to justice:
MrDron > demagogue8 (15)
You wouldn't have been to keen on rights for Women and Black people then, chum.
Sometimes unjust laws have to be broken.
Domesticextremist (32)
hmmm, if a law is unjust, the people have a duty to disobey it (or live in tyranny).
If a law, any law, is selectively enforced, then by definition it becomes unjust.
David Smith (26)
Contemptible laws have to be treated with contempt.
Splat64 (18)
It is naive to expect law and legals systems that are set up to protect private property
and c lass interests, and to facilitate business over democracy, to protect the rights of
the marginalised, the disempowered or most protesting groups.
law protects power...
As well as contrasting perceptions of the law, there was also contrasting perceptions of the
response of the courts to dissent, with sixteen comments regarding sentences given to activists
across different issues as too light and framing this in relation to terrorism:
Gourdonboy (19)
...these are terrorists and they were lucky not to be charged for planning a terrorist act.
Johnny Johnson (20)
these crimes are nothing short of terrorism and the sentences are FAR too light. 25
years per person would have been far more appropriate.
Alimac (23)
utterly pathetic and worse still the maximum penalty is 3 months! What is the
deterrent for what are no better than terrorists. No wonder the UK is a laughing stock!
Blogster (38)
a mandatory six month prison sentence for anyone covering their face at a public
demonstration is essential.
And around nine comments that regarded the sentences handed down by the courts as
disproportionate and unfair:
Englishandproud (20)
They did not kill or injure anyone and yet they have longer jail terms than murderers.
Deekin > ks009746 (26)
Unjust sentence.
GerryP (32)
yet another ignorant over-reaction from the British Establishment. Exactly the same
behaviour as we saw with the student-fee protests last year and the excessive prison
sentences handed down.
Theme Eight: Dissenters Depoliticised
The final theme is that in which dissenters were constructed in the public's online discourse as
criminals and mindless thugs. Forty-four comments covering a number of articles said for
example:
Thephon > GoldMoney (13)
Agreed,
UK uncut is an excuse for mindless violence and hatred.
Sylvia Cavanagh (17)
They act like animals with their masks on, how brave.
Sorry to the animals.
DA Brighouse (20)
their actions had nothing to do with animal rights. They are evil criminals with no
conscience, getting a kick from the suffering of others.
Guest > Ben Johnson (38)
the 'anarchists' who take to London's streets exploit legitimate protests and have no
interest in any outcome other than criminal acts against the forces of law and order and
symbols of capitalism. For many engaged in violence, it is simply a 'fix', a bit of sport
if you will, with no real agenda or outcome desired, other than to see how much
damage and mayhem can be caused.
What is clear from these types of comments is that the actions in question are not perceived
by the public as political, but as criminal, yet there is no clear definition of what constitutes
political and no clear explanation given regarding what constituted violence.