 |
| A diverse and vibrant community worthy of the protection of the state |
Upon reading this it struck me that we have reached an important moment in the history of British politics: the moment when the British people, tired of being treated as mere statistics and objects by their 'superiors', can finally get their revenge by becoming objects. While on the face of it this plan appears counter-intuitive, even crazy, it is actually the best thing to happen in British politics since Thatcher died (Editor's note: she's not quite dead yet, despite haunting us all - please amend for final post). The beauty of it is that, by becoming windows (or other object of your choice) we will in one fell swoop qualify ourselves for (a) the protection of the courts (b) the protection of the police and (c) the blind affections of journalists.
As windows then we will no longer be abused by the police and their arbitrary powers, we will be able to assert our right to a life of ease and leisure sitting within a supportive frame, and above all our voice will be heard within public political discussion. On these building blocks I am fairly sure we can reconstruct politics in Britain from the ground up. From the mindless oppression of the windows of Millbank Tower then it appears that some good has come, their shattering sacrifice has not been in vain - all that is required is that each of us stand up and say 'I am a window too!'
I <3 your paragraph beginning "The beauty..." So true!
ReplyDelete~ C
Had a good laugh at this! Mourning for windows, really...
ReplyDeleteHave you people never heard of the Window Tax?
ReplyDeleteHow interesting. Another post whitewashing the 41 police officers injured in the riot. No mention of attempted murder. No, just more hilarious sarcasm about windows.
ReplyDelete@MrDanger excuse us for being very cynical about reports of police injuries; But the police are notorious for exaggerating injury reports and inflating charges. See for example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/15/kingsnorth-climate-change-environment-police
ReplyDeleteBesides, the police are hardly a non-violent organisation:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/19/g20-police-video-climatecamp-tomlinson
You can be as cynical as you want, several officers needed hospital treatment. I saw footage of a female PC being led away with blood streaming down her face.
ReplyDeleteAnd what on earth does Ian Tomlinson have to do with it? Is it open season on any police officer because of Tomlinson? By that logic do I have the right to assault any student I see based on the Millbank violence by completely different students?
@MrDanger I see you only read the URL and didn't bother with the actual content of the link.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you are putting up straw men "open season", "assault any student" suggesting the most extreme possible interpretation of my comment. I think you yourself are arguing that the police had a right to assault (or "use violence against", not to get too legalistic) /some/ of the particular students that were being (in your words) violent at Millbank.
Are you trolling? Or is this the normal standard of logic in your arguments?
I did read your link. I was already aware that Police have exaggerated their injuries in the past, and I'm sure not all 41 injuries were serious.
ReplyDeleteBut they don't fake going to the hospital and they don't pour fake blood on themselves. There was a lot of violence by protesters at Millbank, I'm not sure why people here are so determined to close their eyes to it.
"Also, you are putting up straw men "open season", "assault any student" suggesting the most extreme possible interpretation of my comment."
Well you explain the relevance to me then. Instead of what happened at Millbank, you want to divert discussion to what happened somewhere else to someone else a year ago. What are you trying to say?
" think you yourself are arguing that the police had a right to assault (or "use violence against", not to get too legalistic) /some/ of the particular students that were being (in your words) violent at Millbank."
It is an objective fact that the police have the right to use violence against violent protesters. What is controversial about that?
@MrDanger
ReplyDeleteYour assumption that all people here think the violence didn't happen is wrong. However, some people here may be taking a different view on how to react to that violence. We are not in a situation of simply condemning all violence; you yourself are justifying violence from the police (by saying that it is in response to some violence from the protesters).
I think your assertion that it is an objective fact that the police have a right to use violence against violent protesters depends heavily on your definition of "right". It could be argued, probably successfully, in court that the police had the /legal/ right to behave in that way. However, others could dispute the ethics of such behaviour. I might choose to say that the police do not have the /moral/ right to behave in the way that they did.
"Your assumption that all people here think the violence didn't happen is wrong."
ReplyDeleteThe entire premise of this blog post is that 'the media' is all worked up about a few broken windows. That is a deliberate whitewashing of what happened - it was a riot which involved considerable violence directed at the police. Including an attempted murder. This is what 'the media', and a lot of the public, are upset about.
"However, some people here may be taking a different view on how to react to that violence."
"Some people", "may" - these are weasel words. Do you have an opinion?
"However, others could dispute the ethics of such behaviour. I might choose to say that the police do not have the /moral/ right to behave in the way that they did. "
"However" "others" "could" "I might choose" - more weasel words. Do you have an opinion?
I am going to continue to point out that attempted murder has not yet been proved. It is not at all clear it will be, since they will have to prove intention to kill, and if you can see the intention in the footage then you must be magic. He may have intended to hit the ground to make it spray water, and that would be a much lesser charge. The police like to use overwhelming force in charging people as well as controlling most demos and so were bound to go for the more serious charge even if they can't make it stick. We shall see.
ReplyDeleteQuite besides that, if you've actually watched the footage you'll also see that the protesters themselves protested at it being chucked off the roof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAGNJMQD1rA
Your attempt to tar the demonstration with the 'attempted murder' brush falls apart then due to...well, an unfortunate lack of facts on your side.
"He may have intended to hit the ground to make it spray water, and that would be a much lesser charge."
ReplyDeleteSure, he threw it off a seven story building, down towards an area crowded with police and demonstrators, hoping it would splash people. And make loud scary noise too. Sure, that makes sense.
"Quite besides that, if you've actually watched the footage you'll also see that the protesters themselves protested at it being chucked off the roof"
Why, they were afraid someone would get splashed? Maybe they have some of that magic and could read his real intentions.
Tell me, what were your intentions? 41 officers injured, several went to hospital, footage of a female pc with blood streaming down her face, someone hurls a fire extinguisher down from a seven storey building missing a pc by inches, and you are making 'hilarious' blog posts about 'we are all windows now'? Why are you whitewashing this violence?
@MrDanger are you a cop?
ReplyDelete> "However" "others" "could" "I might choose" -
> more weasel words. Do you have an opinion?
No.
ReplyDelete