Originally posted by shavixmirI think he's a tosser.
Saint bloody Bob Geldof.
That's what I say!
We've been organising protests against the G8 in Scotland for over a year. Bob G turns up and arranges events which cut right across what we've set up.
We're tryng to build a broad coalition, he's setting up concerts in Edinburgh in competition with demonstations in Gleneagles.
He said on Saturday that people shouldn't protest at Glemeagles, as his agenda (African poverty) is the only agenda.
Well, African poverty is very important, but I think its for the people in Scotland to decide how and why we'll protest.
He's a new labour stooge.
Originally posted by RedmikeCommunication
I think he's a tosser.
We've been organising protests against the G8 in Scotland for over a year. Bob G turns up and arranges events which cut right across what we've set up.
We're tryng to build a broad coalition, he's setting up concerts in Edinburgh in competition with demonstations in Gleneagles.
He said on Saturday that people shouldn't ...[text shortened]... for the people in Scotland to decide how and why we'll protest.
He's a new labour stooge.
Originally posted by Redmikei was shocked when i saw George Galloway on the news saying that if the police didn't let them nearer to gleneagles the protest shall end in "blood on batons", and saying that that would not be good for scotland. talk about irresponsible!
I think he's a tosser.
We've been organising protests against the G8 in Scotland for over a year. Bob G turns up and arranges events which cut right across what we've set up.
We're tryng to build a broad coalition, he's setting up concerts in Edinburgh in competition with demonstations in Gleneagles.
He said on Saturday that people shouldn't ...[text shortened]... for the people in Scotland to decide how and why we'll protest.
He's a new labour stooge.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4123172.stm
http://news.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=693942005
frikkin' lovechild...
1 edit
Originally posted by geniusI think it is irresponsible to prevent people protesting.
i was shocked when i saw George Galloway on the news saying that if the police didn't let them nearer to gleneagles the protest shall end in "blood on batons", and saying that that would not be good for scotland. talk about irrespo ...[text shortened]... ws.scotsman.com/archive.cfm?id=693942005
frikkin' lovechild...
Lots of people feel very strongly about the.presence of the G8 in Scotland. Maybe not in the cloisters of St Andrews University, but elsewhere people are not happy that these people are here at all (an independant Scotland wouldn't have invited them).
People are going to protest. In different ways, depending on their political persuasions and inclinations. It would be a lot more responsible to allow some kind of protest at Gleneagles, which would be under some sort of control.
Instead, they're going to have to deal with all sorts of different, unco-ordinated, ad hoc protests. Which, as Galloway says, is more likely to lead to confrontation and violence.
You have to understand that people will not be told they cannot protest. If we have to fight to retain that right, then we will.
Originally posted by RedmikeThe G8 protestors are notorious for their violence though, aren't they?
I think it is irresponsible to prevent people protesting.
Lots of people feel very strongly about the.presence of the G8 in Scotland. Maybe not in the cloisters of St Andrews University, but elsewhere people are not happy that these people are here at all (an independant Scotland wouldn't have invited them).
People are going to protest. In different way ...[text shortened]... will not be told they cannot protest. If we have to fight to retain that right, then we will.
Originally posted by VargWhat, all of them?
The G8 protestors are notorious for their violence though, aren't they?
There are, no doubt, some groups intent on causing disruption. I've never heard of any groups who set out intent on violence.
The vast majority of the people who will be in Gleneagles on July 6th will be intending to protest peacefully, which they should have every right to do.
My point is that, by curtailing people's right to protest, the local authorities are playing into the hands of any extreme elements.
There has been violence at previous protests - usually when the police mishandle things - the carabinierri murdered a protester in Genoa, for example.
Originally posted by Redmikemost of my friends in st andrews are going to edinburgh to protest, as are most of my ones here (we are students after all. and that's what students do-drink, shag, protest.*). they are not, however, going to protest about the G8 summit being here. most are in favour of it. they meerly want them to actually do something about poverty etc. indeed, you are the first person i have met who has expresssed their opinions about not wanting the G8 summit here. an independent scotland would not have invited the summit, you say?...
I think it is irresponsible to prevent people protesting.
Lots of people feel very strongly about the.presence of the G8 in Scotland. Maybe not in the cloisters of St Andrews University, but elsewhere people are not happy that these people are here at all (an independant Scotland wouldn't have invited them).
People are going to protest. In different way ...[text shortened]... will not be told they cannot protest. If we have to fight to retain that right, then we will.
yes, people are going to protest. yes, people are wanting to protest nearer to gleneagle. that, however, begs the question; why? why do they want to protest closer to gleneagles? the leaders are still going to know that the protesters are there. although i agree that the protests should be organised, but i can also sympasise with the need for insurance etc. (20'000 people are expected to turn up but the local council's only letting 4'500 turn up due to insurance or something...) IMO, this insurance should be covered by those who organised the summit to be here...
*sometimes we even study.
Originally posted by geniusThere are important differences between the Edinburgh event on July 2nd and the Gleneagles event on July 6th.
most of my friends in st andrews are going to edinburgh to protest, as are most of my ones here (we are students after all. and that's what students do-drink, shag, protest.*). they are not, however, going to protest about the G8 summit being here. most are in favour of it. they meerly want them to actually do something about poverty etc. indeed, you are the ...[text shortened]... e should be covered by those who organised the summit to be here...
*sometimes we even study.
The July 2nd event is organised by the Make Poverty History group. This group is formed from organisations like Oxfam, the TUC, churches and other such laudable bodies. They are protesting about poverty, particularly in Africa. I think everyone can agree that poverty is 'a bad thing'.
The protests in Gleneagles are more political in nature, and are organised by the G8alternatives grouping. This is a more general protest about the presence of the G8, their neo-liberal agenda, their responsibility for world poverty and war (which is where the 2 overlap).
There is a strong tradition on the left of protesting at these G8 summits. There have been huge protests in the past - Seattle, Genoa etc. The left will support the Make Poverty History event on July 2nd, but our main objective is to protest as close as we can to the parasites of the G8.
I don't understand why you think it is unreasonable to want to protest at Gleneagles. Its no secret that wherever the G8 meets, there are massive protests. If the infrastructure isn't able to support our right to protest, then the venue is unsuitable and they should go somewhere else.
And the point about insurance - since when do we have to pay to excercise our right to protest? Or is it only those who can afford it who can protest? Maybe you're right - it was the UK government who invited the G8 here - they can cover any 'insurance'. I'd prefer that the right to protest was just free.
Originally posted by Redmikeand i'm not saying they shoudln't protest near gleneagles. i'm saying that they should protest as close to it as they can if they wish. however, they are, i doubt, going to be let anywhere near the actual leaders for safety reasons. therefore, there isn't that much of a difference between being, say, 1.5 miles from the hotel and 1 mile. apart from maybe it looking like there's more of them...
I don't understand why you think it is unreasonable to want to protest at Gleneagles. Its no secret that wherever the G8 meets, there are massive protests. If the infrastructure isn't able to support our right to protest, then the venue is unsuitable and they should go somewhere else.
And the point about insurance - since when do we have to pay to exc ...[text shortened]... here - they can cover any 'insurance'. I'd prefer that the right to protest was just free.
the right to protest is free-right to roam and all that. politics confuses me...
1 edit
Originally posted by geniusAs things stand, the local authorities have refused to permit a demonstration in Gleneagles. Their attempt at a compromise has been to allow a rally with less than 5,000 in Auchterarder. And we have to pay some sort of insurance on that.
and i'm not saying they shoudln't protest near gleneagles. i'm saying that they should protest as close to it as they can if they wish. however, they are, i doubt, going to be let anywhere near the actual leaders for safety reasons. there ...[text shortened]... is free-right to roam and all that. politics confuses me...
Nobody is wanting to have a march through Bush and Blair's hotel suites. We just want to demonstrate close to where thay are - the suggested route (on the public highway) goes past the entrance to the Gleneagles hotel.
That's the way we do things in a democracy - people have the right to walk past Downing Street in London, for example. Or to protest outside Faslane.
If they have safety concerns, then they have to deal with that without compromising people's right to protest.
As soon as you start saying that people can't demonstrate because it might upset our glorious leaders, or because it might compromise their safety, then you are on a very slippery slope.
As I said, if they can't guarantee their safety at Gleneagles then it is not a suitable venue.
Originally posted by RedmikeOkay, the protests tend to turn out violent.
What, all of them?
There are, no doubt, some groups intent on causing disruption. I've never heard of any groups who set out intent on violence.
The vast majority of the people who will be in Gleneagles on July 6th will be intending to protest peacefully, which they should have every right to do.
My point is that, by curtailing people's right to protest ...[text shortened]... when the police mishandle things - the carabinierri murdered a protester in Genoa, for example.
I don't suppose the locals care whether it's a minority or not after their cars and houses are smashed up.
Originally posted by VargI don't think there have ever been houses or cars damaged.
Okay, the protests tend to turn out violent.
I don't suppose the locals care whether it's a minority or not after their cars and houses are smashed up.
The locals will be inconvienced, I'm sure - roads will be closed etc etc. Gleneagles is a sedate, rural environment - it will be noisy.
There are some fringe elements who might think attacking big business is part of the fight against capitalism. They're likely to be interested in McDonalds, Starbucks or the Royal Bank, rather than smashing up Joe Blogg's 4x4.