G20 The cops ,as usual

Just saw the protests in England.The newscaster said that all was calm and people were doing fine until the cops(bobbies?) came and started forcing them into a smaller and smaller space and when the people ,understandibly, didn't like to be pushed around and pushed back ,the riots began.Lots of bloody heads and pissed off people.Just the usual.Good to see the Brits and French have some balls.Where are the protesters in the USA?Watching on TV as usual,including me.

 

The rioting is usually started by agent provocateurs, which gives the police an excuse (one that is not justified) to indiscriminately start attacking innocent bystanders (which makes things even more out of control), while the media uses the minority of troublemakers to demonize the legitimate, non-violent protesters. They did the same thing in Seattle ten years ago. A lot of the anarchist groups (useful idiots) attend these protests with the intent on being violent, which only plays into what the police want.

 

George Monbiot, writing in The Guardian, offers a blog entry on the cops and their “force majeure” at the summit:

The trouble-makers are out in force again. Dressed in black, their faces partly obscured, some of them appear to be interested only in violent confrontation. It’s almost as if they are deliberately raising the temperature, pushing and pushing until a fight kicks off. But this isn’t some disorganized rabble: these people were bussed in and are plainly acting in concert. There’s another dead giveaway. They are all wearing the same slogan: Police.
​

 

A number of people were spotted with white shirts tied around their necks (so the police would know they are one of them) and covered in fake blood, egging the other protesters on.

Videos:

Possible agent provocateur at G20 protests

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdaG73W_Z18

Protests turn ugly at G20 - Foundation funded anarchists attack Police & Banks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AlNqXwU2OU

 

I don't believe that. There was violence early in the day. There are always some idiots who come just for the opportunity to riot. They don't need an excuse.

 

Yeah,there are always some idiots,but the cops have their ways of infiltrating any such protests and starting the bullshit to justify smackin' people up.Happens over and over to show the sheep just how "bad and troublesome" people that want to gather legally to express their opinions are.The '68 democratic mess was finally proved to be exactly what it was=a police riot.Cocksmokers think they're pretty slick.

 

I just hate how the police involved in the riot are the final authority. I think there ought to be a power that passes judgement on the police also to keep them in check! Bleeding citizens doesn't quite shout "to serve and protect"

 

Usually it's fairly young people that protest,but on the news I saw mostly older folks and plenty of grey-hairs in the French protests.They don't jack around over there.Can anyone imagine what the cops here would do if people threw Molotov coctails like they do in other countries?It would be a great excuse to use live ammo,for sure.

 

That's a good point, our police force is not used to such public violence. We have crime and shootouts and all but we don't have protests and riots like we used to, or like other countries have.

 

Not sure if it was the same thing, but I heard a reporter speak to a protestor and the protestor was repeating the usual line about being forced into pens etc. Unless they are allowed on the steps of the Excel Centre, then they are all apparently "penned in."

I don't think she said this is what caused the riots.


(Videoe - 04:47)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/02/g20-protests-man-dies-london

From what I could see, there were various groups some caused the trouble others were peaceful...one I don't think turned into the other.
There seemed to be enough room for the swarms of photographers, snapping away at the front line.

(Video)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/02/g20-protests-man-dies-london

I rather think the police enjoy this kinda day:



These are the agent provocateurs at G20 protests, Rat (did you ever think that other chap just happened to have a white shirt on ?






Btw, folks, lets not forget: Man dies during G20 protests in London.

A man died last night during the G20 protests in central London as a day that began peacefully ended with police saying bottles were thrown at police medics trying to help him.

(Article)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/02/g20-protests-man-dies-london

 

Bullshit. You don't think violent anarchists exist? Then the problem is that you are too naive.

 

Of course they exist. They are useful idiots because they serve to stir up violence and discredit the legitimate, peaceful protesters. Once again they were bussed in, just as they were in Seattle ten years ago. Then they are allowed to basically wreak havoc, with the media shills right there to perfectly capture everything on camera while the legitimate protesters are made to look like criminals for simply being there.

 

If I wanted to know the official infowars version I'd go to infowars, i don't need you to memorise and repeat it for me.

They weren't "allowed to basically wreak havoc", they aren't criminals until they commit a crime.

For you its "oh look they arrested them and they didn't even do anything, its a conspiracy" or "oh look they let them commit crimes, its a conspiracy". There is no thought process involved, no matter what happens you conclude its a conspiracy.

 

I think my video pretty much sums up the day.

Peace - Protest - Violence - Boredom.

 

Whatever.

Agent provocatuers DO exist. It's a simple fact. They were exposed at the SPP protest in Montebello, Quebec two years ago, resorting to the same tactics.

They were also exposed in Seattle in '99.

Why should I believe what happened in London is any different, when the media itself says the provocateurs were bussed in en masse?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S1nHvvkzvA



It's just good to see that the media were all strategically and conveniently placed to capture the small handful of hoodlums causing the property damage.

 

The RBS building was pretty much gauranteed to get hit, don't you think?
The one that our gov' nationalised.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7975597.stm

Plus, I think this helped the media :

"Squaring up to the Square Mile: the London G20 map"

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/03/425118.html

 

So why was the RBS building not boarded up, but the cafe across the street was, especially if they had foreknowledge that it would be a likely target? And they did have foreknowledge because it was anounced ahead of time by the anarchists that it would be their primary target.

 

This is what fascinates me - you are so brainwashed. The media were all throughout the demonstrations - anyone who watches any helicopter video can see that. The media are paid to get stuff on film, its their job to be there. Yet you are completely mind boggled and mystified that they capture anything on film. Watch the videos - the media are three deep around the police cordons filming everything and everything. Why can't you figure this out Rat?

 

Who knows. I suppose because nobody was there and there was a heavy police presence - who needs boarding? The cafe across the street has more to lose financially.

 

So the media are paid to capture the hoodlums on tape, but the hordes of cops were simply off eating donuts while this was happening?? Why did we not see any of these people being arrested (the ones smashing out windows, etc.)? Funny how in these pictures we see dozens of media people, but not a single cop.