• Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • I still blame police brutality


    by Sunny
    2nd April, 2009 at 3:22 am    

    We knew this was coming. The Met police had been scaremongering about the G20 protests for weeks through a willing media, based on a few random website postings. This, from an institution which the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights said only a week ago was “too heavy-handed in dealing with protests”. This, from an institution that intentionally harassed and went completely over the top with Climate Camp last year.

    And the same happened yesterday. We were only reporting for the Guardian and yet, unexplicably, the police closed in on all protestors from as early as 12:30pm and would not let the several thousand people go anywhere. We managed to escape through the police cordon, but Dave Hill was stuck there till late evening and some, according to the police, would be there till midnight. They all had to be photographed and had their details taken down you see. For just attending a protest.

    We can argue endlessly whether the G20 protests had a point. People can even sneer at the message. That is to be expected. But this is about the fact that our basic right to stage a peaceful protest is being eroded. They will just detain you for hours on end, without a toilet to go to, and then arrest you or beat you if you choose to complain. And then they’ll take down your details. Is this the sort of democracy we want to live in?

    Sure, there were trouble-makers, as any protest does. But the police penalised everyone right from the start. They predicted trouble and then created the conditions for it. And now undoubtedly they’ll play the victim, aided by a willing media that dance to their tune. And then we wonder what the fuck happened to our civil liberties.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Civil liberties,Current affairs,Media






    128 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. pickles

      New blog post: I still blame police brutality http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4040


    2. Portia

      YES SUNNY http://tinyurl.com/dheew7




    1. Roger — on 2nd April, 2009 at 3:43 am  

      Incompetence at first rather than brutality from what I saw, ‘though the one led to the other. The police i came across didn’t have more idea what was happening or what they were meant to do than we did. They certainly weren’t prepared for violence on either side. They stopped people going on anywhere because they hadn’t been told they could, but they didn’t stop people pushing on behind or direct them elsewhere.

    2. David Jones — on 2nd April, 2009 at 7:12 am  

      Sure, there were trouble-makers …But the police …predicted trouble and then created the conditions for it

      And what were the troublemakers doing while the police were creating these conditions?

    3. cjcjc — on 2nd April, 2009 at 8:49 am  

      Although I work at the St Paul’s end of Cheapside, near Paternoster Square, it was like being in a different world. The event on the TV - a made for (and by?) TV event if ever there was one - could have been on another planet, though it was just 500m away.

      I would certainly like to hear the police side of things - you can clearly see what the “penning in” strategy is designed to achieve but why use it unnecessarily, etc. - but despite disagreeing with the protestors about just about everything I am certainly very disturbed by what appeared at least to be a heavy handed approach. It doesn’t exactly help my side of the argument!

      But it was not only the police who were hyping things up a bit.
      The Guardian published a piece by an “anonymous” protestor - “Theo Rilla” - who spoke of bringing the “spirit of Athens” to London. Though most of it was so moronically Dave Spart-ish that it could quite easily have been an April Fooler. And of course there was that idiot from the East London “uinversity”. No doubt other bigmouths too on the interweb.

    4. Rumbold — on 2nd April, 2009 at 9:05 am  

      Sunny:

      While the police deserve criticism, what would be nice also would be some condemnation of the people who throw items at the police. Otherwise your account isn’t particularly credible.

    5. Leon — on 2nd April, 2009 at 9:17 am  

      Rumbold, by your logic every Muslim must condemn terrorism every time they criticise foriegn policy.

      Sunny can rightly chastise the lack of liberty without being responsible for the actions of every single person at the demo.

      I’m with Sunny on this, having attending quite a few protests over the years [from anti war ones and the old May Day ones] I’ve seen first hand the tactics used by the Police. What happened yesterday is no surprise at all.

    6. Rumbold — on 2nd April, 2009 at 9:24 am  

      Leon:

      I am afraid that analogy does not hold. Sunny is talking about who was responsible for the problems at the protest; he condemns the police but doesn’t really criticise any of the demonstrators. From his account it would appear that the police were almost entirely at fault. But we know (from other Guardian writers) that things were being hurled at the police, which doesn’t seem right to me. If I am annoyed or even angry about something, I don’t try and assault others. Would a cancelled train justify throwing bottles at station staff?

    7. dave bones — on 2nd April, 2009 at 9:56 am  

      ha ha ha ha you got kettled Sunny- and you pushed your way out? Kudos! You are top banana anarchist. You will be a Womble yet. They need fresh blood they are all pushing prams now.

    8. cjcjc — on 2nd April, 2009 at 10:00 am  

      People can even sneer at the message.

      What was the “message” exactly?

      If anything, there were several - contradictory - ones.

    9. damon — on 2nd April, 2009 at 10:18 am  

      The police operation does seem to be overly controling and anti-democratic (in corraling people inside cordons for hours etc) - and I remember being painfully kicked in the shin by a riot policeman while watching the poll tax riot peacefully from the sidelines years ago, so I know what they are like.

      But how much of the ”blame” has to be put against the behavior of the people who intend to have a go at the police and do some criminal damage, from the outset?

      I wasn’t there yesterday, but was on saturday, and those face mask wearing anarchists from Class War are really childish in my opinion. And (perhaps)they give the police the excuse they need to use their heavy handed tactics.

      While I don’t like what the police did, if they had taken a much more hands off approach, would acts of vandalism and disruption been carried out more widly around the Square Mile?

      Also, what’s with all the drumming and whistles and dancing? I’d like to protest about stuff too, but I find the culture of protest today to be a bit naff.
      The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse for example, and even from what I was hearing when the middle class kids down at the Climate Camp protest in Bishopsgate were talking on the radio.
      It’s off putting for me (and a lot of others I’d guess).

    10. cjcjc — on 2nd April, 2009 at 10:30 am  

      It’s off putting for me (and a lot of others I’d guess).

      Naff is right. And what about that canary on the stretcher?

      Still I admire the idealism - albeit wholly misguided -even if it is the idealism of (in general) the highly privileged.

      Down with globalisation…now, let me use the internet to book my gap year flight to India…

    11. dave bones — on 2nd April, 2009 at 10:50 am  

      The message is anarchy for the UK innit.

      Yeah. For a long while now, since the last big west end protest the Police tactic against these non-negotiated protests has been to kettle everyone in managable groups and inconvenience them for as long as possible so they don’t want to come back next time. Its working isn’t it.

      Personally I don’t go on these things anymore unless I can be bothered to go the whole hog. Focusing anti-capitalist energy against Policemen in uniform is a distraction. I know a few of these ex-wombles and I said the same thing to them.

    12. dave bones — on 2nd April, 2009 at 11:09 am  

      They used to watch riot porn like the jihadis watch all those beheading videos and endlessly debate Police tactics. Prague was pretty funny and looked great on video but I couldn’t see how manoevers against Police would bring about a change in society.

    13. Amit Sodha — on 2nd April, 2009 at 11:26 am  

      Resistence will always be met with an equal or greater force. There’s no getting away from that. Ever since Labour came into power our civil liberties have been eroding cotinuously and consistently. I’m even a little surprised that the demonstrations were allowed to go ahead at all considering the big man was in town.

      Just glad you managed to get out of there safely bro.

      You can tell that many people were just there for the sake of being able to cause trouble and damage. Those people do deserve to be arrested and for those who were there in the genuine spirit of fighting for a cause without the need of violence - more power to you!

      The fact that all the protesters had their details taken is definitely a breach of civil liberties and that is something that needs to be changed!

    14. MaidMarian — on 2nd April, 2009 at 11:43 am  

      ‘But this is about the fact that our basic right to stage a peaceful protest is being eroded.’

      Yes, but Sunny I struggle to see how this protest was ever intended as ‘peaceful.’ At least not in any menaingful sense of the word. Sure you personally and many others may have had peaceful intentions, but you can’t seriously tell me that the G20 protests have not had a rather unpalatable side. That’s not to say it’s your fault, but to blame the police is disingenuous. The police created the conditions for it? That’s hand-wringing.

      You say, ‘Sure, there were trouble-makers, as any protest does. But the police penalised everyone right from the start.’ I’m not altogether sure what you are getting at there. Are you saying that the police should have ignored the clear threats? I’m assuming that the, ‘trouble-makers,’ did not wear a T-shirt marking them out in advance.

      And this Sunny is before we talk about the damage created by the trouble-makers who, the cynic may argue, took advantage of the conditions created by the protests. Given that I own part of RBS, will the protestors be compensating me for the damage?

      You ask what happened to our civil liberties Sunny. Take a look at the trouble-makers and dwell on it.

    15. Bert Rustle — on 2nd April, 2009 at 12:48 pm  

      cjcjc wrote … I would certainly like to hear the police side of things - you can clearly see what the “penning in” strategy is designed to achieve but why use it unnecessarily, etc …

      Listen in: http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/g20-the-best-of-the-press-photos/

    16. ceedee — on 2nd April, 2009 at 12:59 pm  

      “Given that I own part of RBS, will the protestors be compensating me for the damage?”

      You’d do better asking why that branch (within a, erm, stones throw of the BoE) with huge windows unboarded (unlike loads of small shops and cafes nearby) was completely undefended, while the RBS hq was penned off and guarded by numerous police from very early in the morning.

      Could any of the capitalist law’n'order brigade explain why it was necessary to blockade the fluffy ‘climate camp’ in Bishopsgate at 7pm, when it had been open and peaceful all afternoon. And then, for riot police to viciously batten the hippies who couldn’t move anywhere and were sat on the ground singing?

      Bit of an over-reaction to obstructing the highway, don’t you think? Especially as it was the Met’s finest who’d prevented perfectly law-abiding people moving around the area (with menaces) since midday.

    17. marvin — on 2nd April, 2009 at 1:04 pm  

      Still, I believe we have one of the most tolerant police forces in the world. Every other country I can think of has a police force that is more antoganistic than ours. The French SRS would be beating the shit out of protestors.

      The Gaza ‘demonstrations’ by the far-left and islamists where numerous coffee shops were smashed up can’t of helped the situation.

      You ask what happened to our civil liberties Sunny. Take a look at the trouble-makers and dwell on it.

      Just because Sunny stood next to a group of violent anarchists some of home were attempting to attack the police! Sunny has right to go to exactly the wrong place at the wrong time and protest with hostile wankers without the police attempting to protect themselves, property or people not involved…

    18. marvin — on 2nd April, 2009 at 1:05 pm  

      Bert, I love those photos of those people being terribly oppressed by the filth!

    19. fug — on 2nd April, 2009 at 1:08 pm  

      they created trouble by trapping people and preventing us from joining other parts of the greater protest.

      then they engages in double speak ‘ we closed things of because of violence’ bollox, they created a flashpoint at RBS and they were pretty violent themselves. their faces are well recorded by the hindreds of cameras held by protesters.

      press have been pronographic over this.

    20. marvin — on 2nd April, 2009 at 1:25 pm  

      Looking around, I can see that the peaceful protest so many believed genuinely possible has been lost. People – even the police – are beginning to look scared, breeding a febrile atmosphere in the crowd, and suddenly I want to be anywhere but here. As I move away from the crowds, distancing myself from the smoke bombs and the increasingly rabid chants, I spot the limping bumblebee, trailing her placard down a rubbish-cluttered stairway and diving into the tube, looking every bit as relieved as I am.

      Telegraph journalist

    21. fug — on 2nd April, 2009 at 1:34 pm  

      you are jackie smiths husband.

    22. cjcjc — on 2nd April, 2009 at 1:42 pm  

      ceedee - so it’s the bank’s fault, nothing to do with the perps, oh no…

      However if what you say about the camp is true, then I want the same answers you do.

    23. mixmatosis — on 2nd April, 2009 at 1:46 pm  

      From what I’ve seen, police intimidation/violence seems to be the number one cause of trouble at the protests. One protester has already been killed from blows received from a police baton, then you’ve got all the agent provocateurs trying to incite violence. I suppose the police need to justify wasting £7.2 million on ‘policing’ the event.

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

    24. marvin — on 2nd April, 2009 at 1:57 pm  

      From what I’ve seen, police intimidation/violence seems to be the number one cause of trouble at the protests

      What planet are you living on?

      I presume the anarchists were being telepathic, then, by bringing smoke bombs. They knew that the police would cause trouble!!11!!

    25. Sunny — on 2nd April, 2009 at 2:23 pm  

      lol @ dave bones!

      well, I was with Rowenna who was getting pushed and shoved by the police and I managed to push through the cordon and drag her with me - otherwise both of us would be there until midnight.

      Incompetence at first rather than brutality from what I saw, ‘though the one led to the other.

      bollocks it was. They’d planned to put everyone in a cordon before the protest even finished and before anything kicked off.

      Rumbold: While the police deserve criticism, what would be nice also would be some condemnation of the people who throw items at the police. Otherwise your account isn’t particularly credible.

      I’m not here to try and offer criticism of both sides. I said there were some trouble makers and the police should have dealt with them.

      The point is the police had made early plans to round up all the demonstrators and take their details down and keep them in a massive open-air prison from the morning.

      It’s institutional failure. It’s why we have a massive infringement of our civil liberties - because people keep making excuses for this kind of behaviour. And suddenly when the police do that to some Tory MP like Damian Green - the conservatives are up in arms and in shock.

    26. Leon — on 2nd April, 2009 at 2:23 pm  

      Anyone who’ve been on serious actions knows it doesn’t matter how ‘peaceful’ you are. The police always raise the tensions. They do lots of things that camera’s don’t pick up like shout abusive stuff at you. You get close and they do things like tug at you or even crap like pinching because it causes an immediate physical reaction which then justifies their response.

      As usual we’re seeing a lot of keyboard warriors chiming in here with no real world experience of policing or radical protest.

    27. Sunny — on 2nd April, 2009 at 2:29 pm  

      cjcjc - and it’s typical of you to use the example of a small gang of idiots breaking the RBS window (and did you see how many photographers were behind them?) - as if to try and paint everyone in the same vein.

      A few people broke the law - the police should arrest them. Why hold everyone in a massive open-air prison?

      Answer that.

    28. comrade — on 2nd April, 2009 at 2:58 pm  

      After the Miners Strike of 1974, the State turned the Police Force into a Paramillitary Force, because bringing the Troops onto the Streets, to deal with protests, would not go down well with the Public. This Force was first unleashed on the Black/Asain Community in the 80s as traing ground to take on the Miners in 1984. Those of us who are willing to protest for what ever cause we beleive in, should expect more of this.

    29. ceedee — on 2nd April, 2009 at 4:06 pm  

      cjcjc: “ceedee - so it’s the bank’s fault, nothing to do with the perps, oh no…

      It’s my (perhaps paranoid) suspicion that the RBS branch was deliberately ‘sacrificed’ in order to give the police/politicians/journalists something to crow about.
      But, as you seem to require condemnation as a badge: I’m totally opposed to wanton destruction of private property and hope that the perpetrators are prosecuted.
      Satisfied?

      However if what you say about the camp is true, then I want the same answers you do.”

      I have no reason to lie.
      What do you want? Witness accounts?
      http://www.nextleft.org/2009/04/seige-mentality.html
      http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/1001
      http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/971 (see the comments)
      http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/426086.html?c=on#c219353

      Or perhaps video evidence?
      http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/426086.html
      (This shows only the initial move by the riot police not the attacks after dark nor the ‘closing down’ close to midnight.)

      Looking forward to your comments…

    30. Indrak — on 2nd April, 2009 at 4:06 pm  

      #26: abso-fucking-lutely: spineless tosseurs, forever awaiting the wheel worthy enough for their shoulder to be put to; deluded and dignified, reactionary scum.

      #3 1st para: welcome to reality.

    31. comrade — on 2nd April, 2009 at 4:32 pm  

      constableconfused

      Comrade, the police in the UK are far from paramilitary, have you ever seen the Italian, French or Belgian police in action against disorder? That’s paramilitary.

      I have seen them in action in Birmingham personally and the during the Miners Strike of 84.

    32. cjcjc — on 2nd April, 2009 at 4:34 pm  

      ceedee - I believe you.
      But how and by whom can the police be called to account here?
      Would any MP dare?

    33. cjcjc — on 2nd April, 2009 at 4:35 pm  

      Sunny - sorry, on that I basically agree with you.

    34. marvin — on 2nd April, 2009 at 4:48 pm  

      constableconfused thanks for contributing.

      I wouldn’t pay to too much attention to ‘comrade’, he’s still battling the milk snatcher and scargill is giving him goosebumps. That’s when the shit hit the fan, man. :)

      Back in the real world the majority of people see you have a tough job and are glad that you do it generally well. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. And again I’m certain we have one of the best police forces in the world. Of course there’s always room for improvements, I have been treated overly roughly myself before (but I was gobbing off a tad).

      I’m not sure holding all the protesters in one place for so long is a good idea, perhaps a little overkill, and will have trapped people who wanted to go home. But I can’t say I have a great deal of sympathy, everyone with half a brain would have known that’s how an unruly mob in central London would be dealt with….

    35. Indrak — on 2nd April, 2009 at 4:55 pm  

      #31: you don’t write as though confused, but at least your name seems accurate.
      There are reasons for not wanting ever-increasing surveillance, just as their are reactionaries who bleat “if you’ve nothing to hide..”

      What’s a few broken windows - the price of fighterbomber’s wing in total? wow

      OPerational officer: is that different to the kind I saw turning up in 5 cars all at the same time at the tail end of a fight that had restarted?
      -or were some of them operationally hanging around so as to arrive at the same time. Is it also operational to move off the witness that sought to come forward?

    36. douglas clark — on 2nd April, 2009 at 5:00 pm  

      constableconfused,

      I don’t think that what is apparently known as ‘kettling’ ought to be a part of police tactics.

      But gradual dispersal should. It’s what you do after fractious football matches, one group is held back and you make damn sure the other moves away. It’s a perfectly simple technique, especially when there seemed to be more Police than protesters.

    37. cjcjc — on 2nd April, 2009 at 5:06 pm  

      yes - ie there’s a difference between kettling and outright pressure cooking

    38. Bert Rustle — on 2nd April, 2009 at 5:08 pm  

      constableconfused 31

      Is wearing a Cowboy style handkerchief as a mask at a demonstration illegal?
      Balaclava?
      Burqa?
      Face obscuring helmet?

    39. dave bones — on 2nd April, 2009 at 5:55 pm  

      Nice to see Coppers coming forward in the blogs. I have been on every Mayday protest for years and the constable is right, this isn’t France, Germany, Italy etc. My view of protests is simple. There are idiots on both sides who like to fight. They find each other and get on with it. There are peaceful people on both sides. They find each other and chat. Nothing changes. Capitalism doesn’t end.

      Sunny- that was a good push mate- watch out that you haven’t been filmed you bloody anarchist! A friend of mine must have been the same place, he got out al 11.45pm. Another friend of mine who went in a suit with a box on his head which said “Climate Zombie” was attacked by three capitalists! Fuckin Capitalist fight back eh

    40. comrade — on 2nd April, 2009 at 5:59 pm  

      Mervin,
      when did you start working for the M15, have you left the MOSSAD or have you taken on two jobs during the recession, best of luck ‘mate’

    41. douglas clark — on 2nd April, 2009 at 6:00 pm  

      constableconfused,

      I accept that you and I see this a tad differently. And, frankly, I can see why a front line officer would take the view that you are taking. However, it is pretty clear that you did, eventually let the crowd you had corralled away. It is the delay, as reported by bloggers and journalists that suggests to me that it was a all a bit ott.

      Why would you not let those members of the crowd that wanted to disperse, disperse? The editor of this blog was detained, albeit briefly and a Guardian journalist was held back until something like 11:00pm or so?

      On the question of the broken window, there is a longer shot where it is quite clear that it is the media that is basically encouraging the stupid twat to do what he did. At a guess there are twenty or thirty cameramen within a few yards of him. Should he have been arrested? Of ‘course he should, but incitement is a crime too and that ought to be investigated. It would be interesting to hear any audio tape from just before he made an idiot of himself.

      If we could all agree that CCTV was only going to be used in substantive cases, you’d get no arguement out of me.

      My keyboard has decided to go on the blink.

      Cheers

    42. Adrian Short — on 2nd April, 2009 at 6:02 pm  

      It doesn’t look like the police did very well in achieving either of their supposed twin aims yesterday: preventing lawbreaking and facilitating lawful protest.

      Assuming that the police are sincere in their second aim, they should be asked:

      - not to detain any groups of people larger than necessary for any longer than necessary and at a maximum, in extreme circumstances, for no longer than one hour

      - to account to the police authority their justification for temporarily detaining individuals on the street and their reasons for rejecting the alternatives

      - to ensure that all officers are identifiable at all times, having uncovered faces and clearly visible numbers

      As for the RBS branch that got trashed, perhaps some enterprising journalist could get hold of the manager and ask him why he considered the risk sufficiently low not to bother boarding the premises for the day, unlike just about every other business in the area.

      I mean, it’s not like the demonstration was expected or RBS could be considered a likely target.

      And yes, I hope the people who trashed RBS are caught and brought to book. It was mindless, self-indulgent vandalism that greatly undermined the vast majority of protesters.

    43. Sunny — on 2nd April, 2009 at 6:14 pm  

      yup, what Adrian said.

      cjcjc - cheers, awe agree on something!

    44. Bert Rustle — on 2nd April, 2009 at 6:32 pm  

      constableconfused 31 wrote … names and addresses can be taken with authorisation from a senior officer. …

      Is the interviewee entitled to be told which senior officer authorised the taking of their personal details and why? If not, why not?

      constableconfused 41 wrote … there is legislation … to lawfully require people to uncover their faces. …

      Yet many Police Officers have their faces obscured by helmets. So how is a MOP to know which Officer to report for good/bad behaviour? Is there a unique identifier on each helmet? Is each officer required to sign for a particular helmet, or is it personal kit?

      constableconfused 41 wrote … there are allowances made for Muslim females though before it starts. …

      It is not possible to determine the religion of an interviewee. Furthermore, by various ACPO rules/guidelines, it is for the interviewee to decide whether they are male or female. Indeed, if a seven foot and thirty stone individual demonstrates clad in a Burqa, then other by making forbidden stereotypical judgements on whether this self-announced female is too tall, too broad or a baritone, I do not see how the Police Officer could deem them to be in a disguise and forcibly unmask them.

    45. douglas clark — on 2nd April, 2009 at 6:33 pm  

      constableconfused,

      You probably won’t believe me but my keyboard really is jiggered! I do understand your position,’ but’ I’ can’ t discuss’ it’ with’ you’ with’ a brok,en’ k,eyboardl.’

      Yes,’ that’ is’ the’ crap’ I’ m’ seeing’ on’ my’ screenl.

    46. constableconfused — on 2nd April, 2009 at 6:54 pm  

      bert,

      yes the individual has the right to be told under which legislation they have been detained (not arrested note) and they can subsequently find out who authorised it. Half the officers if not more wouldn’t know who authorised it they would just be told it was in place. Not sure what legislation is in place, not there so can’t tell you

      Despite helmets, the officers WILL be clearly identifiable by collar numbers, not only will they be visible on their clothing they are plastered all over their NATO helmets.

      As for your last point surely you must agree that discretion (oops not allowed that anymore) must come into play. Also the type of demo/protest that is anticipated must have a bearing on how it is policed.

      douglas, ASDA, they are open 24 hours and you can G”t a n*w @ne for but!on5.

      Regards.

    47. dave bones — on 2nd April, 2009 at 7:00 pm  

      constableconfused,

      incidentally, as you are here like- we have this problem see. Its called Capitalism. It doesn’t work. Have you got any tips as to how we can go about changing it? How would you try and change it if you were us?

    48. fugstar — on 2nd April, 2009 at 7:05 pm  

      the rbs thing was over-covered.

      A life was lost yesterday, and i hope there is an investigation of how it came to be lost. callousness all around.

    49. constableconfused — on 2nd April, 2009 at 7:43 pm  

      dave bones, I personally hate politics. As far as I can see in my limited knowledge there is no-one to vote for who is going to make a change. I don’t know what the alternative to Capitalism is, it is so ingrained in society and this country that I can’t see it ever changing.

      To be perfectly honest I don’t care what society or environment we live in as long as we never experience the likes of Germany or Russia during the 30′s.(Both sides of the political spectrum covered there). I also don’t think that anarchy is the way forward.There has to be some sort of structure in order for society to even function. That structure has been eroded over the years by economic circumstances and poor leadership, see one of my old posts on my blog to see my views.

      Globalisation/Americanisation may not work but it is well established due to economics. As Anthony Giddens wrote in his summary “Runaway World” there are positive and negative points. Positive: Microsoft which you are no doubt using at the moment, Mcdonalds which we all eat and Disney which keeps our children happy. The negatives: when the powerbase for it all (America) grossly mismanages it’s finances and causes a world recession.

      That’s about the limit of my knowledge on economics and one must wonder if this is just an isolated occassion or whether it is just part of a cycle that has taken place since trade was first started in milleniums gone by. The 30 odd year cycle seems to have bitten again, recessions seem to be historical after golden years. We have been doing not too badly over the last few years. Then the rot started again with the NINJA loans in the US of A. How much money?
      I don’t know what the alternative is ……sorry. Sit tight and weather the storm is probably the only answer.
      fugstar, you are so right and no doubt there will be an investigation. Some of the more violent protesters chose to hinder the police whilst they tried to administer treatment causing him to be moved. There will definetely be an investigation into the conduct of the police the protesters who threw missiles at the them, not so sure.

      Regards.

    50. Bert Rustle — on 2nd April, 2009 at 8:00 pm  

      constableconfused 50, I thank you for your fullsome reply.

      constableconfused 50 wrote … you must agree that discretion (oops not allowed that anymore) must come into play. …

      I agree.

      However it appears to me that what we are now getting is politically motivated policing. For example, indigenous perpetrator, non-indigenous victim; a presumption of racism, other combinations not so.

      At the moment we have selective reporting by the Drive-By Media, selective law enforcement by the Police and selective prosecution by the CPS; the only time the Ruling Class do not have majority control is trial by jury.

      In addition, the Electorate is fragmenting. It can be argued that society presumes the existence of a Demos “… Democracy works within units whose citizens feel enough in common with each other to accept government from each other’s hands: that is, within nations. That is why the idea of representative government developed hand-in-hand with the idea of self-determination. A state can be a supra-national federation, or it can be an accountable democracy; it cannot be both. … Take the demos out of democracy and you are left only with the kratos: the power of a system that, unable to appeal to civic patriotism, must compel obedience by force of law. That is the true betrayal of Europe’s patrimony. … In my opinion the Demos in Britain is being fractured by the religion of Diversity and I would hazard a guess that we might end up with failed cities, as in the USA.

    51. douglas clark — on 2nd April, 2009 at 8:08 pm  

      constableconfused,

      Can I just say that - contrary to what you are saying at 53 - viz:

      Some of the more violent protesters chose to hinder the police whilst they tried to administer treatment causing him to be moved.

      The wider allegation is that protestors threw bottles at the Police. There are at least four civillian witnesses that say that that is not true.

      (No, my keyboard is not fixed and I will ‘swear’ in a minute, but this is too important to let go. It is like typing Chinese.)

      ‘Someone’ is lying.

      Were you there?

      Clarification would be good.

    52. Bert Rustle — on 2nd April, 2009 at 8:09 pm  

      dave bones 51 wrote … Capitalism. It doesn’t work. …

      It appears to me that selective law enforcement has precipitated this particular situation, which would be an issue under any financial regime, including (Inter)national Socialism. See http://market-ticker.denninger.net/

      Alternatively, according to http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice, this financial crisis is due to a lack of law enforcement, rather than inadequate law itself.

      … “The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. … recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform.[emphasis added] And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time.” …

    53. constableconfused — on 2nd April, 2009 at 8:10 pm  

      Mr rustle,

      as you are aware all of your comments are true. Some of your post I will need to read up on, I’ll be honest and say I don’t know. Please read one of my former older posts titled “Our own worst enemy”. That should explain my feelings on the politically motivated policing.

      I also have a post called “My beliefs are confirmed” which should cover the Electorate issue.

      To be blunt the whole country needs picking up by it’s ears and given a bloody good shake. Who knows what would fall off and go back to where it came from and who knows what would remain.

      Regards.

    54. douglas clark — on 2nd April, 2009 at 8:14 pm  

      Constableconfused,

      Can I also say they should promote you in the fast track?

    55. Don — on 2nd April, 2009 at 8:15 pm  

      Bert,

      Pedantic point, did you really mean fullsome? That’s harsh.

    56. constableconfused — on 2nd April, 2009 at 8:18 pm  

      douglas,

      no I wasn’t there. No-one requests us unless it all goes pear shaped after an incident at G8.

      My comment was based on early press coverage from Sky news reporters who were constantly updating on twitter via the news site. It was said yesterday that officers were alerted by protesters to the gents state and went to see. Then again today there are reports that his demise was caused by the police. I don’t know what the truth is to be honest, do you?

      Regards.

    57. Bert Rustle — on 2nd April, 2009 at 8:51 pm  

      constableconfused 57, A link for your blog?

      Don 52, I wrote fullsome, not fulsome. Don 52 is neither, constableconfused 50 is the former. The distinction is made on a recent comment on Ian Dale’s blog. I would appreciate a search of the comments. For the avoidance of doubt, I thank constableconfused for addressing the points I raised in some detail.

      I am glad to see that you do give an “l”.

    58. douglas clark — on 2nd April, 2009 at 8:57 pm  

      Oh I don’t know.

      Pedantic point too. But we are all taking Constableconfused as a real person. Not sure I buy it.

      Is it not, forsooth, at least possible that a civillian would claim a title like that?

      Perhaps for nefarious reasons?

      It is up to our chum Constableconfused to provide his true identity, is it not? An accurate badge number would be enough, don’t you think?

      To save us from worry….

    59. constableconfused — on 2nd April, 2009 at 9:03 pm  

      You will never get a collar number from me, why? Follow the link

      http://constableconfused.blogspot.com/

      I wouldn’t go down too well with the grown-ups. Read it, as someone says on other blogs, you really couldn’t make it up.

      BTW must have posted too much on this as it is asking for verification now. Enough to say my force identifier has a 0 in it and my collar number is 4 long and has a 2 in it.

      Regards.

    60. dave bones — on 2nd April, 2009 at 9:11 pm  

      constableconfused-

      ha ha That was a serious answer. I wasn’t expecting that. See the guy top left CO5494 Ian Skivens?

      I asked him what it would take to get the Police on side the last time he went through my pockets and he said “Longer holidays and bigger truncheons”.

    61. constableconfused — on 2nd April, 2009 at 9:28 pm  

      Before I get bizzed again here is the link

      http://constableconfused.blogspot.com/

    62. dave bones — on 2nd April, 2009 at 9:30 pm  

      Seriously tho I am not into all this “police state” and “Our civil liberties have been eroded” nonsense. People should try anywhere else just across the channel onwards, but having said that I have met the same Policemen over the years who are behaving a bit power crazed these days. Its not doing them any good.

      Its because well to do middle class people are now protesting and brush up against these guys that we get to hear about it.

      I mean, the Police were allegedly breaking down doors and smashing everything in Rampart st last night but we don’t get to hear about that.

      I’ve seen good and bad on both sides over the years.
      As a tactic for the cameras this Environmentalists holding up their hands seems to work. Like you say, there is no alternative you can vote for. I have been jaded by protest for a long time, but watching the BBC doco recently about motorways and road protesting I could see that a few people really went out on a limb there - and it made a difference.

    63. douglas clark — on 2nd April, 2009 at 9:51 pm  

      Dave Bones

      Why are you answering a post that ain’t there?

      Dave Bones, could you try to get your head out your ass, next time you try to call me out? ‘N at least play the reality ball?

    64. douglas clark — on 2nd April, 2009 at 9:59 pm  

      Bert,

      You do you find this a touch confusing>?

    65. dave bones — on 2nd April, 2009 at 10:42 pm  

      Call you out? I wasn’t addressing you in anyway whatsoever. I was addressing the constable so you can take your head out of your ass mate.

    66. dave bones — on 2nd April, 2009 at 10:58 pm  

      Looking at this you are right actually. I thought the confused constable answered me but I miss read someone elses reply as his. Now I am confused, but whoever the constable is whether real or not the blog is here.

    67. Don — on 2nd April, 2009 at 11:02 pm  

      #53

      I know what you wrote. I was referring to it.

      FULL’SOME, a. Gross; disgusting by plainness, grossness or excess; as fullsome flattery or praise.

      (Webster)

      fulsome,
      Offensive to normal tastes or sensibilities; exciting aversion or repugnance; disgusting, repulsive, odious. ? Obs. exc. as in sense 7.

      c1375 Sc. Leg. Saints, Julian 496 Of his wykytnes at fulsume til al gud-men wes. ?a1400 Morte Arth. 1061 There thow lygges, ffor the fulsomeste freke that fourmede was euere! 1532 MORE Confut. Tindale Wks. 713/2 Tindall..with hys fulsome feeling fayth. 1579 TOMSON Calvin’s Serm. Tim. 464/2 It is a foule and fulsome thing, whiche shee must leaue off. 1611 COTGR. s.v. Robin, A filthie knaue with a fulsome queane. 1635 QUARLES Embl. III. ii. (1718) 133 Seest thou this fulsom ideot? c1645 HOWELL Lett. (1650) I. 188 A phlegmatic dull wife is fulsome and fastidious. 1680 OTWAY Orphan I. i. (1691) 3 Now half the Youth of Europe are in Arms, How fulsome must it be to stay behind, And dye of rank diseases here at home? 1684 SIR C. SCROPE Misc. Poems 112 Let not his fulsome armes embrace your waste. 1702 POPE Wife of Bath 173 Fulsom love for gain we can endure. 1780 COWPER Progr. Err. 291 And lest the fulsome artifice should fail, Themselves will hide its coarseness with a veil. 1819 W. TENNANT Papistry Storm’d (1827) 29 Have at a fousome kirk, and batter Her lustfu’ banes untill they clatter! 1826 SCOTT Woodst. iii, In a booth at the fulsome fair.

      (OED)

      I have no idea what Ian Dale’s opinion is, I really don’t care. Ful(l)some does not mean complete or comprehensive.

    68. Don — on 2nd April, 2009 at 11:07 pm  

      Douglas,

      But we are all taking Constableconfused as a real person.

      I’ll take anyone on their own estimation until they give me reason to think otherwise.

    69. KT1 — on 3rd April, 2009 at 2:28 am  

      People who excuse police brutality in Britain by saying that da cops in France or Italy or Germany are much worse should remove their heads from their a-holes and shut the fuck up. Just ‘cos it’s done in the continent doesn’t mean it’s okay here.

    70. KT1 — on 3rd April, 2009 at 3:33 am  

      Stupid right-wing twat blames Sunny for the police violence:

      http://www.lettersfromatory.com/2009/04/02/sunny-hundal-is-to-blame-for-g20-violence/

    71. douglas clark — on 3rd April, 2009 at 4:32 am  

      constableconfused,

      Re 54,

      Apologies all round,

      As Don says everyone should be assumed to be who they say they are. Liquid / keyboard issue appears to have resolved itself, sanity restored.

      Dave bones, apologies to you too. You have no idea how frustrating it is to have a keyboard that won’t type what you want it to and only lets you type what it wants to let you. Least, I assume you don’t :-)

      New rule, for me anyway: Frustration (with keyboard) leads to aggression - when none is called for.

      I’d like to return to this subject, mainly because I think the way the guy that died has been treated is a disgrace to his memory. He has been treated as a cypher by both sides.

      On the one hand, the Police have claimed that they were attacked by protesters when they were attempting to resucitate him. On the other, there are protestors saying he was killed by a Police baton.

      The only evidence that appears to be neutral and accurate, says that the police were not attacked and that the poor chap died of natural causes.

      Which was my point at 49, before I started hitting my keyboard in an aggressive and frustrated manner.

    72. douglas clark — on 3rd April, 2009 at 5:28 am  

      Sunny,

      Following on from Dave Bones post at 60, I checked in at constable confused. Where I found this:

      Never been classed as spam before.

      How constructive prose can be classed as such beggars belief. This site has deemed me thus and only allowed persons who follow a certain belief to post. Ah well, they claim that free speech is no longer allowed and decry anyone who believes otherwise.

      There are people there who have engaged in constructive argument but the administrator(s) say no.

      Never mind eh.

      I’m pretty sure that that is not the case, and I have apologised for questioning identity. But, given the generally open nature of this site, constable confused seems to have a wider issue than just me.

      What say you?

    73. Bert Rustle — on 3rd April, 2009 at 5:32 am  

      Don 61 I referred to a comment by Alex at https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6214838&postID=885265880295773515 not to an opinion of Ian Dale.

      According to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fulsome

      1 a: characterized by abundance
      1 b: generous in amount, extent, or spirit
      2: aesthetically, morally, or generally offensive

      I had presumed that fullsome gave sense 1 and fulsome sense 2.

      The distinction I make at Bert Rustle 53 is erroneous, as is the spelling in Bert Rustle 48.

      I thank you for highlighting this.

    74. douglas clark — on 3rd April, 2009 at 6:36 am  

      Bert,

      Is this an arguement that you are having that makes sense to both Don and you? ‘Cause it ain’t transparent to me.

      I think, however, that what you said @ 48 is nearer the truth than I’d like it to be.

      Though your examples are crap. The indigenous / non-indigenous arguement you make could, and is, regularily, turned on it’s head.

      What I would like to argue is that the media sucks up to whatever the political elite sets as the agenda, of a Tuesday, or a Wednesday. Whatever they say is seen as true, for a day…..

      The weather is changeable.

    75. Bert Rustle — on 3rd April, 2009 at 6:42 am  

      douglas clark 68 wrote … Though your examples are crap. …

      I look forward to improved examples from others.

    76. douglas clark — on 3rd April, 2009 at 7:00 am  

      Bert,

      Not playing.

      Just referring back to your very interesting post at 48. You quote Demos thusly:

      Take the demos out of democracy and you are left only with the kratos: the power of a system that, unable to appeal to civic patriotism, must compel obedience by force of law.

      Really? Is that what Kratos actually means?

      Why is that also the name of the Mets’ shoot to kill policy? As per Jean Charles de Menezes?

      It is quite worrying that our shoot to kill policy is based on some Oxfordonian Greek scholar.

      Just saying.

    77. constableconfused — on 3rd April, 2009 at 8:22 am  

      It’s let me back, douglas your apology was appreciated though unnecessary. I was trying to reply but got bizzed,as did all my posts. I haven’t got any issues with
      you or the site itself. I dislike tinned meat products filters though.

      Regards.

    78. Rumbold — on 3rd April, 2009 at 9:33 am  

      Sorry Constable Confused- you were caught in the spam filter.

      Sunny:

      But how should the police deal with individual demonstrators throwing things at them, when there is a mass of people?

    79. douglas clark — on 3rd April, 2009 at 10:13 am  

      constable confused,

      I am glad to see you back. Which was the point of this entire little escapade.

      As Rumbold says, folk do get caught in the Spam Filter, though your comment about not liking tinned meat products was quite funny.

      Anyway, anything else to say? That we missed, maybe?

      You will, probably, get an arguement, what you won’t get, from most of us at least, is any abuse.

    80. damon — on 3rd April, 2009 at 10:24 am  

      I’ve been told that a lot of people on this website don’t like the Spiked website, but I found their take on the G20 protests well worth a read.
      http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6422/

      From the article:

      ”Yesterday’s anti-capitalist protest in London was a half-hearted ritual of pretend-rage and pseudo-concern. ‘Concerned of Tunbridge Wells’ was elbowed aside by ‘Angry of Brighton’ in a shallow display of second-hand militancy.

      What was really striking about the G20-related demonstrations against ‘capitalism and climate chaos’ – which took place outside the Bank of England and elsewhere in London – was the extent to which the opportunistic coalition of protesting moral crusaders represented a going-through-the-motions activism; they weren’t so much representing a cause as searching for one.”

    81. douglas clark — on 3rd April, 2009 at 10:30 am  

      Rumbold,

      But how should the police deal with individual demonstrators throwing things at them, when there is a mass of people?

      (And I, at least owe all of this to Leon. Off line joke.)

      The police, I would suggest to you, should identify the idiot throwing things or attacking them and arrest them. There is video footage of some tit actually attacking the police (with a big stick or somesuch). I’d have thought that he was exposed enough to be arrested. Sure, it doesn’t deal with mob violence. And I’m frankly a bit close to Dave Bones when he says that street fighting is a waste of time and effort. Though quite how you otherwise disrupt stuff, I’ll leave to him.

    82. constableconfused — on 3rd April, 2009 at 10:46 am  

      Sorry got no time today, got to get ready to go to work.

      Just off to don my fascist, bully-boy pawn of the state head. Must remember to remove all opinion, must remember to remove all opinion, must remember to remove all zzzzzzzzzzzz.

      Regards hope to be able to join you all again soon.

    83. Ravi Naik — on 3rd April, 2009 at 11:00 am  

      In my opinion the Demos in Britain is being fractured by the religion of Diversity and I would hazard a guess that we might end up with failed cities, as in the USA.

      Bert, I am not sure what kind of diversity you feel is threatening our democracy, but the fact that you cited Richard Lynn as a credible scholar in a previous thread on Indians and their IQ, keeps me wondering.

      What we see right now has nothing to do with diversity, but the fact that a group of people from the far-left feel disfranchised. Personally, I feel that these demonstrations would have some value if they managed to persuade the general public about their issues. I see them having the opposite effect. I suspect most people feel the same way.

    84. Rumbold — on 3rd April, 2009 at 11:03 am  

      Douglas:

      But what if the police and protestors were facing off against one another, and bottles were being thrown from within the crowd. How would the police identify and then get to the individuals in order to arrest them? I am sorry, but I do think that other protestors need to take more responsibility, otherwise they can’t really complain if the police react when things are being thrown at them (I wouldn’t stand for it if people were chucking bottles at me because they disagreed with a country’s fiscal policy).

    85. damon — on 3rd April, 2009 at 11:37 am  

      About post #74: … I have been thinking about this myself - about how the police should POLICE the demonstration. (Meaning, control it).
      In Germany where they don’t have ticket barriers on their S-bhan and U-bhan trains (and their is a great tempetation to travel with out a ticket) - when the ticket inspectors get on a ask to see your ticket, you tell your friends how you got ”controlled” on the way home (and if you didn’t have a ticket, it’s a bit of a pain in the ass situation).

      I was wondering that instead of this rather rotten police tactic of holding demonstrators against their will (and thereby wrecking every decent thing about the democratic right to protest) - that they should have just deployed officers loosely about The City, and then just responded to particular criminal incidents. I drove arond the edge of the city yesterday, and saw groups of police standing about at tube stations and at places like the Old Street roundabout. Ready, I’m sure to respond to any incidents nearby them.

      So a group of anarchists go inside a McDonald’s - and you have a few police standing about outside just to make sure a breach of the peace doesn’t occur.
      (Is that how it should have been done??) To allow the people who were trapped inside the unpleasant police cordon to just walk (and protest) along Fenchurch Street, and Cheapside, and Moorgate at will?

      Would following their every turn and reporting the meanderings of small groups about The City during the course of the day, be deememed oppressive surveilance?
      (Heaven forbid …. even dogedly following them about?)

      Would it be OK for the police to be really suspicious of a group of a hundred demonstrators just wandering up and down at will, when there was an occasional window broken, or a slight confrontation between them and some City workers out on their lunch breaks at the Pret A Manger?

      I say all this, as I don’t really know the answer myself. Are the protesters themselves the architects of their own repression? (Because of their silly ”culture” of protesting?)

      The strongest protests I have seen (on TV) in recent years have been in Spain after an Eta attack in Barcelona, where thousands of people just turned up and stood silently.
      (And I think for the Madrid bombs too, and how they did it in Northen Ireland in the last few weeks.)

    86. douglas clark — on 3rd April, 2009 at 11:37 am  

      Rumbold,

      Yes and no, sort of. I don’t think that every person that is in a group thinks the same thing. I, for instance, am not too sure what fiscal policy actually is.

      However, I’d always reserve the right to protest, and probably riot, if the cause was just. Otherwise you are just subservient, ain’t you?

      What are you exactly? Libertarians ought to be a bit nearer the anarchist end of the spectrum rather than wannabe Tories :-)

    87. Amrit — on 3rd April, 2009 at 11:41 am  

      marvin:

      The French SRS would be beating the shit out of protestors.

      You mean the CRS. And yes, I was warned in my first year at university that if I ever came into contact with them in France, to ‘run.’ Crikey!

      Rumbold:

      How would the police identify and then get to the individuals in order to arrest them?

      Well, they could - and, I really think should - have asked the individuals responsible to come forward instead of punishing the whole crowd. The thing that bothered me here is that the coverage of the protests keeps disintegrating into ‘us’ vs ‘them’: protestors vs police, ‘ordinary hard-working Londoners/Britons’ vs the protestors… That’s not the way to do it.

      I think Sunny has a point about the police being confused. They really should’ve worked with the protestors, rather than against them, to weed out the troublemakers. It’s the only way.

      From his article, it also seems that bottles were thrown after the police decided to hem everyone in. Which goes back to what I just said.

      Any resentment to do with the financial crisis was now being added to by a sense of injustice towards the police – at one point, it felt the reason we were there had been swallowed altogether. The police, in short, were making things worse.

      This is exactly what you want to avoid. The police unified the protestors against them by acting without thinking things through properly. The protestors felt victimised and didn’t give up the troublemakers among them as they should have.

      We’ve seen this problem time and time again. The police seem confused about their role. They are not there to control the protesters – they are there to manage and safeguard them.

      Sadly Sunny, I can imagine the MSM saying ‘But isn’t ‘manage’ another word for ‘control’?

      I’d hope that the govt won’t encourage policing to take such a Daily-Mail-style approach in future, and that protestors will also use their brains, as you said, and take the Climate Camp approach. One can but hope.

    88. Rumbold — on 3rd April, 2009 at 12:23 pm  

      Good suggestions from Damon about alternative forms of police control.

      Douglas:

      Well, I unreservedly support the right of people to protest peacefully. Throwing bottles and suchlike at people doesn’t constitute peaceful protest for libertarians, so that is when the mark is overstepped.

      Amrit:

      “Well, they could - and, I really think should - have asked the individuals responsible to come forward instead of punishing the whole crowd.”

      They could have. No-one would have come forward though.

      “This is exactly what you want to avoid. The police unified the protestors against them by acting without thinking things through properly. The protestors felt victimised and didn’t give up the troublemakers among them as they should have.”

      Well, we know that certain groups were already planning a confrontation with police. While the police could have handled things better, and while the cordon evidently didn’t work (I am liking Damon’s idea more and more), more protestors need to remember that the justness of the cause (just in their opinion) doesn’t entitle them to behave how they like.

      I agree with you that too many people have turned this into an ‘us’ and ‘them’ situation, including, sadly, Sunny. We need to re-iterate our support for peaceful protest, while condemning bad behaviour by both the police and protestors.

    89. MaidMarian — on 3rd April, 2009 at 12:48 pm  

      Rumbold (80) - ‘protestors need to remember that the justness of the cause (just in their opinion) doesn’t entitle them to behave how they like.’

      Agreed, but to my mind it goes a bit deeper than that and the organisers of these protests should have a bit of a think.

      There is a diffrence, subtle I know, between protest and anger. Protest is those that genuinely believe and will live out the cause etc. Anger is rent-a-mob.

      It seems to me that since the STW/FFP protests organisers have seen numbers of boots on the ground, rather than depth of belief, as most important. This has led to a tendency to tap into and reinforce (some would say stoke) anger in order to get people out.

      For this reason, a million people marched in London for STW/FFP yet they all went home then voted Labour, or at least not for an anti-war candidate, in 2005. The anger rises, people get it off their chest and it dissipates.

      By hawking the cause of ‘anti-capitalism’ to every disaffected person in Europe, a real hostage to fortune was held out in terms of attracting those looking to violence. Worse though it made for a less than satisfactory protest with a very mixed message - not helped by the conflation of anti-capitalist and green causes.

      Protestors probably do realise that being a protestor does not give carte blance, but if the angry know that they don’t care. Tapping into anger may get boots on the ground, but, I posit, little else other than work journalists into a lather.

      Protestors care about the justness of the cause - the angry look for a stalking horse. Protestors really should go and dwell on the messages they give out. Is boots on the ground really all that matters?

    90. Sunny — on 3rd April, 2009 at 12:49 pm  

      But how should the police deal with individual demonstrators throwing things at them, when there is a mass of people?

      Rumbold - that question, to me, is a bit like asking - how should a man defend himself if a woman hits back after being beaten?

      They shouldn’t be kettling people in in the first place.

    91. Rumbold — on 3rd April, 2009 at 2:36 pm  

      Constable:

      Apologies once again. Hopefully you won’t keep getting caught.

      MaidMarian:

      I do think that protestors also need to think about how protests are framed. People complained bitterly about how the anti-war march was ignored in 2003, yet when the Countryside Alliance marched at a later date and attracted hundreds of thousands, it was dismissed as a ‘toffs’ protest’. So why should one have been listened to and not the other?

      Excellent point about the difference between anger and protest. The best thing protestors can do is to live their lives as closely as possible with the values they espouse.

      Sunny:

      “Rumbold - that question, to me, is a bit like asking - how should a man defend himself if a woman hits back after being beaten?”

      That is pretty crass. There is a world of difference (not that I agree with police tactics). So what you are saying is that violence against the police is justified if they behave in a way you disapprove of?

      I remember once when Millwall fans went on a riot (I forget the cause) and threw paving slabs at police as a form of ‘self-defence’.

    92. Sunny — on 3rd April, 2009 at 3:18 pm  

      So what you are saying is that violence against the police is justified if they behave in a way you disapprove of?

      I don’t approve of violence against the police, but they started antagonising and haranguing and trapping perfectly innocent protestors. Why shouldn’t the onus of the blame lie on them first?

    93. Leon — on 3rd April, 2009 at 3:20 pm  

      Rumbold,

      Genuine question, how many actual protests have you been on?

      The reason I ask is all your points appear to based on incredibly naive/inexperienced assumptions.

    94. damon — on 3rd April, 2009 at 3:58 pm  

      Rumbold: my ”suggestions and ideas” about how the police should police demonstrations like wednesday’s were (I thought) deliberately half baked.

      If the police had sat back and allowed protesters (perhaps twice as many who actually turned up on the day) to wander freely - it could have been wilder - as who really knew what the numbers would be??
      To just wander about down Fenchurch Street, over on Cheapside, and up Moorgate … at will, with the police control room in Lambeth trying to keep up with every move and turn, and for them to relay that information back to officers on the ground …?
      It sound to me that the heavy handed ”kettling” tactic (which I think sucks), would be giving up tactical superority.

      The City of London Police Force usually controls eveything that happens within their jurisdiction.
      Maybe their ”not in my back yard” attitude had influence here.

    95. Rumbold — on 3rd April, 2009 at 4:05 pm  

      Sunny and Leon:

      Hang on. I am not saying that the police shouldn’t shoulder some (maybe most) of the blame for what happened. But as far as I can tell most attempts to excuse protestors’ bad behaviour falls under the catagory of ‘they did it to us as well’, which strikes me as a very childish attitude.

      I never claimed to be a veteran protestor. I am unsure of the impact of marching on issues I wish to change, and would rather try and influence those around me and set an example, as I believe that is more effective. Take the environment. Those protesting about almost certainly didn’t effect the discussions. Yet some (maybe most?) of those people flew last year for non-essential reasons. I have not flown in the past year (and don’t own a motor vehicle), but didn’t go on the protest. So who has done more to help the environment, me or a protestor who goes on airplanes? The former I think.

    96. Sunny — on 3rd April, 2009 at 4:10 pm  

      I have not flown in the past year (and don’t own a motor vehicle), but didn’t go on the protest. So who has done more to help the environment, me or a protestor who goes on airplanes? The former I think.

      Hey, dude, I’m not doubting your sincerity at all. You may be right wing and libertarian, but you are a good egg. :)

      But a movement always has different people who do different things. Your actions are as important as those of the protesters. You’re just fulfilling different roles.

    97. douglas clark — on 3rd April, 2009 at 4:14 pm  

      I don’t fall for the ‘hate the Police’ stuff either. But there are times when they are pretty damn irritating. But is not your average PC. It is coming from the Cressida Dick and above level. That much should be obvious, I’d have thought.

    98. douglas clark — on 3rd April, 2009 at 4:25 pm  

      Anyway,

      Rumbold is my best friend on this internet thingy.

      Just saying.

    99. Ravi Naik — on 3rd April, 2009 at 5:53 pm  

      As usual we’re seeing a lot of keyboard warriors chiming in here with no real world experience of policing or radical protest.

      Genuine question, how many actual protests have you been on?

      The reason I ask is all your points appear to based on incredibly naive/inexperienced assumptions.

      I am sure you have a stupendous experience that most of us do not have. However, while I don’t disagree with Sunny that the police deserves to be blamed, I feel that Rumbold’s observation is both pertinent and balanced.

    100. fugstar — on 3rd April, 2009 at 6:30 pm  

      the marches did acheive some things, people on them, who beleive know this best.

      Gave people like susan george a greater audience.
      Was a platform for a sterling climate camp.
      Gave the 6 billion ways people more exposure.
      Gave the demo paparazzi a way to earn money by amplifying the uglier sector.
      It showed the g20 summit to be the party of the callous powerful that it was.
      Established Mark Thomas as a regular protest feature.
      Gave the evening standard a chance to lose credibility by showing it to be a scaremongering conjob.
      And finally and most compellingly, it strengthened the resolve of the orgs and individuals involved for next time.
      Too many people expect too much from these gigs, this isnt france.
      Next time i hope that variety of demonstration doesnt water down the potency. By having so many things going on, surface area was maximised, but this left us all vulnerable to police imprisonment and control

    101. dave bones — on 3rd April, 2009 at 6:36 pm  

      Well I have been on shit loads of protests for years and I don’t think it is as simple as one side is right the other wrong. If I go to a protest I go because it is my right to protest. I am not responsible for or beholden to the behaviour of anyone else. I have seen things which have worked and things which haven’t over the years.

      I think a low point was someone running past me with blood on his face shouting “We are doing this for you!”

      No-YOU-FUCKIN-AREN’T-MATE.

      You may know all this already-

      The STWC work with the Police when planning and opperating their protests. The Police as a rule always say that they would rather work with protest groups than not. As far as I know, and if anyone knows better they can correct me, no one from Reclaim the Streets back in the day and certainly no anarchists work with the Police on protest organisation, which deems a lot of their protest illegal and frees the Police up to use more laws against protesters.

      I don’t know if the climate change protesters work with the Police or not, but I would imagine that they don’t. I am not advocating one way or the other. There is an award winning BBC doco about Brian, King Arthur and the guys working with the Police and English heritage on the “managed access” Stonehenge policy. Well worth watching

    102. Leon — on 3rd April, 2009 at 6:55 pm  

      So who has done more to help the environment, me or a protestor who goes on airplanes?

      That’s not my point, my point is your view of the police in this situation does not look credible given it’s not based on substantial experience.

      When you’ve seen the tactics up close you would have a different opinion.

      And this isn’t a partisan thing, those Countryside Alliance protesters had a wake up a couple years back in Westminster when they experienced the police in a protest situation.

    103. Shamit — on 3rd April, 2009 at 8:49 pm  

      The entire world media called them “loonies” and I don’t know what was achieved by these so called protests. I thought the G20 summit was important and if people wanted to make their voices heard — there are ways.

      What were they trying to achieve through the protests? If they wanted to submit a memoranda or a wish list to the G20 — they could have. And they could have done that couple of days ago and they could have peacefully marched and got that done. And guess what that would have still generated press coverage albeit better ones -

      I thought and believe that G20 actually achieved more than most expected and it was a good thing. So what the hell were they protesting about? could someone explain that to me please?

    104. dave bones — on 3rd April, 2009 at 9:11 pm  

      CAPITALISM. They are against it.

    105. MaidMarian — on 3rd April, 2009 at 9:24 pm  

      ‘So what the hell were they protesting about?’

      What have you got?

    106. Shamit — on 4th April, 2009 at 1:01 am  

      Why is anyone surprised that the police tried to localise the protest and not let it spill over? There were 20 Heads of State and/or Government - their finance ministers and heads of Central Banks. And all of them were in Central London on 1st April.

      Would it have been better if the police failed to localise the problem and it spilled over and say US Secret Service or Russian or Indian or whomever killed someone or fired upon the protest because they felt they posed a threat to their principal?

      Yeah that would have been brilliant isn’t it. Police brutality my ass -

    107. dave bones — on 4th April, 2009 at 1:36 am  

      The Police didn’t try to localise the protest. They are experimenting with what they call “kettling” as a way to minimise protest. Hold people in a space until they are uncomfortable and have to piss in the street and next time, maybe they won’t come back. Simple.

      Years and years ago they experimented with a process called “The FIT squad”. They photographed people who were violent then circulated pictures of these people and tried to arrest them next time they saw them. By and large this worked, especially with football violence.

      They turned this tactic on anarchist protests. People I knew at the time who were living their lives for the next opportunity to have a ruck with the cops DID’NT COME BACK. The process worked. I don’t miss them as I am not living my life for the next ruck with someone in uniform. I am AGAINST CAPITALISM. These Police are a looming aggresive DISTRACTION.

      Capitalism is still here. It doesn’t work for the majority. What do you want to do about it?

    108. dave bones — on 4th April, 2009 at 1:48 am  

      As an aside, some people I know are critisizing Russel Brand for turning up. Personally I am really pleased he hasn’t severed his freak roots. As far as I can see the guy is still the freak he always was when he used to pop down and protest before he was famous and its good to see he is still on side.

      I think the idea he had this time of hiring bouncers to protect him is truly inspired. If all the anarchists saved up their pennies and hired three bouncers each next time to protect them they could kettle the Police no? This is the way forward! Cheers Russell!

    109. dave bones — on 4th April, 2009 at 2:05 am  

      To add something positive- Here you go. As a tactic this will work in the long term. Peaceful protest about climate change, when the Police rush you, put your hands in the air. This will eventually reach TV, without a doubt. These guys are right about climate change, people in uniform are wrong to steam roller them. Well done climate camp.

    110. Bert Rustle — on 4th April, 2009 at 7:46 am  

      douglas clark 76 wrote … You quote Demos thusly … I quote Richard North.

      Ravi Naik 83 wrote … what kind of diversity you feel is threatening our democracy …

      I have never knowingly expressed my feelings to you. If you can find the time to specifically address one or more of the many posts I have made at this site then I will endeavour to find the time to reply.

      Ravi Naik 83 wrote … the fact that you cited Richard Lynn as a credible scholar … In which ways is he not credible? Please be precise.

      Ravi Naik 83 wrote … What we see right now has nothing to do with diversity … Please substantiate this statement, preferably with logical deductions drawn from the statistical analysis of empirical data. Or am I to infer a prefix of “Personally, I feel [that]”?

    111. Rumbold — on 4th April, 2009 at 9:02 am  

      Thanks Sunny, Douglas and Ravi. I am glad that we can debate and still be happy.

      Leon- As I said before, I don’t have an immense amount of experience, and I don’t think that the police are angels. But I do think it is important to look at the faults of both ‘sides’.

    112. Rumbold — on 4th April, 2009 at 9:40 am  

      To expand on my previous point, I can see that protest can have a part to play in raising awreness of an issue. But it is almost impossible in most cases to judge the real impact of a protest. What we do know is that our own actions can have an impact. So if every environmentalist (including Al Gore) made an effort to reduce their own carbon emissions, there would be a drop in worldwide carbon emissions, which is what the protestors are asking for.

    113. Ravi Naik — on 4th April, 2009 at 10:01 am  

      Ravi Naik 83 wrote … the fact that you cited Richard Lynn as a credible scholar … In which ways is he not credible? Please be precise.

      1) The work you cited to make the point that Indians in this country are of lower calibre than whites, was not peer-reviewed. This means Richard Lynn pretty much published his work without anyone evaluating the quality of his research. This amounts to zero credibility in the scientific community.

      2) How did he managed to publish? Well, he is funded by the Pioneer Fund. What is so controversial about this group? Here is a profile of this foundation, and here is an article that gives you a wider picture of who these people are.

      3) But at the end of day, it doesn’t matter if you are funded by an anti-immigration, pro-eugenics organisation. What it matters is the quality of your research. Here is one review of Richard Lynn’s book by Professor N.J. Mackintosh (Emeritus Professor of Experimental Psychology in the University of Cambridge). I hope you read it from beginning to the end.

    114. Bert Rustle — on 4th April, 2009 at 11:41 am  

      Ravi Naik 113 wrote … The work you cited to make the point that Indians in this country are of lower calibre than whites, was not peer-reviewed. …

      Though you do not cite a particular comment of mine, I seem to remember that I have cited a table in said book which lists various empirical studies of ISC individuals resident in the UK. I would hazard a guess that many of said studies were peer reviewed. Do you have the link to the comment to which you refer?

      Ravi Naik 113 wrote … This means Richard Lynn pretty much published his work without anyone evaluating the quality of his research. … Please see immediately above.

      Ravi Naik 113 wrote … But at the end of day, it doesn’t matter if you are funded by an anti-immigration, pro-eugenics organisation. … Or the SPLC or indeed the Stalin-Hitler memorial fund. In my opinion.

      Ravi Naik 113 wrote … What it matters is the quality of your research. … I agree.

      Ravi Naik 113 wrote … Here is one review of Richard Lynn’s book by Professor N.J. Mackintosh …

      From said review … Much labour has gone into this book. But I fear it is the sort of book that gives IQ testing a bad name. As a source of references, it will be useful to some. As a source of information, it should be treated with some suspicion. On the other hand, Lynn’s preconceptions are so plain, and so pungently expressed, that many readers will be suspicious from the outset. …

      I agree.

      A later version of said book, namely IQ and Global Inequality has attracted numerous reviews. One which is both easy to read and to download, by Michael A. McDaniel Professor - Human Resources and Organizational Behavior, Department of Management, School of Business, Virginia Commonwealth University can be found here

      I would encourage you to read it from beginning to the end.

      In my opinion, we are both to be congragulated: you for taking this thread so far off topic and me for following you!

    115. Shamit — on 4th April, 2009 at 12:19 pm  

      “Capitalism is still here. It doesn’t work for the majority. What do you want to do about it?”

      Go around the world mate — and I have done that extensively over the past decade and a half. And based on experience and knowledge from International Development folks in various UN agencies, NGOs and Governments — I am sorry to say it has made lives better for millions of people worldwide.

      However, what it has failed to do is create equal opportunities and that is got nothing to do with capitalism but cronyism and corruption and lack of vision among leaders of various nations.

      Writing of capitalism is completely off the wall and actually has no basis. Regulators failed to do what they were supposed to do. And that was a big failure. Those who failed to regulate Should now be allowed to run things. I think not.

      What makes you think that the Government is any better equipped to run companies especially after the experiences in the 60- 70s. Arthur Scargill was much more of a despot than Margaret Thatcher — he never allowed a free vote.

      So, I would like to understand what is your beef with Capitalism and what do you suggest we replace it?

    116. dave bones — on 4th April, 2009 at 12:42 pm  

      Ha ha I can’t disagree with a lot of what you say Shamit. Since you asked- I am not sure there is a system which will physically replace capitalism. I sort of believe in evolution itself. Outmoded concepts fall away and are replaced by systems which work better. I have thought for a long time now that there is going to be a global shift in conciousness towards a more responsible society.

      I am aware that when you start to believe things you start to see justifications for these beliefs. I am seeing them in the consumer push for fair trade, even in Jamie Olivers focus on feeding kids. Also 24 hour media, this blogging sort of stuff is an evolution of conciousness in some ways.

      I don’t know that this is going to happen, it might be pie in the sky. I just have a hunch which keeps me going. If I can be a part of it in some small way it is worth a go as I am going to die one day.

    117. Shamit — on 4th April, 2009 at 12:51 pm  

      Dave

      I agree with you too. And I believe in it too.. And I am sure all of our contributions do make a difference -

    118. sonia — on 4th April, 2009 at 1:24 pm  

      well said Sunny.

      ridiculous that the politicians and government bemoan political apathy then sit back while the police treat those who do want to have their say - like criminals, troublemakers, naughty children.

      and ridiculous that class consciousness is brought into play - ‘oh those protestors are middle-class kids’ (daily-mail)

    119. douglas clark — on 4th April, 2009 at 1:47 pm  

      Sonia,

      Yup.

      It ain’t all fine,

      in 2009.

    120. Ravi Naik — on 4th April, 2009 at 1:53 pm  

      “Though you do not cite a particular comment of mine, I seem to remember that I have cited a table in said book which lists various empirical studies of ISC individuals resident in the UK. I would hazard a guess that many of said studies were peer reviewed.”

      Even if all the studies cited were peer-reviewed, it matters how they interpreted their data. In fact, N.J. Mackintosh in his review says:

      “Even if we wanted the data, can we rely on Lynn to have given an accurate account of them? I do not pretend to have read the originals of more than a handful of the papers and books cited by Lynn, but it just so happens that I wrote two of them myself, and Lynn has simply got their data wrong..

      Ouch!

      A later version of said book, namely IQ and Global Inequality has attracted numerous reviews. One which is both easy to read and to download, by Michael A. McDaniel Professor

      Same crap, again not peer-reviewed - and published by an extreme-right wing organization. Once again, the book attracted several criticisms, in particular, the way they arbitrarily gathered data and how he interpreted existing studies - something the reviewer you mentioned did not bother to look. The most damning of them all, is the fact that Lynn used the mean IQ of a group of disabled Spaniard children to derive the IQ of people in Equatorial Guinea - not surprisingly, they got a very low IQ score - the equivalent of having a nation where the average individual is literally a retard.
      What a travesty!

    121. dave bones — on 4th April, 2009 at 5:21 pm  

      Yes. Well said everyone. It would be good if more responsible people could come down and seriously outnumber the “lets smash things” brigade. Obviously because they are so vocal and seriously over reported in the meida these people are put off. A good solution to kettling in the short term would be to bring a pack lunch and a few board games!

    122. Bert Rustle — on 4th April, 2009 at 5:39 pm  

      Ravi Naik 113 wrote … The work you cited …

      I did not cite that book.

      Ravi Naik 113 wrote … to make the point that Indians in this country are of lower calibre than whites …

      I made no such statement.

      I believe you are referring to this reply to Jai, wherein:

      According to Racial Differences in Intelligence Table 6.1 page 81 a dozen different studies gives general IQ in India in the eighties. In Table 6.2 page 83 for Indians in Britain another dozen studies gives general IQ in India in the eighties and nineties.

      Results in Table 6.1 include those authored by Gupta & Gupta, Chopra, Sinha, Rao & Redd, Majumdar & Nundi, Mohanty & Babu and many others. A random sample of these references were all published in academic journals, which I presume are peer reviewed.

      Results in Table 6.2 include three authored by Mackintosh et al. (1985) which appeared in http://www.amazon.co.uk/EDUCATION-ALL-Keith-Foreword-Joseph/dp/B000Y1AE0G I doubt that it is peer reviewed.

      Ravi Naik 120 wrote … Even if all the studies cited were peer-reviewed, it matters how they interpreted their data. …

      I cited two tables, containing research results of dozens of authors. Furthermore, I did not interpret their data nor did I report any such interpretation by Lynn.

      Ravi Naik 120 wrote … Same crap, again not peer-reviewed …

      As most books are not peer reviewed, which books do you not describe so and why?

      Ravi Naik 120 wrote … published by an extreme-right wing organization. …

      But at the end of day, it doesn’t matter if you are funded by an anti-immigration, pro-eugenics organisation. What it matters is the quality of your research.

      Ravi Naik 120 wrote … Lynn used the mean IQ of a group of disabled Spaniard children to derive the IQ of people in Equatorial Guinea …

      Do you have the exact reference? In Racial Differences in Intelligence Table 4.1 page 31 Lynn cites Fernandez-Ballesteros et al. (1997) and an equitorial Guinea “g” of 59. Lynn was not one of the authors of this study, which was published in a book and so probably not peer reviewed.

    123. Bert Rustle — on 4th April, 2009 at 6:12 pm  

      http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html

      Video. … April 3, 2009

      The financial industry brought the economy to its knees, but how did they get away with it? With the nation wondering how to hold the bankers accountable, Bill Moyers sits down with William K. Black, the former senior regulator who cracked down on banks during the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. Black offers his analysis of what went wrong and his critique of the bailout …

    124. Ravi Naik — on 4th April, 2009 at 6:44 pm  

      As most books are not peer reviewed, which books do you not describe so and why?

      Bert - academic research needs to be peer-reviewed by a prestigious publication in order to have any sort of scientific standing. The sort of errors people found in Lynn’s work would be enough to reject the conclusions of his research, but since he is funded by a wealthy extreme-right wing organisation, he got to publish whatever he wanted with no quality checks.

      Lynn used the mean IQ of a group of disabled Spaniard children to derive the IQ of people in Equatorial Guinea …

      Do you have the exact reference?

      Yes - Hunt, E. & Wittmann, W. (2008). National intelligence and prosperity. Intelligence. Vol. 36, 1, January-February pp. 1-9. They are the ones who found this rather disturbing act of deception.

      I have a copy of this paper if you can’t get it.

      On the subject of the Indian diaspora and IQ, I found this recent Forbes article, which I wonder if it is only specific to the US.

    125. Bert Rustle — on 5th April, 2009 at 7:51 pm  

      Ravi Naik 124 wrote … academic research needs to be peer-reviewed by a prestigious publication in order to have any sort of scientific standing. …

      By which you exclude virtually all books.

      Ravi Naik 124 wrote … The sort of errors people found in Lynn’s work would be enough to reject the conclusions of his research but since he is funded by a wealthy extreme-right wing organisation, he got to publish whatever he wanted with no quality checks. …

      Lynn has a great many papers published in academic journals, including many in the journal Intelligence, wherein you cite the article National intelligence and national prosperity to support your case of Lynn’s poor standard of scholarship.

      By your reasoning the referees are alternately exercising and not exercising what you term “quality checks” rather than objectively assessing the papers submitted. In my opinion you smear all the referees and all those academics published in this journal and by extension every other journal which has published them.

      In addition, the abstract of article National intelligence and national prosperity you cite concludes thus:

      … We conclude that in spite of the weaknesses several of their data points Lynn and Vanhanen’s empirical conclusion was correct[emphasis added], but we question the simple explanation that national intelligence causes national wealth. We argue that the relationship is more complex. …

      In my opinion, it is not Lynn’s standard of scholarship which is question, but rather that of your own.

    126. Ravi Naik — on 5th April, 2009 at 10:40 pm  

      By which you exclude virtually all books.

      All credible scientific books will have been sourced - in one way or another - from prestigious peer-reviewed journals. Otherwise, the book might as well be in the fiction section. That’s a fact.

      Lynn has a great many papers published in academic journals, including many in the journal Intelligence

      I am talking specifically about his work on IQ and Nations, the book you mentioned here.

      By your reasoning the referees are alternately exercising and not exercising what you term “quality checks” rather than objectively assessing the papers submitted. In my opinion you smear all the referees and all those academics published in this journal and by extension every other journal which has published them.

      The article I cited (National Intelligence and National Prosperity) is actually a peer-reviewed paper with its own research, not a review of Lynn’s work. However, Lynn’s work is so full of mistakes, that these authors felt compelled to mention them, including the embarrassing fact that Lynn used the IQ of retarded Spaniard children to compute the IQ of an African Nation.

      On the subject of reviewers, there are definitely good and bad ones. The good ones are the ones that can spot flagrant mistakes, like N.J. Mackintosh.

      In my opinion, it is not Lynn’s standard of scholarship which is question, but rather that of your own.

      You have to read the whole paper, not just the abstract. The authors do say that they agree with Lynn that there is a correlation between IQ and Wealth. But they go on to say that (a) Lynn’s main assertion from the book that IQ produces wealth is unfounded, (b) Lynn’s data contains SEVERAL flaws something they said “there are reasons for being concerned”, (c) they do *not* agree that extrapolating the IQ of 185 nations from 81 nations and not explaining how they did that, to be a good idea.

      If you feel that this is an acceptable standard of scholarship, then really, there is nothing else I can add.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.