Militant students at Warwick

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm not at all bothered what you regard or don't regard worth considering so absolutely no need to request a pardon from me of all people!

Interesting though that you have apparently nothing to say about the 1990 thuggish violence which we all saw on our TV screens though I'd be untruthful if I said I am hugely surprised. Maybe if you had owned a TV you might have seen the same as everyone else when you had arrived home?

On second thoughts, probably not ...

You really are very naive if, while watching the news, you fail to take account of the deliberately engendered excitement factor perpetrated by selective coverage to maintain law and order sympathies among recipients of broadcasts in the selling of a news story, P.G. Tipps...

[Richard Barrett]

Interesting though that you have apparently nothing to say about the 1990 thuggish violence which we all saw on our TV screens though I'd be untruthful if I said I am hugely surprised. Maybe if you had owned a TV you might have seen the same as everyone else when you had arrived home?

As it happens I did have a TV at that time, it was only about eight years ago that I decided to do without. And I'm sure I did watch the scenes you describe although I can also say that of course the TV people and journalists in general would, as usual in situations like this, have been looking for the most sensational and extreme images to put before the public for a few seconds, while the events of that day of course lasted many hours and involved large numbers of people, most of whom obviously were not setting fire to cars, putting rubbish-bins through windows etc. - oh, I see S_A has already mentioned this.

[Bryn]

I remember Tariq Ali telling me in genuine sadness about a Maoist organisation whose analysis of the British state as already fascist lead them to attack the police at every opportunity, resulting in 99% of their membership being in prison at any point!

I know the organisation of which you write very well. In fact, very few of their number (that number including at one point Cornelius Cardew) served time in gaol, and I think he was also the only one to do so following a conviction for assault on a police officer. I am sure you will not be at all surprise to read that they did not attack the police at every opportunity, but would defend themselves with 2" x 2" 'flagpoles' if attacked by police. A few of their number certainly went in for physical attacks on National Front leaders such as Martin Webster, and indeed a couple of their supporters also made a physical assault upon Hans Eysenck at the L.S.E. (on the specious basis that he was held by them to be a fascist, due to his views on ethnicity and intelligence).

There was an attempt to put the blame for Kevin Gateley's death at Red Lion Square on them, but the Scarman inquiry into that tragedy, at which they were represented, put pay to the attempt.

They are still around today, though they rejected 'Maoism' and sided with Hoxha back in the '70s IIRC.

[ahinton]

Interesting though that you have apparently nothing to say about the 1990 thuggish violence which we all saw on our TV screens

No more interesting than the fact of your having "apparently nothing to say" (so far, at least) in answer to the questions posed to you in post #192 which, to remind you,were:

1. Have you stopped to consider what might have happened had those (Poll Tax) riots not taken place?
2. Do you believe that the Poll Tax was such an awful policy that it would have imploded (thus hastening Thatcher's political demise) of its own accord?
3. So had the Poll Tax (to bring things back in time to your own example) been introduced in the early weeks of governmental office, would you consider it acceptable for all those who roundly opposed it to have to wait patiently and passively for almost five years to make their protest known at the ballot box by voting Labour?

I would add my belief that anyone's deprecation of such riots and demonstrations might at least embrace an element of constructiveness were they to be predicated solely upon the sheer indictment associated with the need for such drastic measures because all other possibilities had been exhausted; do you not believe that most people who participate in such events do so as an expression of genuine dismay at the status quo concerned and in the knowledge that there are few or no other effective ways or means to draw attention to something that desperately requires to be changed?

That's four questions for you, albeit only one of them new; I trust that you can manage that OK although, if such trust turns out to be misplaced, "I'd be untruthful if I said I am hugely surprised"...

[P. G. Tipps]

No more interesting than the fact of your having "apparently nothing to say" (so far, at least) in answer to the questions posed to you in post #192 which, to remind you,were:

1. Have you stopped to consider what might have happened had those (Poll Tax) riots not taken place?
2. Do you believe that the Poll Tax was such an awful policy that it would have imploded (thus hastening Thatcher's political demise) of its own accord?
3. So had the Poll Tax (to bring things back in time to your own example) been introduced in the early weeks of governmental office, would you consider it acceptable for all those who roundly opposed it to have to wait patiently and passively for almost five years to make their protest known at the ballot box by voting Labour?

I would add my belief that anyone's deprecation of such riots and demonstrations might at least embrace an element of constructiveness were they to be predicated solely upon the sheer indictment associated with the need for such drastic measures because all other possibilities had been exhausted; do you not believe that most people who participate in such events do so as an expression of genuine dismay at the status quo concerned and in the knowledge that there are few or no other effective ways or means to draw attention to something that desperately requires to be changed?

That's four questions for you, albeit only one of them new; I trust that you can manage that OK although, if such trust turns out to be misplaced, "I'd be untruthful if I said I am hugely surprised"...

My answer to all three questions is simple and straightforward: I condemn thuggery, there is no excuse for it.

You, and others, appear to be condoning it here so maybe you might be asking searching questions of yourself not me!

[Richard Barrett]

I condemn thuggery, there is no excuse for it.

As S_A has pointed out, "thuggery" comes in many flavours - "In the name of profit and shareholders capitalism has wrought more damage in terms of public disruption, damage to property, the person and the environment than any street marches or demonstrations... " Certainly, of the quarter of a million or so people who took part in the demonstration of 31 March 1990, only a small minority were involved in acts of violence against property, and still fewer against persons. What is also certain is that the police were not prepared for the size of the demonstration and responded to this in a heavy-handed and provocative manner before any "rioting" took place. The vast majority of injured people were members of the public and not police, and the vast majority of those arrested were later acquitted on the basis of police video footage, suggesting that many of the arrests were completely gratuitous. Even the police report published in 1991 concluded that there was "no evidence that the trouble was orchestrated by left-wing anarchist groups." So to say the least the situation was not as clear-cut as you seem to believe.

[ahinton]

My answer to all three questions is simple and straightforward: I condemn thuggery, there is no excuse for it.

"Straightforward" (whatever or not that may mean in context) or otherwise, how does your remark above answer any of those four questions which, to remind you once again, were:
1. Have you stopped to consider what might have happened had those (Poll Tax) riots not taken place?
2. Do you believe that the Poll Tax was such an awful policy that it would have imploded (thus hastening Thatcher's political demise) of its own accord?
3. So had the Poll Tax (to bring things back in time to your own example) been introduced in the early weeks of governmental office, would you consider it acceptable for all those who roundly opposed it to have to wait patiently and passively for almost five years to make their protest known at the ballot box by voting Labour?
4. Do you not believe that most people who participate in such events do so as an expression of genuine dismay at the status quo concerned and in the knowledge that there are few or no other effective ways or means to draw attention to something that desperately requires to be changed?
You react - instead of answering any of them - by majoring in on claiming that "thuggery" is inexcusable on any count, yet you make no attempt to distinguish between the kind of thuggery that might arise from hangers-on muscling in on such demonstrations (a factor which you appear nevertheless to recognise) and the genuine concern that motivates demonstrators who feel that they have been left with no alternative other than to act as they do if they're to draw due attention to the issues concerned.

You, and others, appear to be condoning it here so maybe you might be asking searching questions of yourself not me!

In so claiming, you conveniently ignore my remark that
I would add my belief that anyone's deprecation of such riots and demonstrations might at least embrace an element of constructiveness were they to be predicated solely upon the sheer indictment associated with the need for such drastic measures because all other possibilities had been exhausted
I suppose that it suits your argument to ignore this but it doesn't cut any ice, I'm afraid; I deplore such activity, but at the same time I do my best to recognise and understand why it occurs and I wish (albeit clearly in vain) that you would at least make some kind of effort to do the same.

[ahinton]

As S_A has pointed out, "thuggery" comes in many flavours - "In the name of profit and shareholders capitalism has wrought more damage in terms of public disruption, damage to property, the person and the environment than any street marches or demonstrations... " Certainly, of the quarter of a million or so people who took part in the demonstration of 31 March 1990, only a small minority were involved in acts of violence against property, and still fewer against persons.

Exactly - and how many of that vast number were hotheaded and immature students, as PGT seeks to imply is always the case with such events?

What is also certain is that the police were not prepared for the size of the demonstration and responded to this in a heavy-handed and provocative manner before any "rioting" took place. The vast majority of injured people were members of the public and not police, and the vast majority of those arrested were later acquitted on the basis of police video footage, suggesting that many of the arrests were completely gratuitous. Even the police report published in 1991 concluded that there was "no evidence that the trouble was orchestrated by left-wing anarchist groups." So to say the least the situation was not as clear-cut as you seem to believe.

Quite. Over to PGT (if he has anything to say in credible counter to this)...

[MrGongGong]

My answer to all three questions is simple and straightforward: I condemn thuggery, there is no excuse for it.

Hummm

I'm not shure I believe you
correct me if i'm wrong but i'm sure you have expressed support for it in some contexts?

[ahinton]

Hummm

I'm not sure I believe you
correct me if i'm wrong but i'm sure you have expressed support for it in some contexts?

Be that as it may or may not, "thuggery is inexcusable" seems to be the mantra of the day that takes precedence in the Tippster world over answering questions such as what he believes might have happened had the Poll Tax demonstration not occurred, how or whether it would have bitten the dust without it, whether or not it's OK to be expected to wait for up to a full term of governmental office for change possibly to be implemented following a change of party in power (if that occurs) or whether or not the majority of demonstrators participate in demonstrations out of genuine concern for the need for certain change when all other methods to achieve this end have already been explored - but I'm disinclined to hold my breath for due response to any of this.

[P. G. Tipps]

As S_A has pointed out, "thuggery" comes in many flavours - "In the name of profit and shareholders capitalism has wrought more damage in terms of public disruption, damage to property, the person and the environment than any street marches or demonstrations... " Certainly, of the quarter of a million or so people who took part in the demonstration of 31 March 1990, only a small minority were involved in acts of violence against property, and still fewer against persons. What is also certain is that the police were not prepared for the size of the demonstration and responded to this in a heavy-handed and provocative manner before any "rioting" took place. The vast majority of injured people were members of the public and not police, and the vast majority of those arrested were later acquitted on the basis of police video footage, suggesting that many of the arrests were completely gratuitous. Even the police report published in 1991 concluded that there was "no evidence that the trouble was orchestrated by left-wing anarchist groups." So to say the least the situation was not as clear-cut as you seem to believe.

I can see you (like me) have been consulting Wiki and you have simply picked out the few bits of information that suit your case ... and there you go again, making excuses, not a word of condemnation of those who did cause the trouble, just the usual 'police provocation' and 'it's all the fault of capitalism' irrelevancies.

I said right at the beginning that such demos and marches tend to be hijacked by anarchist thugs which of course doesn't mean that the great majority of marchers have violence in mind. I was not aware of that police report but one wonders who then did cause the trouble in 1990 which left 113 people (inc.45 police officers) and 20 police horses injured, shops looted and cars overturned and burned. Some of the marchers had little doubt for according to the same Wiki: 'The response of the London police, the government, the Labour Party and the labour movement and some of the Marxist and Trotskyist left, notably "The Militant Tendency", was to condemn the riot as senseless and to blame anarchists'. There is also this: 'Some anarchists, especially the high-profile Class War organisation and those from the Anarchist 121 Bookshop in Brixton were happy to defend the actions of the crowd in response to the police, and were joined by other sections of the libertarian left in condoning the riot as legitimate self-defence against police attack.'

Maybe one of the most telling is this : 'The UK Socialist Workers' Party (SWP), which was blamed for the violence by some in the media and by Labour MP George Galloway,[5] refused to condemn protesters, calling the events a "police riot."'

Wasn't that the very year that one, Richard Barrett, joined the very same SWP ... ?

[P. G. Tipps]

Hummm

I'm not sure I believe you
correct me if i'm wrong but i'm sure you have expressed support for it in some contexts?

You are quite deliberately wrong, as you well know.

If you are 'sure' kindly let us all know when and where I have expressed support for 'thuggery in some contexts'

And if you don't know what 'thuggery' means buy yourself a dictionary!

[Richard Barrett]

not a word of condemnation of those who did cause the trouble (...) 'The UK Socialist Workers' Party (SWP) (...) refused to condemn protesters, calling the events a "police riot."

Wasn't that the very year that one, Richard Barrett, joined the very same SWP ... ?

Not only was it the very year, it was the very week. As I mentioned, I saw quite a lot of what happened, and afterwards the SWP's statements on it were pretty much the only ones that made some kind of realistic sense to me, which is why I went to one of their meetings a few days afterwards and there joined the organisation, which I'm still broadly in sympathy with. So please don't think there's any coyness about my leaving out any information about those people and organisations who refused to condemn the demonstrators' response to attacks from the police. It should be clear from what I've said that I'm not condemning it either.

[P. G. Tipps]

Be that as it may or may not, "thuggery is inexcusable" seems to be the mantra of the day that takes precedence in the Tippster world over answering questions such as what he believes might have happened had the Poll Tax demonstration not occurred, how or whether it would have bitten the dust without it, whether or not it's OK to be expected to wait for up to a full term of governmental office for change possibly to be implemented following a change of party in power (if that occurs) or whether or not the majority of demonstrators participate in demonstrations out of genuine concern for the need for certain change when all other methods to achieve this end have already been explored - but I'm disinclined to hold my breath for due response to any of this.

I have absolutely no problem with you holding your breath, ahinton ...

My answer to all your questions has already been provided in previous posts and I do get weary of your frequent responses that no 'answers' have been forthcoming.

If you believe the only 'answer' to your questions is one of complete accord with your own confused and rambling 'answers' then it is only fair to point out that you are indeed highly unlikely to find any such 'answers' ...

Sorry!

[P. G. Tipps]

Not only was it the very year, it was the very week. As I mentioned, I saw quite a lot of what happened, and afterwards the SWP's statements on it were pretty much the only ones that made some kind of realistic sense to me, which is why I went to one of their meetings a few days afterwards and there joined the organisation, which I'm still broadly in sympathy with. So please don't think there's any coyness about my leaving out any information about those people and organisations who refused to condemn the demonstrators' response to attacks from the police. It should be clear from what I've said that I'm not condemning it either.

Okay, at least now we know and many thanks for the honest answer! :ok: