Witnesses Statement: Death at G20
May 19 2009 14:42
#122
miles wrote:
I would go further, personally, and argue that in these kind of cases - mass, public demos - it should be the presumption that ap's are being used and that they initiate much of the 'mob violence' you read in the papers.
My presumption would be that's it's yet more bullshit, as it was with Chris Dreyfus at the Bush demo last June.
Why are you seeking to remove the agency of the crowd? Does it somehow benefit you politically to promote the lie of state omnipotence?
May 19 2009 17:11
#123
Quote:
Why are you seeking to remove the agency of the crowd? Does it somehow benefit you politically to promote the lie of state omnipotence?
Winjer in all my posts I've been trying to promote the idea that the state can be and often is involved with the use of provocateurs, amongst others. And you've interpreted this as "promote the lie of state omnipotence"?? How is state involvement the same as state omnipotence?
Perhaps you can elaborate on what you mean by "the agency of the crowd" and whether this "crowd" for you is the same as the working class?
Quote:
My presumption would be that's it's yet more bullshit, as it was with Chris Dreyfus at the Bush demo last June.
I don't know what you're referring to here, a reference would be useful.
May 19 2009 18:45
#124
Quote:
We may be incorrect on the facts occasionally but that does not make us liers (which counts as flaming I would say, unless you can provide evidence that we have sort to mislead comrades).
seeking to maintain an ungrounded impression in the face of determined and honest criticism counts in my opinion as lying. Anyone who has read this thread can see that going on.
you say "Obviously we do not have access to the operational proceedures of the the state but that does not mean we should not try and understand what they are doing." - but you speculate about what those procedures may have been and then behave in the most laughably childish way when someone who knows a little about the subject intervenes. If winjer hadn't been here you'd have been babbling nonsense about the TSG being a (proto-) death squad at will.
I've seen the ICC behave this way before - too little concern for the empirical details, which are cheerfully maneouvered into place to prove the macro point. obviously the state is there for repressive purposes, and represses; obviously it doesn't //really// matter that much which CO it is that does the dirty. But don't pretend you want to 'understand', that you want the 'truth', when your real interest in enquiry and learning has been amply demonstrated in the above.
that doesn't mean I'm not interested in the book or that I don't think it's possible that provocateurs may have been active etc.
btw miles:
Quote:
Quote:Why are you seeking to remove the agency of the crowd? Does it somehow benefit you politically to promote the lie of state omnipotence?
Winjer in all my posts I've been trying to promote the idea that the state can be and often is involved with the use of provocateurs, amongst others. And you've interpreted this as "promote the lie of state omnipotence"?? How is state involvement the same as state omnipotence?
don't be (faux?-)thick mate.
May 19 2009 19:41
#125
Quote:
seeking to maintain an ungrounded impression in the face of determined and honest criticism counts in my opinion as lying. Anyone who has read this thread can see that going on.
"ungrounded" on what basis? Plenty of references and proof have been put forward. None as blind as those that don't want to see, eh? As for 'anyone who's read this thread' well, nothing like a little presumption is there?
You don't really have any interest in getting to the core of the questions that have been posed, really it's all about another ICC bashing exercise, throwing in all the usual nonsense about how it's been 'all seen before' and we're 'pretendng' to have an interest in enquiry. What has been your contribution to the debate in this thread Si, other than acting as a cheerleader for winjer?
Quote:
don't be (faux?-)thick mate.
I must be thick Si, please enlighten me.
May 19 2009 21:06
#126
look it's pretty simple. sometimes the state uses agents provocateurs. we shouldn't rule out the possibility. we should be sensitive to information emerging that might indicate the use of such tactics by the state. some of the information that has emerged about the G20 demo could reasonably lead to a suspicion (in the broader context of English public order policing, plausibly a justified belief) that, at least, there were plainclothes officers in the crowd. We have a very //very// little bit of information suggesting that those officers may have been acting as provocateurs.
what else? well, nothing else, so far as I can see. I don't think anyone's got a good reason to think there were agent provocateurs in the crowd, although the suspicion is just about reasonable. but why on earth would you think it's reasonable to 'presume' that agent provocateurs cause 'most of the mob violence you read about in the papers'?? That's just bizarre. (I remember the laughable tone of the ICC's coverage of the CPE all too clearly. If I say I heard it before - well, I did. change then maybe people will stop reacting to you in the same way.)
May 19 2009 21:43
#127
Yes, it is pretty simple si. It's about the repressive turn being taken by the capitalist state in order to monitor any anti-capitalist element and eventually confront the working class.
The Association of Chief Police Officers, a private limited company so that it's exempt from any kind of accountability, now runs three units (according to the Guardian today) dealing with (an undefined) domestic extremism: these are the National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit, the Welsh Extremism and Counter-Terrorism Unit and the National Public Order Intelligence Unit.
As the one who raised the possibility of the TSG being involved in shootings from the fact that they are issued guns and have been present at "terrorists" arrests, I didn't expect this to turn into a courtroom drama about the legal niceties of the capitalist system - the sole aim of which is to bash the ICC. I know that TV film crews have also been present at various "terrorists" arrests but I wouldn't think that they were involved in any shootings.
By the way, I did see at the G20, on TV, a TSG officer who appeared to be intimately involved in the death of a worker who was walking by. Still, I suppose that there will be various legal arguments on his behalf that one will be unable to fault from the point of view of the strict legal position.
I don't really care which branch of the police carry out shootings and killings (400 at least dead "following police contact" in police stations in the last ten years and not even a fine) but I know that the state is more and more resorting to lies and repression. As to the use of law by the bourgeois state, it's not a "neutral" thing that 'serves all citizens', but a class weapon.
How is looking at the repressive apparatus of the ruling class "promoting the lie of the omnipotence of the state"?
May 19 2009 21:57
#128
Well si you're in good company, the Metropolitan Police Commisioner agrees with you on the G20 policing:
Quote:
He also said that he would examine claims that there were undercover officers acting as agents provocateurs in the crowd, although he described the idea as extraordinary.
May 20 2009 07:17
#129
how splendidly mendacious. I'm done.
May 20 2009 10:29
#130
miles wrote:
Well si you're in good company, the Metropolitan Police Commisioner agrees with you on the G20 policing:Quote:
He also said that he would examine claims that there were undercover officers acting as agents provocateurs in the crowd, although he described the idea as extraordinary.
God what a fucking disgusting thing to say. You lot really are shameless aren't you?
May 20 2009 11:59
#131
Quote:
I don't think anyone's got a good reason to think there were agent provocateurs in the crowd, although the suspicion is just about reasonable.
Quote:
He also said that he would examine claims that there were undercover officers acting as agents provocateurs in the crowd, although he described the idea as extraordinary.
I don't think there's a million miles between si's claims and that of the Met chief.
What's "disgusting" and "shameless" is the various attempts on the thread to derail it, mostly by finding any excuse to have a dig at the ICC. It's also a bit sad really, as this is an area that will, as Baboon says above, more and more occupy the concerns of the bourgeosie as class struggle intensifies. Maybe you should re-acquaint yourselves with the the lessons of the miners strike.
May 20 2009 12:12
#132
This thread is an excellent example of the corrosive influence of the ICC on these forums.
May 20 2009 12:28
#133
Right, this will be my last post on this thread.
I would like to apologise to si, I've got too deeply involved in this thread and should have taken a step backwards.
The overall issue of state security is one that won't be going away and I still feel that posts from winjer, si and alan haven't contributed very much to a greater understanding of what the bourgeiosie does and how they go about doing it.
Nonetheless, it was a mistake to link the comments of si with those of the Met chief, and for that I'm sorry.
miles
May 20 2009 16:18
#134
Alan wrote:
This thread is an excellent example of the corrosive influence of the ICC on these forums.
ICC 'logic' = if the state is capable of doing something repressive insist that it must already be doing it. Those who question this assumption - even when factually better informed - denounce as naive for questioning the factual basis of your speculation. When proved to be wrong resort to ICC persecution complex. Regularly derail potentially interesting discussions with such nonsense. Repeat ad nauseum...
May 23 2009 08:01
#135
miles wrote:
Quote:
My presumption would be that's it's yet more bullshit, as it was with Chris Dreyfus at the Bush demo last June.I don't know what you're referring to here, a reference would be useful.
http://www.socialist.net/undercover-police-officer-provoke-violence-stop-bush-demo.htm
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3531
May 23 2009 08:12
#136
baboon wrote:
As the one who raised the possibility of the TSG being involved in shootings from the fact that they are issued guns and have been present at "terrorists" arrests
They are not 'issued' guns, in the way they are issued batons, the 1 in 5 that are trained to use baton guns and other firearms are very, very occasionally used to provide a visible armed presence at high-profile tourist/diplomatic sites.
Quote:
I didn't expect this to turn into a courtroom drama about the legal niceties of the capitalist system - the sole aim of which is to bash the ICC.
...
Quote:
How is looking at the repressive apparatus of the ruling class "promoting the lie of the omnipotence of the state"?
Oh your strawmen burn so very brightly.
I haven't raised any 'legal niceties', only factual inadequacies - to look at the repressive apparatus of the ruling class, you are best off actually looking at the repressive apparatus, not imagining it from the comfort of wikipedia. Useful background can be found here and here, but it's no substitute for practical observation.
I'm an irregular (at best) visitor to these forums, so I'm afraid I wasn't even aware that you were involved in the ICC, an obscure organisation about which I admit I know little, and after your contributions to this discussion I am inclined to know even less.
Jun 29 2009 09:33
#137
an MPs' report has concluded a lack of training was to blame for the police actions. despite the fact the TSG are the specialist public order unit, and they're trained to baton people like they did Ian Tomlinson (strikes to the legs rather than head).
Jul 1 2009 11:11
#138
Police floated 'Impostor' theory over Ian Tomlinson's death.
"A senior police officer who investigated the death of Ian Tomlinson told his family that the officer who struck him at the G20 demonstrations could have been a member of the public "dressed in police uniform", it emerged last night."
Jul 1 2009 15:37
#139
Auto wrote:
Police floated 'Impostor' theory over Ian Tomlinson's death."A senior police officer who investigated the death of Ian Tomlinson told his family that the officer who struck him at the G20 demonstrations could have been a member of the public "dressed in police uniform", it emerged last night."
Incredible! 
The lengths the police will go to in order to avoid taking responsibility for their own appalling actions.. and the very idea of calling this internal cover-up an "investigation" is a sick joke..
A very interesting, but rare, book on the use of spies and provocative agents is
F W Chandler's Political spies and provocative agents. Written in 1933. It looks at the history of the uses of these agents against the workers movement, from the Pop-gun plot in 1796 to a penetration of the CP in South Wales by a police agent and his attempt to fit people up in the early 1930's, along the way dealing with the role of spy Oliver in the Derbyshire uprising of 1817.
The state is still playing the same game. Recent posts on libcom about the use of spies etc in the US, Australia and New Zealand (and here) show this.