Jump to content
juggtron

Occupy Melbourne

Recommended Posts

I too am appalled with how the police treated the protesters.

 

 

They should have used bean bag rounds and sting grenades on them. Fucking waste of space dickheads like these protesters are whats going to ruin this country long before 'The Man' does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its good to see that the green room attracts a good and diverse number of opinions.

 

Nothing I can ever say will sway you Authoritarian bootlickers, so i wont even try. All i can do is hope that other people with moderate opinions can see the video for themselves and see that this is not right. Who are the police protecting exactly? Not me is all I can say for certain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its good to see that the green room attracts a good and diverse number of opinions.

 

Nothing I can ever say will sway you Authoritarian bootlickers, so i wont even try. All i can do is hope that other people with moderate opinions can see the video for themselves and see that this is not right. Who are the police protecting exactly? Not me is all I can say for certain.

Sorry dude, when you use terms like 'global system' and 'Authoritarian bootlickers' you have void your right to claim a moderate opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly wish I knew what the hell they were truly protesting about? About greed? That's really a wide definition, you can't protest people who do well with money.

 

The problem I have with this whole thing is that I just don't understand wtf they're trying to do / say. Even interviews on the news, everyone is saying something different and just as generalistic. I feel like I want to call BS on the entire thing and that those people should get back to work / study / whatever, but there's a good chance I'm missing something here :P

 

Its good to see that the green room attracts a good and diverse number of opinions.

 

Nothing I can ever say will sway you Authoritarian bootlickers, so i wont even try. All i can do is hope that other people with moderate opinions can see the video for themselves and see that this is not right. Who are the police protecting exactly? Not me is all I can say for certain.

Sorry dude, when you use terms like 'global system' and 'Authoritarian bootlickers' you have void your right to claim a moderate opinion.

 

Agree'd with Cummings, you're just as biased and ignorant as those you claim to hate. Well done, you've made it to hypocritical status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at no point did i say that I held a moderate viewpoint (anti-centrist would be close, but not quite anarcho-liberal :P) - dont take this the wrong way but you need to check your comprehension skills. And I feel pity for the bootlickers BTW, because they cant see that the system needs to change. I might be biased, but not ignorant :)

 

 

I guess that protester was lucky because that cop had every right to punch him in the face - because he had been told to move on. (To where? - the whole protest is bottled in).

 

and fredz - when you quote STATUTE i kind of go to sleep - just like you do when you see a youtube embed. Authorities can make a statute say whatever the fuck they want it to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that protester was lucky because that cop had every right to punch him in the face

That was likely wrong, I hope that police officer is disciplined over it.

 

Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's something for you, Fredz. If they have enough people to carry people bodily from the scene - three to four officers, one limb apiece - then how is dragging someone along the ground with their back scraping against the ground because their shirts are being dragged up due to the way they're being dragged reasonable?

 

As some others have said elsewhere, tho', a lot of the criticism should be directed at the police management who organised the thing, not (most of) the people just doing their jobs.

Edited by Nich...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they have enough people to carry people bodily from the scene - three to four officers, one limb apiece - then how is dragging someone along the ground with their back scraping against the ground because their shirts are being dragged up due to the way they're being dragged reasonable?

If the decision has been made to remove people, I don't necessarily see why those people should have the right to be carried instead of dragged. Dragging may be a bit harder on the body, but I don't see it being sufficiently more violent than carrying to justify such a right. I wonder how many of those dragged sought medical attention.

 

Not to mention that carrying comes with its own risks. Given the chaotic nature of such situations I'd assume that there's a reasonable chance that someone might be dropped. That could very easily be something worth seeking medical attention for.

 

Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that protester was lucky because that cop had every right to punch him in the face

That was likely wrong, I hope that police officer is disciplined over it.
What if he can't be identified because he's not wearing his badge in defiance of the law he's supposedly there to protect?

 

The missing badges are enough to condemn all the folks defending the cops as authoritarian bootlickers in my book. You might think that makes my opinion radical...

 

But is it really radical at all to hold cops to standards of professional conduct? And I'm not talking about over-stressed individuals; when dozens of officers don't wear their badges, it's obviously down to management. Who ever has to answer for unbadged cops? And why the fuck not?

 

Check out this surprisingly unbiased report by the SMH... maybe some subtle bias in the choice of quote that "everyone in Australia will be upset about the obvious police brutality that occurred," perhaps chosen because for its risible naivety, but otherwise it seems pretty straight. Aside from chracterising the protesters as anti-capitalism.*

 

Occupy Melbourne protesters to reconvene

 

Anti-capitalism protesters will reconvene in Melbourne's CBD on Saturday in defiance of police, following violent clashes after they were evicted from their City Square camp.

 

Almost 100 people were arrested on Friday when scuffles between Occupy Melbourne protesters and 400 police officers spilled into city streets after officers forcibly removed them from the City Square, dragging many writhing and kicking, and carrying others.

 

Most have been released without charge.

Advertisement: Story continues below

 

More than 20 protesters had minor injuries and one was taken to hospital.

 

Two officers were also injured with one taken to hospital to have his eye flushed.

 

Eight police cars were damaged, police said.

 

Protesters believe footage of the clashes will encourage more Australians to join their movement when they reconvene at Melbourne's Federation Square at midday on Saturday.

 

They say they have recorded numerous incidents of police violence and brutality and have assembled a legal team in anticipation of legal action.

 

"Everyone in Australia will be upset about the obvious police brutality that occurred," said spokesman Carl Scrase.

 

"I don't know how many Australians will be activated by this.

 

"The things that occurred today will have big ramifications for years to come, in and outside of courts ... we expect court action."

 

Police say they are prepared to deal with any protests that continue into the weekend.

 

The chaos was sparked after about 100 Occupy Melbourne demonstrators, who had camped out in the City Square for a week as part of global protests against corporate greed, defied an order to leave by 9am (AEDT) on Friday.

 

By about 12.30pm (AEDT), a huge police contingent, including the riot squad, began dragging protesters out of the square and cleared the area within 10 minutes.

 

The protesters have called on Premier Ted Baillieu and Lord Mayor Robert Doyle to back an independent investigation into the use of excessive force by police and Melbourne City Council on Friday.

 

They said dozens of police officers were not wearing name badges, in breach of regulations.

 

"More than 20 statements have been taken from individuals who have experienced police violence, including eye gouging, kicks to the groin, punches to the face, knees to the face and arbitrary pepper spraying, including of minors," said Occupy Melbourne spokesperson Erin Buckley.

 

"One incident involved an elderly woman with a walking stick who was pushed to the ground by riot police."

 

Protesters are calling on the city council to compensate them for the 17 truckloads of personal property - computers, cameras, bicycles, tents and cooking equipment - that they say was removed and destroyed.

*Is this anti-capitalism, or just anti-corruption?

 

 

I just think the whole 'occupy' thing is stupid in Australia.

I said much the same thing in the other thread.
And as I said in the other thread, given the global reach of the companies at the heart of this matter, it makes perfect sense to for almost anyone in the world to protest in solidarity with the Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The missing badges are enough to condemn all the folks defending the cops as authoritarian bootlickers in my book. You might think that makes my opinion radical...

I think you're opinion is silly.

 

You see, I entirely agree with you that the police officers should be wearing badges. Is that the law? If not, then it should be.

 

But that doesn't mean I can't point at other actions and say "well, those ones I can defend." To accuse me of being an authoritarian bootlicker is... silly.

 

Also, I can't help but feel that going around calling these folks authoritarian bootlickers works against what you are trying to achieve. Do you want them standing next to you saying "WEAR FREAKING BADGES!" or do you want them arguing with you about whether they can condemn some actions while supporting others?

 

Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no expert in cajoling entreaties; my department is bitter invective.

 

Authoritarian bootlicker.

 

Anyone who wants to understand why they or others feel inclined to perpetuate being lorded over by scumbags would do well to check this out: http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob...horitarians.pdf

 

You'll have to transpose the nuggets of wisdom from a US context, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its good to see that the green room attracts a good and diverse number of opinions.

 

Nothing I can ever say will sway you Authoritarian bootlickers, so i wont even try. All i can do is hope that other people with moderate opinions can see the video for themselves and see that this is not right. Who are the police protecting exactly? Not me is all I can say for certain.

Sorry dude, when you use terms like 'global system' and 'Authoritarian bootlickers' you have void your right to claim a moderate opinion.

 

Trouble is, he voided in the Green Room.

 

Ewwwwwww.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't even notice they were not wearing badges. That speaks volumes for 'professional conduct'. This whole thing is starting to look more like a paramilitary operation than a justified use of the riot squad.

 

I am starting to wish i used jackbootlicker if i knew how many times it would be repeated :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they have enough people to carry people bodily from the scene - three to four officers, one limb apiece - then how is dragging someone along the ground with their back scraping against the ground because their shirts are being dragged up due to the way they're being dragged reasonable?

If the decision has been made to remove people, I don't necessarily see why those people should have the right to be carried instead of dragged. Dragging may be a bit harder on the body, but I don't see it being sufficiently more violent than carrying to justify such a right. I wonder how many of those dragged sought medical attention.
I'm not talking about whether they have a right to be dragged or carried or not. I'm talking about what level of force was deemed proportional. Not that any context is given to how the people being dragged were behaving before they were dragged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they have enough people to carry people bodily from the scene - three to four officers, one limb apiece - then how is dragging someone along the ground with their back scraping against the ground because their shirts are being dragged up due to the way they're being dragged reasonable?

If the decision has been made to remove people, I don't necessarily see why those people should have the right to be carried instead of dragged. Dragging may be a bit harder on the body, but I don't see it being sufficiently more violent than carrying to justify such a right. I wonder how many of those dragged sought medical attention.
I'm not talking about whether they have a right to be dragged or carried or not. I'm talking about what level of force was deemed proportional. Not that any context is given to how the people being dragged were behaving before they were dragged.

 

Hrm, good point. I started typing up a counterargument, based on similar reasons to my previous post, but... good point.

 

Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I view this as simple as it can get,

 

Cops: protesters must move out of this place by certain time

Protesters: no! we are going to stay here

Cops: fine, we are going to move you, we have given warning and now we take action

 

what were the cops meant to do? just let them be? "oh ok, you guys dont want to move, move when you guys feel like it"

not exactly the best approach is it?

 

Im surprised they didnt start beating them with batons for all i care.

its like speeding then complaining you got a ticket and saying its biased, you did something wrong, you deserve reprimand. the law is there for a reason, follow it and no shit happens

want to protest? do it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I view this as simple as it can get,

Im surprised they didnt start beating them with batons for all i care.

the law is there for a reason

I lol'd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ive said what i want to, the police may have been slightly excessive in their methods but i dont see why the protesters are bitching and moaning about getting hit, if they want to spit in peoples faces, block traffic etc, there are going to be consequences,

but if they co operate when they were told to leave, and still got hit, then by all means take action.

 

harsh and unreasonable, probably, but thats how i view it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blocking traffic and spitting at people are not excuses for the police to hit people. Getting hit is not a consequence of disobeying the police. The law's pretty clear on that.

Edited by Nich...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MrInsaneBuff

Its good to see that the green room attracts a good and diverse number of opinions.

 

Nothing I can ever say will sway you Authoritarian bootlickers, so i wont even try. All i can do is hope that other people with moderate opinions can see the video for themselves and see that this is not right. Who are the police protecting exactly? Not me is all I can say for certain.

 

Wow. I was pretty on the fence until now.

 

I thought the Police might have been a bit excessive in the actual force they applied to some idvidules. But its hard to tell because all those video's have been edited so its not possible to see the context. But wil was willing to take it at face value in some of the incidents shown that the police were going a bit too far. I also thought that there seems to be a lack of clarity, and a fair bit of hypocracy in the protesters message. It seemed that there was more interest in chanting rather meaningless and not on the subject phrases. Than there was in actually trying to deliver a message that could sway the undecided's.

 

Then you use some pretty inflamatory language to describe other atomic user's, who at worst called you a hippy or hipster, and responded to your statements with reasoned arguements.

 

Way to lose the discussion dude and prove their points for them.

 

Honestly i would have been impressed if you had come back with some real facts about the issue's and also demostrated how the people who had been asked to move on, after they said that they would peacfully, then reneged on that promise, were right to resist in the ways that they had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure the OP's vitriol is directed at those who defend the cops and bash the protesters as a default position, and as such, I totally endorse it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its good to see that the green room attracts a good and diverse number of opinions.

 

Nothing I can ever say will sway you Authoritarian bootlickers, so i wont even try. All i can do is hope that other people with moderate opinions can see the video for themselves and see that this is not right. Who are the police protecting exactly? Not me is all I can say for certain.

 

Wow. I was pretty on the fence until now.

 

I thought the Police might have been a bit excessive in the actual force they applied to some idvidules. But its hard to tell because all those video's have been edited so its not possible to see the context. But wil was willing to take it at face value in some of the incidents shown that the police were going a bit too far. I also thought that there seems to be a lack of clarity, and a fair bit of hypocracy in the protesters message. It seemed that there was more interest in chanting rather meaningless and not on the subject phrases. Than there was in actually trying to deliver a message that could sway the undecided's.

 

Then you use some pretty inflamatory language to describe other atomic user's, who at worst called you a hippy or hipster, and responded to your statements with reasoned arguements.

 

Way to lose the discussion dude and prove their points for them.

 

Honestly i would have been impressed if you had come back with some real facts about the issue's and also demostrated how the people who had been asked to move on, after they said that they would peacfully, then reneged on that promise, were right to resist in the ways that they had.

 

Last time i checked you didn't win or loose a discussion (you're thinking debate) - and would you call

 

 

I too am appalled with how the police treated the protesters.

 

 

They should have used bean bag rounds and sting grenades on them. Fucking waste of space dickheads like these protesters are whats going to ruin this country long before 'The Man' does.

this a reasoned argument? (sorry RS i'm using it out of context but it proves a point :P)

 

 

Hahahaha, this is the funniest shit I have heard in relation to the "occupy" movement since the Brisbane were going on about the fluoride and vaccines and chemtrails.

 

From now on, we'll have a police force where all police activities must be based on the consent of the people the police are responding to! lol

so lets throw old uncle juggtron in with the rest of the crazies that wear tin foil hats!!!! Sounds perfectly REASONABLE to me.

 

As for the labels - i'm pretty sure they'll get over it - if they are bootlickers then they wont care what a filthy libertarian thinks, and if they aren't maybe they'll see that what the cops were doing wasn't right - that being my objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×