It depends what they are being used against though surely. If the aim is to disburse and not maim or hurt (I haven't seen any reports of people being hurt by them) then why should they not be used?
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
It depends what they are being used against though surely. If the aim is to disburse and not maim or hurt (I haven't seen any reports of people being hurt by them) then why should they not be used?
im against The State shooting anything of any description at an unarmed population (and I dont count horse poo as 'armed')
for clarity:
1. I think the cameras captured some real moron protesters doing stupid, counterproductive intimidating tactics.
2. I suspect the vast majority were employing non-violent techniques.
3. battons and spray should suffice for people throwing horse *smile* and the odd punch surely?
violence, as all things, is on a spectrum,
and guns and grenades, irrespective of the projectile/explosion, are a fair way up the spectrum.
I have no problem with a police officer shooting the Bondi stabber
I do have a problem with a police officer tasering a 90year old
I do have a problem with police using guns and grenades on unarmed protesters.
people have been killed by rubber bullets overseas.
I'll give you my kitten when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!
Not old school at all. It's just your preferred response, submitting to authority by the sounds. You just call it old school to legitimise it. Violent protest is as old school as it gets. The key difference here is the protestors, regardless of what you think of their tactics, have a legit cause, soccer hooligans don't.
Could be real. He’s grabbing a couple of you know what there
In general, I support the protests. I'm sure I would have attended if I was free to attend.
But of course, I hate the way they conducted themselves... if it’s true they threw acid and horse poo, that's unacceptable. Its's also unacceptable they disrupted peak hour traffic for people coming from the west. I'm OK with people disrupting CBD traffic as there are always other means to get around. But stuffing people coming from the burbs is crap behaviour.
Probably the most frustrating thing about this is that we will never know the truth of what happened because its impossible to know what the real truth is nowadays. The protesters goaded the police. The police goaded protesters. Acid. horse poo. rubber bullets. Who knows where the truth lies.
But of course, I hate the way they conducted themselves... if it’s true they threw acid and horse poo, that's unacceptable. Its's also unacceptable they disrupted peak hour traffic for people coming from the west. I'm OK with people disrupting CBD traffic as there are always other means to get around. But stuffing people coming from the burbs is crap behaviour.
Probably the most frustrating thing about this is that we will never know the truth of what happened because its impossible to know what the real truth is nowadays. The protesters goaded the police. The police goaded protesters. Acid. horse poo. rubber bullets. Who knows where the truth lies.
'low-level acid' = lemon juice.
this version talks to both sides
Up to 100 anti-war protesters injured outside Melbourne weapons expo, advocates say, as police accused of ‘riot-type’ response
Victoria police deny accusation of excessive force after activists say several people protesting Land Forces expo are in hospital with serious injuries
1000 cops should be able to handle 3000 protesters with lemon juice and horse *smile* without shooting and lobbing grenades I reckon
Nah. Genuine protesters can peacefully stand around n make their point. Unfortunately there's always a hard core of gutless lowlifes that just love pushing the agro intimidation n violence while hiding behind masks and the genuine protesters. Leaves the plod bugger all choice but to sit back n cop a belting, or to swing back when they have to. Them genuine protesters simply need to grow half a brain when *smile* starts to get ugly n get the hell out of the way for a bit, instead of joining in or standing in the middle like idiots as they often do n bleating that someone got rough with them.
Better yet, they can bugger off n protest in Israel or Gaza, Iran or in Russia n China or America or wherever it is that they imagine is so wrong n leave the rest of us in peace n quiet to get on with our lives.
Yeah. I was going to post that I think some and missed the point of your post but decided to leave it alone, but you have said it now. I didn’t read it as you saying that it was the fault of the police.
I am also not that comfortable with rubber bullets and stun grenades tbh. I am a little surprised that has happened.
I’ve never understood how anyone, no matter what they are protesting, can believe they progress whatever they are fighting for by violence and also by creating incredible inconvenience for others.
But that's not old school, it's reactionary, which is different.
If protestors through the ages just stood around, not much would have changed.
People do realise the protests were against arms dealers and the arms trade right?
Last edited:
Probably depends what the protest is about. And how immediate it is to the protest.
The most effective protest movement in Australia’s history was probably the Vietnam war protests and the moratorium marches and they were overwhelmingly peaceful.
One of the biggest maybe but most effective is highly debateable. Peaceful marches, which do generally involve pesky inconvenience to reactionary commuters, can be effective, so can violence/ civil disobedience that results from refusing or attempting to stop something, like the Eureka Stockade, the Springboks tour protests, where a lot of protestors who wanted to be peaceful got their heads cracked open, and the Tent Embassy, to name a few.
At passionate protests there will generally be a few thugs, but the stakes are high, its hard to keep a voluntary, passionate crowd disciplined in the face of a riot squad.
The protestors are trying to stop a wine and dine for the peddlers of global murder, terror and mayhem against innocent children and civilians, and people are more concerned about a few waterpistols full of vinegar, some thrown horse manure, and some people stuck in traffic.
Not sure where the stories of throwing acid come from (Daily Mail? Murdoch Media?) but I haven't seen reports of that.
I think the main irony is rubber bullets against protesters who are against arms, sort of makes the point really.
And as for a few people being jostled etc, hey, they're selling tanks, missiles etc - lots of things with one design criteria: how many people they can kill. They can go jump.
DS
I think the main irony is rubber bullets against protesters who are against arms, sort of makes the point really.
And as for a few people being jostled etc, hey, they're selling tanks, missiles etc - lots of things with one design criteria: how many people they can kill. They can go jump.
DS
yep, they're protesting against blokes peddling 'greater lethality',
so other blokes can blow up babies more efficiently.
yay
We all get why they are protesting, hell most of us agree with them, but I think this is the issue that people mistake, is the role that the police need to take here. They need to take an impartial position with the sole focus to protect people and property.
No doubt protestors think they are non violent when they try to break past lines and get into the convention centre, but thats exactly what the police are there to protect and then when they do what they are supposed to do, they are claled heavy handed and people say "but we did nothing wrong". The whole emphasis of the protests out of the mouths of their leaders was to "disrupt" the convention. Thats not a peaceful process, thats trying to force your way in and push the limits of what you can get away with.
Who knows what the police think, I'd hazard a guess with protests like this, a lot of them probably think along similar lines to the protestors, but thats where having the job of being a cop means you have to essentially push your opinions to the side, and do the job that you are employed to do.
Many of those pictured at the protests were wearing some form of eye protection, if they weren't expecting to get violent and push the cops (again independent news sources have stated that the crowd were goading the cops for at least an hour) into action when they would need to fire out capsicum scrap, then why would they have needed eye protection?
There's always a lot of talk about how "it was different in the old days".
They tend not to be true.
On July 4 1968 4,000 protesters at the US Consulate were involved in major confrontations with police and the police horses were ridden in to the demonstration.
There was draft resistance, which of course was illegal and accompanied with the usual claims about how the draft resisters were threatening the security of Australia. Some draft resisters were gaoled for 2 years.
There were sit-ins at recruiting offices and national service offices.
They stopped traffic which seems to be an issue with some.
Of course, they were constantly accused of being communists, whether they were or not.
The heirs to the moratoriums are the protesters on the streets of Melbourne, not those who seem to be upset about the protests but relaxed about weapons being marketed in Jeff's Shed. I know which side I'm on.
DS
For a start there was the introduction, but only for a limited period, of the low and middle income tax offset. Seems it is ok to make tax breaks only temporary when it is for wage earners.
Lot's of changes around working from home expenses over the last few years.
There are changes in industrial relations laws which happen quite often, possibly the biggest change was under Howard when we lost the right to take industrial action except under limited circumstances. These things get altered often.
Given all of this I don't know how anyone works in the workforce given the uncertainty, or maybe it is just that employees are bit more resilient to change than investors!
If you invest, as we all do via our super, then you invest in an environment where the government of the day can change the rules. This is reality and part of the risk of investing. I don't have a problem with changes being phased in. I do have a problem when investors cry foul if any changes adversely affect them, they need to suck it up, especially when the changes are to get rid of what are clearly bad policies such as negative gearing and somehow getting taxed less if your income is derived from appreciating assets (ie: economic rent).
DS
Excellent article by Greg Jericho about house prices and household disposable income:
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...errace-house-22m-listing-average-house-prices
Here's a flavour of the article:
Some good graphs in the article but the above gives the gist of it.
DS
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...errace-house-22m-listing-average-house-prices
Here's a flavour of the article:
Some good graphs in the article but the above gives the gist of it.
DS
