G20 Summit

[Undesired Walrus]

How much traction is this getting out of the UK? It's like the apocalypse over here, with the media going ape over 'The meeting to save the world'. Shops boarded up, bankers advised to dress down on their way into work, thousands upon thousands of protestors screaming everything from 'financial fools day' to calling outright for revolution.

It seems everyone is over here, from Obama to Medvedev, from the guy from China to that bloke from Australia.

Even EasyJet are using Obama's landing in Stanstead to advertise their company ("If it's good enough for a President").

[Oliver]

Teh world finally comes to an end. Why even bothering about the summit? :D

[Undesired Walrus]

If so, it's a shame the nuts get the limelight at the end. They are flooding London.

Some seem to be distraught that Bush has left. What to rally against now?

[lionking]

Boris Johnson wrote a good article (can't find a link) about someone getting up in the rabble and shouting through a megaphone "What do we want?", only to get silence and shuffling of feet.

[Darat]

Well we have got the four horsemen of the Apocalypse converging on the Bank of England.

[WildCat]

How much traction is this getting out of the UK? It's like the apocalypse over here, with the media going ape over 'The meeting to save the world'. Shops boarded up, bankers advised to dress down on their way into work, thousands upon thousands of protestors screaming everything from 'financial fools day' to calling outright for revolution.

It seems everyone is over here, from Obama to Medvedev, from the guy from China to that bloke from Australia.

Even EasyJet are using Obama's landing in Stanstead to advertise their company ("If it's good enough for a President").
Got about 20 minutes of coverage on the Today show this hour.

Of course, about 19 minutes and 30 seconds was devoted to what Michelle Obama is wearing and will wear to her meeting with the queen. I think I threw up in my mouth a little bit...

[WildCat]

So, anyone want to get a pool going on when the first molotov will fly?

[Darat]

Is it a nice outfit?



























:duck:

[Undesired Walrus]

They're currently writing on the wall of the Royal Bank of Scotland, from the highly original 'Money is for loosers[sic]' to 'Scum'. Few windows are broken now.

ETA: I just saw on the the news a group with guitars assemble! Anything but this!

[WildCat]

They're currently writing on the wall of the Royal Bank of Scotland, from the highly original 'Money is for loosers[sic]' to 'Scum'.
At least it's all nice and balanced, with knowledge of spelling matched by their economic knowledge. In perfect harmony!

[Policenaut]

Someone was saying on one of the morning shows that some of the protesters were chanting "down with money". I guess they want to go back to the barter system. That'll be fun. I'm sure they all have indispensable skills that will ensure their good health and well being.

[DC]

i personally dont expect anything special from the G20. but somehow i hope the Industrie around here will see it positiv, whatever they do. ATM every single project has ben set on ice until .... who knows....

about money, there are many people that want to go back to the Gold Standard. As they see the FIAT money as a major source of our crisis.

[WildCat]

about money, there are many people that want to go back to the Gold Standard. As they see the FIAT money as a major source of our crisis.
We call those people moRons, or Paultards. Etc etc.

[TriskettheKid]

I LOVE it when there's a G-20 summit, or something like it.

Why?

Because the protestors. It's like the San Diego ComiCon of idiots, morons, and stupid people. Add to that the fact that they can't even represent what they claim to represent, and you get several days of free entertainment.

I mean, seriously, when was the last time you actually saw some diversity amongst the Che-wannabes who show up at these protests?

[DC]

We call those people moRons, or Paultards. Etc etc.

yeah i know you like to label people so everything fits your simple world view :)

[tomwaits]

also Ronulans!

[dudalb]

It's official; The Brits have just lost the right to snicker on how loony we Yanks are.

Wow, maybe the British Soccer Holligans have all joined Anarchist Groups.

[dudalb]

I am wondering how the hell the protestors got hold of an armored car, though.....

[dudalb]

I LOVE it when there's a G-20 summit, or something like it.

Why?

Because the protestors. It's like the San Diego ComiCon of idiots, morons, and stupid people. Add to that the fact that they can't even represent what they claim to represent, and you get several days of free entertainment.

I mean, seriously, when was the last time you actually saw some diversity amongst the Che-wannabes who show up at these protests?


At least at the San Diego ComicCon there is cool stuff you can buy.

[timhau]

about money, there are many people that want to go back to the Gold Standard. As they see the FIAT money as a major source of our crisis.

That'd be so cool. We'd all have our own Great Depression stories to tell our grandchildren around campfire.

[DC]

That'd be so cool. We'd all have our own Great Depression stories to tell our grandchildren around campfire.

we will be bussy explaining them why they where born into such huge depts :)

[Brainster]

Boris Johnson wrote a good article (can't find a link) about someone getting up in the rabble and shouting through a megaphone "What do we want?", only to get silence and shuffling of feet.

Good article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/5039646/Heres-a-slogan-for-the-G20-mob-What-do-we-want-Free-trade.html), although that part appears to be a prediction.

And at that moment, a great silence will fall in the carnival of cretinous crusties. The papier mâché horsemen of the Apocalypse will turn their heads inquiringly in his direction. "What do we want?" he will demand again, a shade more hysterically, and by this time the rioters will be looking at their feet and coughing. Er. What do they want?

The embarrassing truth is that they haven't a clue. They seem to be cross about the recession, and also about climate change – even though there is nothing like an economic downturn for reducing CO2 emissions.

[Corsair 115]

about money, there are many people that want to go back to the Gold Standard. As they see the FIAT money as a major source of our crisis.


You may wish to explain why some countries, such as Canada to name one example, are not having any appreciable difficulties with their financial systems at all. Their banks are profitable, stable, and secure. No bailouts and no mortgage fiascos. This in spite of using your so-called "fiat" money system.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

At least it's all nice and balanced, with knowledge of spelling matched by their economic knowledge. In perfect harmony!

I remember when I was working a job in Portland, the local loonies had one of their countless marches against Bush and the War in Iraq. Their "theme" was that Bush was only invading so that we could take their oil fields. So a local reporter asked them if that was the case, why didn't we take the oil fields the first time we were there? Blank stares. These retards didn't seem to know that we had invaded Iraq a decade earlier. :rolleyes:

[DC]

You may wish to explain why some countries, such as Canada to name one example, are not having any appreciable difficulties with their financial systems at all. Their banks are profitable, stable, and secure. No bailouts and no mortgage fiascos. This in spite of using your so-called "fiat" money system.

well I did not say, I support the idea of going back to the gold standard.

and it is not my Fiat-money, it would be far more correct to say its the chinese fiat money :) afaik where they the first.

and its not so called fiat-money, it is a well established term.

[dudalb]

I bet the regulars at the Sunday Afternoon Loon Festival at Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park in London are mad at being upstaged.

[timhau]

If it's Fiat money, does that mean Chrysler (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28747620/) is in the clear now?

[DC]

If it's Fiat money, does that mean Chrysler (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28747620/) is in the clear now?

welll you can view that far more optimistic.
you can see that also as Ferrari-Money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari) :D

[Childlike Empress]

You may wish to explain why some countries, such as Canada to name one example, are not having any appreciable difficulties with their financial systems at all. Their banks are profitable, stable, and secure. No bailouts and no mortgage fiascos. This in spite of using your so-called "fiat" money system.


You are ill-informed (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12007).

[malcolmxwarrior]

How much traction is this getting out of the UK? It's like the apocalypse over here, with the media going ape over 'The meeting to save the world'. Shops boarded up, bankers advised to dress down on their way into work, thousands upon thousands of protestors screaming everything from 'financial fools day' to calling outright for revolution.

It seems everyone is over here, from Obama to Medvedev, from the guy from China to that bloke from Australia.

Even EasyJet are using Obama's landing in Stanstead to advertise their company ("If it's good enough for a President").



That's Crazy!

I assure you that there is nothing they can say or do that will save the United States. They can make the toxic assets and the toxic debt go away. They're gonna have to take it like men and rebuild. In 20 years America will be the innovators they once were again. But for the next 15 years they're gonna be a living like a third world nation. Every Americans standard of living is gonna fall dramatically.

I don't see any way around that. Can somebody convince me otherwise?

[dudalb]

That's Crazy!

I assure you that there is nothing they can say or do that will save the United States. They can make the toxic assets and the toxic debt go away. They're gonna have to take it like men and rebuild. In 20 years America will be the innovators they once were again. But for the next 15 years they're gonna be a living like a third world nation. Every Americans standard of living is gonna fall dramatically.

I don't see any way around that. Can somebody convince me otherwise?

But first we will have to get rid of all the Jews, of course.

[JihadJane]

Some seem to be distraught that Bush has left. What to rally against now?

Can I have some of the drugs you are taking, please?

[malcolmxwarrior]

But first we will have to get rid of all the Jews, of course.

Yeah.

Maybe we should send them to china.

They've been ousted for thousands of years. It's never gonna stop because they will never change.

[dudalb]

Yeah.

Maybe we should send them to china.

They've been ousted for thousands of years. It's never gonna stop because they will never change.


You hereby win the "most worthless poster at JREF" award.
You have contributed nothing but bigotry to this website.
Nobody, except a couple of your fellow bigots, has any respect for you.
The idea that maybe you are a Troll is beginnng to cross my mind.

[dudalb]

Can I have some of the drugs you are taking, please?

Coming from you :dl: :dl:

[malcolmxwarrior]

You hereby win the "most worthless poster at JREF" award.
You have contributed nothing but bigotry to this website.
Nobody, except a couple of your fellow bigots, has any respect for you.
The idea that maybe you are a Troll is beginnng to cross my mind.

That's nice.

Keep defending the bad guys and see how far you get. Fight their wars and you end up homeless on the freeway off-ramp. Invest in their stocks and their economy and you end up homeless.

No scratch that, some end up homeless, but all end up serfs. Ignorant brain-washed serfs.




There is a great danger for the United States of America. That great danger is the Jew. Gentlemen , in whichever land the Jews have settled, they have depressed the moral level and lowered the degree of commercial honesty. They have created a State within a State, and when they are opposed, they attempted to strangle the nation financially as in the case of Portugal and Spain."

"For more than 1700 years they have lamented their sorrowful fate, namely that they were driven out of the motherland; but gentlemen, if the civilized world today should give them back Palestine as their property , they would immediately find pressing reasons for not returning there. Why? Because they are vampires and cannot live on other vampires. They cannot live among themselves. They must live among Christians and others who do not belong to their race."

"If they are not excluded from the United States by the Constitution, within less than a hundred years they will stream into our country in such numbers that they will rule and destroy us, and change our form of government for which Americans have shed their blood and sacrificed life, property and personal freedom. If the Jews are not excluded, within 200 years our children will be working in the fields to feed the Jews, while they remain in the Counting House gleefully rubbing their hands."

"I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude the Jew forever, your children`s children will curse you in your grave."

"Their ideas are not those of Americans. The leopard cannot change his spots. The Jews are a danger to this land, and if they are allowed to enter, they will imperil its institutions."

"They should be excluded by the Constitution."

[Childlike Empress]

You hereby win the "most worthless poster at JREF" award.
You have contributed nothing but bigotry to this website.
Nobody, except a couple of your fellow bigots, has any respect for you.
The idea that maybe you are a Troll is beginnng to cross my mind.


Now THAT is called projection.













(i'm not encouraging malcolmxwarrior's posts by that, only laughing at dudalb)

[dudalb]

Now THAT is called projection.













(i'm not encouraging malcolmxwarrior's posts by that, only laughing at dudalb)

Funny that you side with an anti semitic bigot, though.
At the risk of a Godwin, it reminds me of the Nazi Soviet Pact, which so many lefties like to forget.

[Childlike Empress]

Because of the certainty of a little smear attempt by you, i've added the disclaimer to my post. I know that guy only from reading his posts today here and in the Chavez thread.

The disclaimer wasn't necessary anyway - read your projection.

[Dr Adequate]

How much traction is this getting out of the UK? It's like the apocalypse over here, with the media going ape over 'The meeting to save the world'. Shops boarded up, bankers advised to dress down on their way into work, thousands upon thousands of protestors screaming everything from 'financial fools day' to calling outright for revolution. So ... let's get this straight ... the people who want to destroy capitalism are demonstrating against the people who actually have.

[Corsair 115]

You are ill-informed (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12007).


That might have more credibility if it linked to the actual paragraphs in the actual budget documents. Curiously, it does not. It talks about leaked details but then never goes to the appropriate sections in the released documents. It gives me the feel of a conspiracy site... perhaps you can find another source which supports the claims made at that site.

ETA: Yup, GlobalResarch.ca is a conspiracy site. Take a look at the 9/11 section, that's all one needs to know. The fellow behind the site, Michel Chossudovsky, got in trouble with Jewish groups for publishing articles on the web site which blames the Jews for 9/11. You can find stories about this in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper back in 2005. It's interesting that, just by the style of writing, one can swiftly suspect a site is a conspiracy-minded site.

[WildCat]

There is a great danger for the United States of America. That great danger is the Jew. Gentlemen , in whichever land the Jews have settled, they have depressed the moral level and lowered the degree of commercial honesty. They have created a State within a State, and when they are opposed, they attempted to strangle the nation financially as in the case of Portugal and Spain."

"For more than 1700 years they have lamented their sorrowful fate, namely that they were driven out of the motherland; but gentlemen, if the civilized world today should give them back Palestine as their property , they would immediately find pressing reasons for not returning there. Why? Because they are vampires and cannot live on other vampires. They cannot live among themselves. They must live among Christians and others who do not belong to their race."

"If they are not excluded from the United States by the Constitution, within less than a hundred years they will stream into our country in such numbers that they will rule and destroy us, and change our form of government for which Americans have shed their blood and sacrificed life, property and personal freedom. If the Jews are not excluded, within 200 years our children will be working in the fields to feed the Jews, while they remain in the Counting House gleefully rubbing their hands."

"I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude the Jew forever, your children`s children will curse you in your grave."

"Their ideas are not those of Americans. The leopard cannot change his spots. The Jews are a danger to this land, and if they are allowed to enter, they will imperil its institutions."

"They should be excluded by the Constitution."
I agree with malcolmxwarrior 100%. What shall we do about this Jewish problem?

[WildCat]

It gives me the feel of a conspiracy site...
Ya think? Have you seen their 9/11 page? http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=theme&themeId=18

:dl:

[Corsair 115]

Ya think? Have you seen their 9/11 page? http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=theme&themeId=18

:dl:


See my ETA, which I must have been writing while you posted. ;)

[Childlike Empress]

The story how Chossudovsky "got in trouble" with jewish groups (himself a jew btw) is interesting by itself, and covered on this forum afair, but what sources are you missing specifically in the article?

[parky76]

"Their ideas are not those of Americans. The leopard cannot change his spots. The Jews are a danger to this land, and if they are allowed to enter, they will imperil its institutions."

"They should be excluded by the Constitution."

I uphold the values of democracy, freedom, tolerance, and respect for all cultures. What values do you uphold?

Bigotry? Intolerance? Hatred?

[parky76]

Yeah.

Maybe we should send them to china.

They've been ousted for thousands of years. It's never gonna stop because they will never change.

Maybe we should send all Nazis to China.

[Corsair 115]

The story how Chossudovsky "got in trouble" with jewish groups (himself a jew btw) is interesting by itself, and covered on this forum afair, but what sources are you missing specifically in the article?


Well, why does the article merely reference leaked details from the budget rather than cite the specific paragraphs from the budget? The budget was put out by the government and thus became available for public inspection. Plenty of businesses, consumer groups, activists, and lots of others always weigh in at budget time, offering their views on whether it's a good budget or not. It doesn't seem likely that none of these many sets of eyes all scanning the budget in minute detail wouldn't catch any sort of financial trickery or on the part of the government.

It's also unlikely the Conservatives could sneak something politically unpleasant through without the opposition jumping all over it. The Liberals would dearly love to find an issue with which they could defeat Harper in the next election.

The central point is this: none of the Canadian banks needed money because they were on the verge of insolvency. By law, our banks are well capitalized, subprime mortgages comprise a tiny percentage of mortgages here, and there are various rules in place which did not fuel the kind of speculative housing boom seen in the U.S. (there is no tax deduction for mortage interest payments here, for example).

Indeed, the last official failure of a Canadian bank was in 1928.

[DC]

Well, why does the article merely reference leaked details from the budget rather than cite the specific paragraphs from the budget? The budget was put out by the government and thus became available for public inspection. Plenty of businesses, consumer groups, activists, and lots of others always weigh in at budget time, offering their views on whether it's a good budget or not. It doesn't seem likely that none of these many sets of eyes all scanning the budget in minute detail wouldn't catch any sort of financial trickery or on the part of the government.

It's also unlikely the Conservatives could sneak something politically unpleasant through without the opposition jumping all over it. The Liberals would dearly love to find an issue with which they could defeat Harper in the next election.

The central point is this: none of the Canadian banks needed money because they were on the verge of insolvency. By law, our banks are well capitalized, subprime mortgages comprise a tiny percentage of mortgages here, and there are various rules in place which did not fuel the kind of speculative housing boom seen in the U.S. (there is no tax deduction for mortage interest payments here, for example).

Indeed, the last official failure of a Canadian bank was in 1928.

Canadian Banks are regarded the best atm indeed. Nontheless did Jim Flaherty announced that Canada will buy 25B worth of mortgage debt from banks in an attempt to stabilise the lending industry

http://www.bnn.ca/news/4033.html
(In case BNN has a 9/11 section, i distance me from it no mather what it says)

[Oliver]

Man dies during G20 protests in London
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/02/g20-protests-man-dies-london

[Stout]

I LOVE it when there's a G-20 summit, or something like it.

Why?

Because the protestors. It's like the San Diego ComiCon of idiots, morons, and stupid people. Add to that the fact that they can't even represent what they claim to represent, and you get several days of free entertainment.

I mean, seriously, when was the last time you actually saw some diversity amongst the Che-wannabes who show up at these protests?


I like you :)

[DC]

So ... let's get this straight ... the people who want to destroy capitalism are demonstrating against the people who actually have.

LOL

it took me a while till i got that one.
nice, very nice :)

[funk de fino]

we will be bussy explaining them why they where born into such huge depts :)


I'm sorry, I shouldn't snicker at a spelling mistake but that one is funny.

[DC]

ah indeed one of my many many spelling errors. I hope most people understood it anyway. Only a "Depp" laughs about it :)

[Corsair 115]

Canadian Banks are regarded the best atm indeed. Nontheless did Jim Flaherty announced that Canada will buy 25B worth of mortgage debt from banks in an attempt to stabilise the lending industry

Yes, as and your source shows, it was covered in the news at the time the announcement was made. It was also done in reaction to what was happening elsewhere in terms of financial instability, not in regards to the situation domestically. Our banks got as scared to loan as did other banks, in spite of their better financial position.


(In case BNN has a 9/11 section, i distance me from it no mather what it says)


Considering that anyone who seriously proposes 9/11 was an inside job by the U.S. government is either, at best, hopelessly misguided, and at worst, a total fool, any site which prominently touts a 9/11 conspiracy automatically loses its credibility as far as I'm concerned. If it can get that event so completely and utterly wrong, it gives me no confidence that it can get anything else right.

[GreyICE]

The gold standard is the single stupidest idea that a certain breed of libertarian has ever come up with.

Gold, as we note, has an interesting property. It rises in price as the economy slows, it drops in price as the economy speeds up. Thus, if US $ were redeemable for gold, they would be expensive when the economy was slow. This would create a huge export barrier, thus further slowing the economy.

If the economy is doing well, the dollar would drop, lowering our ability to buy imports and underpricing our exports overseas.

Glad to see that it does about the exact opposite of what we'd like it to do. Suicide pacts are fun? One would note even when America was nominally on the Gold standard, it was not in fact on the gold standard.

[DC]

Yes, as and your source shows, it was covered in the news at the time the announcement was made. It was also done in reaction to what was happening elsewhere in terms of financial instability, not in regards to the situation domestically. Our banks got as scared to loan as did other banks, in spite of their better financial position.

you claimed
No bailouts and no mortgage fiascos.

ETA :and that is...... correct :) when you understand bailout correctly :D

[Corsair 115]

ETA :and that is...... correct :) when you understand bailout correctly Subprime mortgages consist of about 5% of mortgages in Canada, in contrast to as much as 20% of mortgages in the United States. Second, mortgages rules and requirements are entirely different here as compared to the U.S., as are the relevant tax laws. That results in a very different home loan environment (and yet one that still has managed to achieve a home ownership rate just as good as in the U.S.).

Bailout, under the commonly used meaning, is money given directly to a company to offset losses, typically to prevent the company from failing due to those losses.

That's not what happened here. The government made money available if the banks ran into trouble and if they needed additional security due to the uncertainty gripping the international financial market. That's a very different thing than the government directly giving a cheque for $5 billion to Royal Bank, a $4 billion cheque to Scotiabank, a $3 billion cheque to Bank of Montreal, and so on. The latter style of direct assistance in specific amounts to specific companies is what happened stateside.

You are aware that there are several banks in the U.S. which have actually failed in the last year, yes? This is addition to the big-name Wall Street bailouts with which everyone is familiar. No bank here has failed in over seventy years. It is not an exaggeration to say that if the U.S. had had Canada's financial system structure, rules, and regulations, it would not have experienced the mess it currently finds itself in.

Of course, since you are a 9/11 conspiracy advocate, you playing semantic games is not entirely unexpected.

[DC]

Subprime mortgages consist of about 5% of mortgages in Canada, in contrast to as much as 20% of mortgages in the United States. Second, mortgages rules and requirements are entirely different here as compared to the U.S., as are the relevant tax laws. That results in a very different home loan environment (and yet one that still has managed to achieve a home ownership rate just as good as in the U.S.).

Bailout, under the commonly used meaning, is money given directly to a company to offset losses, typically to prevent the company from failing due to those losses.

That's not what happened here. The government made money available if the banks ran into trouble and if they needed additional security due to the uncertainty gripping the international financial market. That's a very different thing than the government directly giving a cheque for $5 billion to Royal Bank, a $4 billion cheque to Scotiabank, a $3 billion cheque to Bank of Montreal, and so on. The latter style of direct assistance in specific amounts to specific companies is what happened stateside.

You are aware that there are several banks in the U.S. which have actually failed in the last year, yes? This is addition to the big-name Wall Street bailouts with which everyone is familiar. No bank here has failed in over seventy years. It is not an exaggeration to say that if the U.S. had had Canada's financial system structure, rules, and regulations, it would not have experienced the mess it currently finds itself in.

Of course, since you are a 9/11 conspiracy advocate, you playing semantic games is not entirely unexpected.

Bush apologist shill you :cool:

[JihadJane]

Man dies during G20 protests in London
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/02/g20-protests-man-dies-london


"A man who died during the G20 protest was pushed to the ground by a police officer, video footage has shown.

Ian Tomlinson, 47, collapsed from a heart attack during protests outside the Bank of England last Wednesday.

Newsagent Mr Tomlinson, who was not protesting, is seen receiving a two-handed push from a police officer."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7988828.stm

[stilicho]

"Newsagent Mr Tomlinson, who was not protesting, is seen receiving a two-handed push from a police officer."

Obviously the UK is a fascist police state.

[JihadJane]

Obviously the UK is a fascist police state.

Ease up on the magic mushrooms, stilicho! You're overreacting.

[pchams]

"A man who died during the G20 protest was pushed to the ground by a police officer, video footage has shown.

Ian Tomlinson, 47, collapsed from a heart attack during protests outside the Bank of England last Wednesday.

Newsagent Mr Tomlinson, who was not protesting, is seen receiving a two-handed push from a police officer."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7988828.stm

So obviously, the idiot protesters who caused the riot which required police presence should be held accountable, right?

[DC]

So obviously, the idiot protesters who caused the riot which required police presence should be held accountable, right?

what about the idiot Politicans that caused the demonstrations with their politics?

[JihadJane]

Eye-witness account of the aggressive police action at summit:

'Trapped and beaten by police in Climate Camp'

http://www.opendemocracy.net/blog/ourkingdom-theme/ourkingdom/2009/04/09/trapped-and-beaten-by-police-in-climate-camp

[stilicho]

Ease up on the magic mushrooms, stilicho! You're overreacting.

Why did you post that then? Are you insensitive to death?

[JihadJane]

Why did you post that then? Are you insensitive to death?


I thought your conclusion that this one incident means that the UK is fascist police state was, perhaps, so politically so naive as to have required the intervention of an hallucinogenic substance.

[JihadJane]

The results of a second postmortem, demanded by his family, show that Ian Tomlinson, the man who died at the summit, appears to have died from an abdominal haemorrhage rather than heart attack as ascertained by the first postmortem.

Tomlinson suffered a heavy fall after being pushed violently from behind while walking slowly away from the police lines with his hands in his pockets.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/17/tomlinson-postmortem-g20-police

The accepted, fabricated story, willingly swallowed by the mainstream media , was that Tomlinson was an unlucky bystander who had suffered an unfortunate heart attack after being caught up in the mob of protesters. It was claimed that he had been cared for by police officers, who braved a bombardment of bottles to try and save his life.

Except for his being an unlucky bystander none of this was true.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/17/tomlinson-postmortem-g20-police

[stilicho]

The results of a second postmortem, demanded by his family, show that Ian Tomlinson, the man who died at the summit, appears to have died from an abdominal haemorrhage rather than heart attack as ascertained by the first postmortem.

Tomlinson suffered a heavy fall after being pushed violently from behind while walking slowly away from the police lines with his hands in his pockets.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/17/tomlinson-postmortem-g20-police

The accepted, fabricated story, willingly swallowed by the mainstream media , was that Tomlinson was an unlucky bystander who had suffered an unfortunate heart attack after being caught up in the mob of protesters. It was claimed that he had been cared for by police officers, who braved a bombardment of bottles to try and save his life.

Except for his being an unlucky bystander none of this was true.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/17/tomlinson-postmortem-g20-police

Now this is an example of your one of your rare lucid posts, JihadJane. Initial reports are sometimes wrong, confused, outright fabrications. I don't know if the reports from April 9 means there will be an inquest or inquiry or whatever it's called exactly but it certainly appears that there should be.

Good work. Why aren't you this lucid more often?

[JihadJane]

'MPs to examine G20 police tactics as new claims emerge'

"The policing of the G20 protests will be scrutinised by two influential parliamentary committees this week as the continuing fallout from the death of Ian Tomlinson threatens to provoke a crisis in public order policing."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/20/police-assault-g20-protests

[Eddie Dane]

The gold standard is the single stupidest idea that a certain breed of libertarian has ever come up with.

Gold, as we note, has an interesting property. It rises in price as the economy slows, it drops in price as the economy speeds up. Thus, if US $ were redeemable for gold, they would be expensive when the economy was slow. This would create a huge export barrier, thus further slowing the economy.

If the economy is doing well, the dollar would drop, lowering our ability to buy imports and underpricing our exports overseas.

Glad to see that it does about the exact opposite of what we'd like it to do. Suicide pacts are fun? One would note even when America was nominally on the Gold standard, it was not in fact on the gold standard.

That's a bloody good point. I never looked at it that way.

[stilicho]

"The policing of the G20 protests will be scrutinised by two influential parliamentary committees this week as the continuing fallout from the death of Ian Tomlinson threatens to provoke a crisis in public order policing."

This is going to create a serious pothole in the freeway to establishing the New World Order. Damn those influential parliamentary committees.

[cheat3]

So obviously, the idiot protesters who caused the riot which required police presence should be held accountable, right?

I cant tell if your joking or not, if your not joking I suppose your suggesting that if people choose to protest (it was not a riot) then they should be subject to fatal beatings?

[richardm]

Newsagent Mr Tomlinson, who was not protesting, is seen receiving a two-handed push from a police officer.

I'm in two minds about all of this. I hope it's obvious I'm not happy that a man died.

On the other hand, It's interesting to see how it's all being presented in the media, with the demonstrations being seen as virtually an exercise in non-stop police brutality.

In Tomlinson's case, you can see what happened (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/17/ian-tomlinson-g20-protest-coroner) for yourself. The police were coming forward with dogs, and he was told to move out of the way. He doesn't do so, just shoves his hands in his pockets and pretty much stands there, to the extend that one of the dogs ends up practically under his feet and has to be violently pulled back by its handler. At this point Tomlinson starts to stroll away but very slowly and along the line of police (this is usually termed "away from the police" but if you watch the video this is clearly not the case). One of the police loses patience and shoves him hard out of the way, at which he falls over.

This is being characterised as the police practically beating him to death.

I'm inclined to view Tomlinson as inviting a reaction from the police that he might well have predicted, and being unlucky enough to have a constitution that meant he was likely to suffer internal injury as a result.

Personally, I find the police actions there much less reprehensible than, say, the ones using the edges of their shields to hit people who have nowhere to back up to. And while I don't know what those people were doing at the time, I'm more than happy to state that some police officers are simply thugs who weren't so much over-reacting as having a damned good time.

[DC]

I'm in two minds about all of this. I hope it's obvious I'm not happy that a man died.

On the other hand, It's interesting to see how it's all being presented in the media, with the demonstrations being seen as virtually an exercise in non-stop police brutality.

In Tomlinson's case, you can see what happened (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/17/ian-tomlinson-g20-protest-coroner) for yourself. The police were coming forward with dogs, and he was told to move out of the way. He doesn't do so, just shoves his hands in his pockets and pretty much stands there, to the extend that one of the dogs ends up practically under his feet and has to be violently pulled back by its handler. At this point Tomlinson starts to stroll away but very slowly and along the line of police (this is usually termed "away from the police" but if you watch the video this is clearly not the case). One of the police loses patience and shoves him hard out of the way, at which he falls over.

This is being characterised as the police practically beating him to death.

I'm inclined to view Tomlinson as inviting a reaction from the police that he might well have predicted, and being unlucky enough to have a constitution that meant he was likely to suffer internal injury as a result.

Personally, I find the police actions there much less reprehensible than, say, the ones using the edges of their shields to hit people who have nowhere to back up to. And while I don't know what those people were doing at the time, I'm more than happy to state that some police officers are simply thugs who weren't so much over-reacting as having a damned good time.

Not true at all. He moves away from the police, not fast, but he is moving.

[richardm]

Not true at all. He moves away from the police, not fast, but he is moving.

Let me rephrase that answer to be a bit more helpful and a bit less stroppy.

Look at the video at the link I gave above. Look around the 26-27 second mark. Are you seriously characterising that as "moving away" in any reasonable meaning of the phrase?

[DC]

Let me rephrase that answer to be a bit more helpful and a bit less stroppy.

Look at the video at the link I gave above. Look around the 26-27 second mark. Are you seriously characterising that as "moving away" in any reasonable meaning of the phrase?

yes he is. No need to push him the way the cop did.

[richardm]

yes he is. No need to push him the way the cop did.

I agree that the cop pushed him harder than he needed to. I also think that Tomlinson was behaving like a twat, and I do not think that an honest assessment of the video could lead you to conclude that he's making any real effort to walk away.

I do not think that this meant that he deserved to die, either. I just think that the issue is much less cut-and-dried out-of-control police brutality than some people, including the Guardian (my usual newspaper BTW) are trying to paint them.