By “violent” i assume you mean property damage.

UK uncut are right to neither condemn nor condone it. The anti-cuts movement doesn’t need further divisions.

Demanding more of other people’s money bears no relation to the struggle for civil rights.

Property damage *is* violence though, so at least you’ve got one thing right.

Ukuncut did not participate in violence on the day and over 130 were misinformed that they could leave by a chief super intedent and then arrested – including a 15 year old girl who was sick on herself as she was detained over night and was asked to sign a disclaimer that she would not commit suicide http://goo.gl/1x8J8. Is this not violent Stuart? It was this incident and police mendacity at trafalgar and fortnums that truly made me ashamed to be British.

It seems increasingly probable that the choice to arrest so many of the peaceful and law-abiding UKuncut protestors was a political reaction by a senior milieu within the London Met to appease the Home Office and domestic media subsequent to failing to come to terms with a block of several thousand masked protestors earlier on in the day. By wrongfully incarcerating these peaceful protestors the Met retained a semblance of being on top of the situation. Had they not done so and finished the day with only a dozen or so protestors facing charges we can be sure that Bob Broadhurst would have received a rather ‘interesting’ call from the Home Secretary Teresa May on the Sunday morning.

Why are we not discussing such political policing rather then engage in this navel-gazing?

I think it’s pretty spurious to suggest that people will stop trusting UK Uncut if it chooses not to make a statement condemning violence on March 26.

A firm, positive commitment to non-violent direct action would be far more useful to UK Uncut than engaging in pointless backbiting against the black bloc.

Uncut are absolutely right not to criticise others tactics. Their letter is spot on. That is exactly what the enemy want to engineer. The focus should be turned back against the government and their rich bosses who are milking us all. We need to focus on helping people see through the propaganda and lies to the real violence done to vulnerable people that will be most affected by the cuts and the physical and illegal violence of the police on demonstrations, very much the rule rather than the exception.

Echoes of the HUAC here. Principled people preferred to avoid playing the game and condemning communists – but the mere existance of that demand to back the status quo by joining the chorus of damnation diverted attention away from the real problems in America. The apparently unstoppable rise of the lawless corporate state has been the result. UK Uncut needs to stick to its core message (which is about the real violence done to people’s lives by the cuts) and turn the attention on those media commentators who are so happy to dance to the government’s tune. Why do they care so much about bank windows and so little about the families whose lives will be devastated by the cuts agenda?

http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/1666111-petition-calling-for-the-dropping-of-charges-of-ag?ref=title

The comments here speak volumes

OP,

Over at OurKingdom, Niki Seth-Smith argues that any criticism on this basis is misplaced. They can’t condemn violence because it is a network of individuals with different points of view and no leaders who can speak for UKuncut as a group.

Just to get the ‘logic’ straight in my mind, if they can’t condemn violence because it is “a network of individuals with different points of view and no leaders”, how can they condemn, say, Vodafone’s tax avoidance?

But even as a network, UKuncut obviously has to have some basis of common belief in order to be a distinctive campaigning entity at all.

Quite.

Anthony Barnett wrote,

“Having been on them, I think that UKUncut should say that its actions are non-
violent, peaceful protest and that this is something that defines them”

Aaron: the OP is quite clear on condemning what the police did. But condemning the police, rightly, doesn’t detract from the issue before UK Uncut.

To describe the discussion of UK Uncut’s position as ‘navel gazing’ is to ignore the points made at the end of the OP about how UK Uncut’s positining could affect people’s willingness to engage with it and its actions. Perhaps, for you, the issue is trivial. But it won’t be for many people who might otherwise be symapthetic. For them, the failure to clearly condemn violent direct action will be discouraging. And, as the OP says, this will cause some people to stay away/never come near UK Uncut.

To raise this point is not ‘navel gazing’ – it is to take UK Uncut and the anti-cuts campaign extremely seriously.

It won’t surprise me at all if half the comments criticismg Stuart don’t bother reading the article itself first

I don’t condone the unrest last weekend in any way (the fact such a small group has been so ‘sucessful’ in giving the government a straw man is one reason for a start).

But… All protests, about anything whatsoever attract some nutters who want to just have some ruckous. The Countryside Alliance marches weren’t free of it by a long shot. There’s always a very small fringe of people who either tag on for a bit of fun throwing paint or think somehow their one personal issue is the only one in the world that justifies a bit of violence.

The title of the post could easilly be ‘Why all protest movements need to distance themselves from violence’.

The violent part of last weekends march was such a tiny proportion – who from most accounts weren’t particulaly attached to either UKuncut or the main march – that its a shame we are allowing them to frame our discussions of the day.

The news naturally flocks like flys round sh1t to anything remotely troublesome, and the government has made a huge amount of political capital in rounding on the ‘unrest’.

so we should be attacking the government for using such a pathetically small amount of trouble to completly avoid engaging with the issues and grivances of many hundreds of thousands of people.

If UKuncut does not {condemn violent action} , then I worry that many people for whom non-violence is non-negotiable will drift away.

This is certainly a legitimate tactical concern. But surely tactical concerns should not be the chief consideration? There is a compelling moral imperative to condemn violent protest in a democratic context because it is simply WRONG. To remain silent in these circumstances is to endorse it.

I agree with Briar and with Aaron. I feel it’s similar to what happened over the events at Trafalgar Sq re Poll Tax, the recriminations and condemnation by those on the left towards the so-called riot. It did have a witch hunting feel about it. I won’t condemn the behaviour of Black Bloc, because there’s far far worse things happening to people with this government with no mandate. Anger exploded on the streets same with the Poll Tax and certainly now things are so much much worse as young people are seeing their lives, their futures trashed. It also looks like the state is clamping down on UK Uncut probably because they had the audacity to have a sit-in in a bourgeois grocers.

As Briar states:” Why do they care so much about bank windows and so little about the families whose lives will be devastated by the cuts agenda?”

Indeed

Also, I think the author of this piece is being disingenuous when he uses “violent direct action” and “non-violent direct action”…. Is an act of damage to property an act of violence? Kicking in windows or chucking paint is nothing compared to the human damage this government is doing along with the vicious violence dished out by the cops. That’s the reality of violence and that’s what we should be concentrating on as opposed to protesters damaging property. Oh and talking of cop violence this week has been the start of the inquest into the death of Ian Tomlinson.

Like with the Trafalgar Sq Defence Campaign re Poll Tax arrests there should be a similar one set up for the UK Uncut arrested. It is our duty to support them and show solidarity.

1 Stuart

“By “violent” i assume you mean property damage.”

Property damage is violent, albeit not as bad as violence against people. More to the point, it’ll make friends turn away from you and give those on the fence a reason to condemn you. Bullying isn’t a way to get respect.

Definition of violence – ‘Violence is the expression of physical force against one or more people, compelling action against one’s will on pain of being hurt’. – Merriam Webster dictionary.

If you think vandalism is wrong then fine thats a valid opinion and perfectly coherent – but damage of property is vandalism not violence.

In any case those arrested seemed to have engaged in neither and ukuncut merely wishes to focus on tax avoidance and the economic vandalism (figurative vandalism) of this government’s policies rather then the media hyperbole surrounding what is ultimately is rather little consequence when compared to a £1.3 trillion banking bail out, increasingly political policing, widespread and institutional tax avoidance, people losing jobs, homes and public services.

Stuart, the left is so divided. Why waste our time and energy condemning each other where we can join forces and work as one the stopping the cuts? I don’t agree with black bloc ( violence to people…), but I don’t think UK Uncut should make a decision to target them. Also, the police are very much to blame for starting violence. Good examples of that is kettling and intimidation to protesters.

@ 15 Aaron

“Definition of violence – ‘Violence is the expression of physical force against one or more people, compelling action against one’s will on pain of being hurt’. – Merriam Webster dictionary.

If you think vandalism is wrong then fine thats a valid opinion and perfectly coherent – but damage of property is vandalism not violence.”

Definition of violence:
1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
- dictionary.com

You can’t just pick one definition and expect everyone else to abide by it, Aaron.

This is tedious. UKuncut has nothing to do with violence. Aswell as getting them to condemn property damage shall we get them to condemn domestic violence, drug abuse and teenage pregnancy?!

My point being, the fact that aren’t violent should be enough. We know what some of the MSM are like, equating a socialist with the worst excesses of Stalin, they’re going to judge UKuncut regardless of what they do. Hell there’s even a group planning an “anti-debt rally” where they walk around to Vodaphone and Topshop and congratulate them for bringing business to the UK! In any movement there are going to be differences of opinion, I marched on the 26th with a bunch of anarchists, a few socialists and a lib dem voter, we obviously had fairly large differences between our ideologies, but that didn’t matter because we knew why we were marching and our differences in beliefs weren’t all that important because we all agreed that what this government is doing is wrong.

I don’t think UKuncut are any more obliged to condemn violence than anyone else. To suggest they *should* do so is to imply they were somehow – even if only by association – responsible. They’re not.

If individual members want to speak out they should be entitled to do so.

I’m not sympathetic to UK Uncut, but my objective opinion is that they have allowed themselves to be stitched up.

The criminal damage was not significant, when compared to a ‘proper’ riot, and I think the police have done what they usually do, i.e. stand back while the black blockers set fire to a few bins, and then, once they’ve melted away, arrest a few peaceful protesters.

UK Uncut are allowing themselves to be identified with the activities of the black block(heads). These latter don’t care about forming a united front with the left, and seem contemptuous of those that don’t share their tactics. If people don’t condemn such actions, but rather think that it serves a purpose, then you might as well applaud police brutality, which is arguably more effective in galvanising public opposition.

Personally police brutality against innocent protesters enrages me, but so do the actions of the black block, which has the added drawback of providing a justification for the police to be brutal, usually as I note above, against other people.

Surely UK Uncut’s non-violent actions speak louder than any words condemning others participating in the same struggle in a different way? They’re already feeling alienated enough; http://thegreatunrest.net/2011/03/28/not-just-marching/

Full response; http://anyanswersquestioned.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-to-direct-action.html

Condemning violence is almost as mindless as mindless violence itself.

It’s a ritual, which is meaningless other than in its attempt to link an organisation or individuals to actions, which they do not control, and then publicly humiliate them

Lucy Annson on Newsnight the other night was quite right in rejecting the question. I would have gone further and pointed out the meaningless ritual of this condemnathon which always occurs whenever anything happens that shatters the idyllic fantasies of Middle England.

What we should be asking is why violence occurs, what this tells us, who these people are. Condemning violence is meaningless.

Excellent article.

Pffft

What a ridiculous article. It’s practicaly the same as suggesting that if UKuncut don’t give a statement about traffic regulations in Kurdistan, then they will alienate people who don’t want new roads in Kurdistan.
UKuncut had nothing to do with any damage to property (which, btw is not ‘violence’. If you want to find out about violence then walk into Ibrox wearing an Ireland top!)
I wish the centre-left would stop bugging everyone and just get on with blabbing about what form of state-capitalism will best keep the working-class docile slaves…

Is it an “idyllic fantasy” not to want violence on the streets?

Still, the more contempt you show for “middle England” the less likely you are to get anywhere.

So please carry on.

Oh, and more Lucy Annson please. As much as possible.

Lucy Annson on Newsnight the other night was quite right in rejecting the question. I would have gone further and pointed out the meaningless ritual of this condemnathon which always occurs whenever anything happens that shatters the idyllic fantasies of Middle England.

She said, “We don’t have a position on things.”

Um… that’s not true, is it?

They do have a position on some things.

So, is it a bad thing to, say, throw bottles at medics?

Some thoughts here – http://goo.gl/O1CYN

You really do need to define violence in the grey areas.

If damaging property where nobody is hurt, and nobody could have been hurt violent? The effect of such damage is economic.
Closing down a shop, such that it is loses revenue has the effect of economic damage.
Are these two situations different? If so, how?

Are the these two examples, that have very little effect on people, worse that calling somebody a four letter word? That could possible cause emotional damage, but no physical damage – is this OK?

And that’s not even to mention the possible role of violence in self-defence.

I really do think that to talk about non-violence with no definition of violence, or of different circumstances, glosses over the grey areas in a way that is not especially helpful.

@ 28 Graham

You’re probably right there. Violence would seem to be defined by the action, not the consequence. Of course, stick it in a newspaper headline and there’s a very real danger that readers will assume it means that people have been injured.

Pinochet supporter cjcjcjjcccc doesn’t like violence on the streets, he wants it kept in the torture chamber where it belongs.

I agree with Stuart’s article. UK Uncut were gaining widespread support for their protests up until last weekend, now they are in danger with being associated in the public eye with the most bone-headed members of the black bloc. People who may have turned up to their future demonstrations may be put off, shoppers broadly sympathetic to their actions will now just think “oh, here comes trouble.” Forget the ‘moral’ arguments. Of course smashed windows mean nothing compared to the destuction of lives the Conservatives are carrying out. But UK Uncut distancing itself from violence is the sensible thing to do if it wants to keep gaining support.

Stuart, the left is so divided. Why waste our time and energy condemning each other where we can join forces and work as one the stopping the cuts?

So many people are missing the point on an excellent article.

The question here is not about whether it was violence or not. It is also NOT about whether we are spending our time condemning each other (though there are lots on the Left who spend more time condemning Labour than the Tories).

The key point raised by Stuart, missed also by Harpymarx, is that the threat of vandalism and mass-arrest will put people off from joining in.

If UKuncut just want the usual suspects to turn up and do the usual thing everytime – fine. But if they truly want to make themselves into a mass movement, then they need the pensioners and the middle-england with children to come on UKuncut actions.

That will not happen if the shadow of vandalism/violence hangs over this. Most of the people commenting here about left-infighting and the poll tax riots are the usual suspects on the left who do not constitute a vast number of the population. If you want to get the vast majority of the population to join in – then this cannot be just a left operation.

I thought UKuncut wanted to be bigger than that. They welcomed the Mail on Sunday writing about tax avoidance. They welcomed BBC coverage about their actions. It would be a shame to throw that goodwill away now.

When those chocolate bunnies were disturbed it became a violent direct action… There is a grey area here that is not helped by assuming we all know what you mean when you use the word violent, be more specific. I seem to remember that damage to Hawk jets bound for East Timor was ruled to be just, the suffragettes broke windows and the ANC was classed as a terrorist organisation, I think we have to become a lot more violent before a condemnation by UK uncut would be justified.

What Phil said.

There are some people on here asking why UKuncut should be expected to comment on the actions of the vandals. It’s an understandable point, as the two groups are not connected, and UKuncut are not responsible for the stupid minority of violent protesters.

The problem is that, right or wrong, the two groups are linked in the minds of the public. If UKuncut refuse to condemn them – even just because it’s none of their business – it looks like they’re tacitly condoning the troublemakers. It might not be fair, but it’s something that a PR-focused organisation (which UKuncut is by definition) needs to pay close attention to.

@28 Graham: “If damaging property where nobody is hurt, and nobody could have been hurt violent? The effect of such damage is economic.
Closing down a shop, such that it is loses revenue has the effect of economic damage.
Are these two situations different? If so, how?”

They are different situations.

Street violence (whether property is damaged or people are injured) generates fear. It is not even necessary for hooded people with their faces hidden to perpetrate violence; their presence and locality scares people.

I am not convinced by the arguments of UKUncuts but defend their right to protest and face the consequences. UKUncut do not scare people; they are awkward protestors but they do not make people fearful.

An excellent article Stuart, and what I’ve tried to convey to UK uncut followers without success.

The group, as you say, clearly has leaders of sorts. People who issue the targets, direct the sub groups and followers and speak for thr collective with the media.

I think the leaderless claim/stance is an attempt to absolve any responsibility or blame either legally or morally should events such as Saturday take place.

Several followers I have spoken with on Twitter were quite adamant the thugs weren’t part of uncut and the media had simply lazily lumped the 2 together.

But at least 2 of the.leadership have been retweeting messages from anarchists, and yesterday Brighton & Lewes groups issued a statement to the effect that they joined in with the thugs on Saturday. Groups which.have been happily included, and I assume still are, under the uncut umbrella.

Looking at these.leaders/founders its clear they are divided. In fact, Ellie Mae seems very shaken by Saturday and has tweeted very little since.

The forms of protests were always to lead to this point, which along with the way the cuts are ignored in favour of focusing on tax avoidance are the main reasons I don’t support the groups actions.

Don’t get me wrong tax avoidance is an issue, but
1) its not as big as is claimed by some
2) repeatedly targeting the same brands gives impression of vendetta not protest,
3) targeting brands won’t change gov policies/laws,
4) it ignores the cuts happening in every corner of the country at local level
5) the gen public are unlikely to join in closing the high streetas it doesn’t naturally link to their ideas of how to show anger at government thrusting the cuts in the services we depend on.

Failure by the leadership, or lead group, to come out and say “we don’t condone such violence & vandalism, and such groups are not welcome at our protests…” is quite a silly stance. it suggests that violence and/or vandalism isn’t ruled out in future. which definitely will only serve to alienate rather than compel more to join in with them.

I missed out that Saturday, along with refusal to condemn will also.lead to the.police over reacting and going in heavy at the slightest uncut protest.

Which will simply fall into the anarchists hands of fueling claims of a police state andc heavyhandedness.

Sorry, folks, but damage to property is violent. If it’s not, then I guess I can go round to Sunny Hundal’s house – I don’t know if Sunny’s got kids, let’s say he does, all sat around the TV in the lounge – and throw a great big rock through the living room window.

No violence ‘cos nobody was hurt – merely kids frightened beyond belief, and the insurance company getting a claim sharpish – aw, cobblers. Damage to property is violence.

If you don’t denounce the ‘mindless minority’, you’re one of them! Now where have I heard that before…

@ 38 Parasite

“Sorry, folks, but damage to property is violent. If it’s not, then I guess I can go round to Sunny Hundal’s house – I don’t know if Sunny’s got kids, let’s say he does, all sat around the TV in the lounge – and throw a great big rock through the living room window.”

That doesn’t make sense. Proving something is bad isn’t the same as proving it’s violent. Fraud, pickpocketing and Abba concerts aren’t violent, but you wouldn’t want to have to experience them.

And for the record, property damage IS violent in most cases, I don’t disagree with you there. It’s associated with inherently violent concepts like “hit” and “smash”. But it doesn’t make sense to say “you wouldn’t like me doing it to you, ergo it’s violent”.

UKuncuts refusal to condemn ‘violent behaviour’ is only an issue for those in the media driving the narrative, helpfully forming our opinions for us. The consensus across the board seems to be that we all think the mini riots are ghastly and have tarnished the credibility of the anti-cuts movement.

This isnt entirely counter productive for the movement though, as it almost completely draws the attention away from the fairyland economics and shameless tax guzzling self interest of those marching. So, swings and roundabouts.

I always thought dignified protest that wasn’t alarming to members of the public that were in the vicinity and to shop staff at targetted shops, would have been the way to do it.
I said on here weeks ago that I didn’t like the kinds of protests that caught a small number of police on the hop, and with everyone shouting, trying to invade a shop and some people throwing things, the cops then overreacted, called for help and then things all got a bit heavy. And the next thing that happens is there are youtubes posted on sites like this, of police being heavy handed.

If it’s not possible for a group like UKuncut to control what happens on their demonstartions, then they should think twice about holding them. Also, preventing police arresting people by physically stopping them, just escalates things further.
It’s what Laurie Penny said on the radio tonight, was the catalyst for police getting violent in Trafalgar Square on saturday night.

I’d rather go to a be-in/love-in kind of event rather than one that was likely to end up facing riot police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB2tYYYlwMc

.

@ Damon

“If it’s not possible for a group like UKuncut to control what happens on their demonstartions, then they should think twice about holding them”

Oh, Jesus wept. How, exactly, do you control every person who turns up to protest? On what authority do you do it? Try to exercise some basic logic, for crying out loud.

What a ridiculous sentiment. UKUncut have sensibly and properly shown solidarity with protestors who took more direct forms of action, such as the damaging of banks and symbols of extreme wealth.

To suggest that somehow these ‘troublemakers’ come from outside of the protest movement is bizarre, and to also suggest that the civil rights movement, or the suffragettes only took part in such mild and peaceful disobedience is utterly ignorant.

Neither UKUncut, nor those causing damage to property last week are the entire solution or panacea for this movement, but neither can they be separated.

very uninformed piece.

Well Chaise Guevara, if you call a demonstration and people misbehave on it, the first priority would be then to let those people know what they are doing is unacceptable. Forget the demonstration at that point and turn your ire on the people bringing the movement into disrepute.

It might seem a pity to turn up wanting to protest about tax evasion, but instead be diverted into rounding on people who are doing things you don’t want to be associated with, but unless you do, their actions will be laid at your door.

Also, even this demonstration at Top Shop looks ”silly” to me, and in it you can see how even this mild mannered kind of demonstrating can quickly lead to things getting out of control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffYlE0lLBbI

The store’s security staff are having people chant ”shame on you” at them, just for removing them from the shop, and to a neutral observer, I’m affraid to say, the whole things looks annoyingly middle class and studenty. To then leave that store and try to get into another one further along the road, is exactly where you will push the police into overreacting – when they try to block the UKuncut people from entering a new store.
Then everyone is shouting ”shame on you” at the police and putting examples of ”police brutality” up on the internet.

It’s for this reason that I said last week that I didn’t think working class ”white van man” and Talk Sport Raido listeners would look on this kind of thing as something they admired and would want to get involved in.

For bog’s sake cut out the laborious ‘what is violence’ debate. Surely anyone with access to a dictionary can check the definition? Smashing stuff up clearly is violence, whether confirmed by the dictionary or an analysis of how the word is used in common speech. Most people here would not raise an eyebrow if a disagreement was described as violent but which involved no physical violence, no?

The debate which is struggling to get out from behind this red herring argument is something resembling , ‘which types of violent protest are acceptable and it what context?’ Essentially back to the old, ‘one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter’.

So for example, those defending black block actions should be able to argue (as some have) that the violence against property is entirely acceptable in the context of violent cuts to communities and individuals.

In my view, this is an fascinating and eternal debate completely dependent on context and opinion and as such, one would expect UK Uncut to have more of a view on than they appear to currently.

What’s the big deal about being able to say, ‘I completely condemn violence that can result in injury or death whilst supporting the damaging or destruction of property that won’t result in injury or death in order to make a political point’?

“What’s the big deal about being able to say, ‘I completely condemn violence that can result in injury or death whilst supporting the damaging or destruction of property that won’t result in injury or death in order to make a political point’?”

No big deal.

If you would care to leave your address, I’ll arrange for a few people to come round and make a political point.

@ cj etc etc

You have entirely missed the point of my post. I haven’t even given my point of view on this, rather commented on the nature of the discussion.

As well as your inability to understand this I enjoyed your vaguely threatening and sinister response whilst laughing like a cat. However, some people may actually be rather troubled by such rhetoric. It doesn’t do you or anyone else any favours to come across as some kind of bully

By the way, here is my address, send ‘em round :

7855 Moffett Rd Semmes, AL 36575 : )

Judging from google streetview someone’s beaten me to it!

Hey Barney, I just googled that zip code you gave and I see there’s a big Wall Mart store nearby on Moffett Road. What would happen if a combination of UKuncut-like protesters and Black Block people showed up there this morning?

And how would it be reported on the evening news? I’m guessing that pepper sprays and rough handling of protesters by the police would be the order of the day.

Reading back over the OP, I’m not sure the last part fully explains why it could well be politically damaging for UK Uncut to take the stance they have. So I’ll have another go…

The vast majority of the UK population do condemn violent direct action. So when UK Uncut are asked if they condemn it they are being asked whether or not they affirm a moral judgment that is widely and probably very deeply held by the vast majority of the UK public.

Their current stance seems to refuse to affirm a moral judgment that is widely and probably deeply held by the vast majority of the UK population.

I find it hard to see how this won’t damage the wider public’s perception of UK Uncut and, over time, its ability to draw more and new people into what it does.

Stuart @51, spot on I think.

and it doesn’t help to seem evasive when asked a direct question of that nature.

Okay folks, if you’re all against “violence” then I’m sure that if I beat the crap out of you and steal your money that you won’t fight back, right?
Because that’s what the ruling class is doing to MY community and we’re just fighting back. If you don’t like it then you can either join us and change the government or continue your pointless liberal gibber jabber while leaving us alone.
In MY community, violence isn’t a choice. If somebody hits you, then you gotta hit them back or you will die.
Seriously, go away with all the platonic dialogue about the nature and morality of violence -some of us have survival to deal with.

@53 so anyone can use violence if it gets the message across?

So where do you draw the line? Terroeism? So because we disagree, its fine for me to come round and smash your house up?

If you think the appropriate response to cuts is to vandalise and attack police with fireworks, then you have a warped mind.

53. @Danny777James

Too funny, I bet you live in a lovely semi with 2 toilets and a patio.
Fair enough people taking the opportunity to smash a few windows and be in a riot, we’re only young once after all, but protesting against cuts in govt spending, reducing the burden of the state on the individual, whilst calling yourself an anarchist is beyond the pale. Tax-sucking statist thugs more like. No offence.

@55. Dirk.

Yeah, life would be great if I did live like that. But no, I don’t and I don’t know anyone who does. I’m just a regular working-class guy from Toxteth.
There hasn’t been any riots yet, they’ll come later when the more well off people get hit.
As for protesting against government cuts… Why not? That money belongs to the working class, not the mega-rich. Anarchists aren’t gonna sit by while the working class are butt-raped by the rich. We’re just looking out for the immediate concerns of our communities.

@56. @Danny777James

Well then surely your not an anarchist, as the last thing anarchists believe in is the state, let alone everybody being employed by it, and the forceable removal of money from those who arnt to pay for it.
Your class conscience is admirable but seems a bit outdated, what is working class nowadays exactly? Is it defined by pay band or what?
Im paid a pittance but would probably put myself in the lower middle, and i know plenty of people who’d call themselves working class, in typical working class jobs, who earn way more than me.
At the end of the day its the working/middle classes money that the government is using to bankroll its little giveaways. Thats whats immoral about the whole thing.

Seems the anarchists are being hunted down by the media http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8423532/Captain-Anarchy.-Key-Labour-figures-sons-behind-the-violent-breakaway-cuts-protests..html

The met have also released the 1st pics of 18 troublemakers they want to find as well – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12947044

Seems the anarchists can’t hide much longer

Yeah right. I heard that the girl from UK Uncut didn’t condemn violence and it made me a bit annoyed. When I actually watched her on Newsnight for myself I thought that what she did was actually very profound and she expressed something which I hadn’t seen expressed so well under fire before.

What she said was that the protest group was made up of individuals who chose to protest in a non violent manner, she had no reponsibility beyond that or to speak for the beliefs of individuals who chose to protest under the UKUncut banner.

I think in these new days of facebuk/twater campaignology leaderless movements is a language the media (except for Al-Jazeera) are going to struggle with and get continually wrong footed by. This gives me some sort of hope.

Count me in as one of those folks who will never attend a protest that doesn’t guarantee my safety. I’m legally blind and when protests get out of hand, I’m the one who tends to get hurt first. I can’t see myself ever fully supporting a group like UKUncut, one that won’t guarantee my safety over favoring some stupid, anarchic philosophy that defines itself as an undefined organization with undefined leadership and undefined rules (aka anything goes). I define that as irresponsible action.