Perhaps Liberty can also make an attempt to contact the owners of the shops whose windows were broken or whose cars were destroyed. Being the victims of mob violence must also have been fairly unpleasant.

Liberty may also like to contact all those employees of companies in the Oxford Circus vicinity who were encouraged to dress down, not to leave the office at lunchtime and were instructed by the police to leave work early and embark on a journey home which took double the time.

1 May 2001 demonstrations

Statement Issued: 2 May 2001


John Wadham, Director of Liberty, said:

"Last year, the police approach was sensibly low-key. This year, unfortunately, the police caved in to political pressure. This led to unacceptable and unlawful violence by some police officers. The containment of thousands of people was unnecessary, unlawful and will lead to justifiable complaints. As a result, the police will have to pay out compensation, and they will have alienated thousands of innocent and peaceful protestors”.

issued by Roger Bingham

Oh please! A couple of hours on your working day, or the right to protest freely in a so called democratic society, with out the fear of a civil servant on overtime beating seven shades of crap out of you? I hope your message was sarcasitc, if not, please adjust your holistic priorites, you'll feel much better...

no, please do not try to fool anybody. these have as their advocates the official channels to complaint, be the courts, police, etc. it amazes me this cheap cinycism of yours. fuck you and fuck them.

What is John Wadham talking about?
Last year, ordinary people who worked in the City were fighting for their lives? Businesses and offices were trashed and workers were barricading themselves in!
Is that the low level of policing that he would prefer?
Ordinary people have the right to protection as well - the protesters have shown that they are willing to resort to extreme measures if the opportunity arises!

Last year's Mayday protest took place on a Sunday or a Bank Holiday Monday (I forget which) when the city was closed. Therefore it would be unlikely for the scenes you relate to have taken place, particularly as all the "action" was several miles away in Westminster.

In terms of the "civil liberties" of those who work around Oxford Circus, all of the people I have spoken to (and I know a few) were quite pleased to knock off a few hours early. Most of them had no problems getting home, either, because the roads in Central London were pretty deserted. I admit the busses were diverted, but it was pretty easy to figure that out - some of my mates who were working actually got home quicker!

As for windows - I assume big businesses have insurance.

Sorry, Fozzie Bear, you were right - it was actually the year before last. So that's OK then!!!
Under you Statute of Limitations, these people have apparently lost their rights!
It is also interesting that you define any business as 'big business'. You may not have insurance, but in the end, we all end up paying (if you have a house, family, a job, etc).

It was indeed the year before last, which was my point.

Last year the cops pretty much had the whole thing sewn up without needing to hem people in. This is a very important point.

There is of course the case of the MacDonalds which got done over. Let's be charitable and say that the Police "forgot" to offer them protection whilst they were forcing several hundred demonstrators past on their way towards Trafalgar Square.

I do actually have a job and a family, and will soon have a mortgage. I already have contents insurance. Does that surprise you? (OK - I'm not really a bear either! :-))

I find that under the current system I end up paying for all sorts of things that I don't like through my taxes. A few more that are achieved on the way to making a better world won't bother me that much.

I think it's fair to say that all of the businesses on Oxford Street are "big".

Thank you for responding.

Sure, its not going to change the world, but I think people should still complain, especially if liberty will do most of the work for them, or people do a mass legal action.

We don't get mass arrests because (I think) of the payouts the police were forced to do for false arrest charges.

I think its a useful tactic, and always good practise to challenge the state on every battle field possible.

If we can stop them doing this in future we can be more effective.

handsome_talldark feels that civil liberties were violated by this? Perhaps s/he can understand that many people are forced to live without access to work, land or adequate food on a daily basis, because the dominant economic system is purely about profit. Many of us were there to stand up for their rights!

I'm sorry if anyone suffered the inconvenience
of HAVING TO DRESS DOWN (what a shame, I know how much you guys love wearing that stuff!)

As I say, I do totally disown the SMALL minority
who were violent.

But that does not mean that the VAST MAJORITY who were peaceful should not have the right to complain if they feel that they have been mistreated by the police.
And maybe they were mistreated, maybe not but if they FEEL that they have been then SURELY they have the right to make a complaint and to let a court of law decide whether or not the police were out of order.

The bloke going by the name of Jose, has a fake
email address.

I wish people would stop referring to the protesters en masse in the context of violence. It's only a very small minority who are violent and the rest of us totally disown that minority. We don't affiliate or associate with them.
As for fighting for your lives, I bet your grandpa who fought in the war would be ashamed of you for saying that, you don't know the meaning of the phrase.. you should try visiting some war torn African country fighting a futile war it can't afford, fuelled by British Aerospace weapons.

God Bless you,

Jeffy B

Mate, we all end up paying anyway.
We pay everyday for the costs of our capitalist system,
but not as much as our cousins in the world's poorer nations, with their IMF structural adjustment policies and their crippling debts that they inherited from unelected governments who borrowed from irresponsible western loan sharks and who as a result can't afford to pay for much needed drugs sold on the free market at extortionate prices by profiteering pharmaceutical giants like
Glaxo-Wellcome-Smith-Klein-Beecham,
bloody hell how many companies is that!

I think Gordon Brown should spend less of my money (ok I'm a student so I don't have any money yet) on:

1) "Defence"
2) Tax cuts for big business
3) SUBSIDIES for big business
4) The war on drugs.
5) Advertising the New Labour party.

I think Gordon Brown should spend less of my money (ok I'm a student so I don't
have any money yet) on:

1) "Defence"
2) Tax cuts for big business
3) SUBSIDIES for big business
4) The war on drugs.
5) Advertising the New Labour party.


Well thought out you prick

1) Cut the armed forces putting thousands out of work. Put the lives of those soldiers abroad protecting those being opressed in the balkans etc at risk because their eqpt is substandard or there are not enough of them.

2) + 3) Higher unemployment because big companies won't bother coming to Britain. Subsidies exist because it is cheaper to pay a company a few million than pay all the people it will lay off because Britain is not offering what other countries are prepared to to entice business.

4) Legalise cannabis is what you are actually saying - or are you suggesting that drug dealers should be allowed to do whatever they like or the sink estates that they ply their trade.

5)Grow up - all political parties use public funds in some way to further their cause - especially parties like the Communists ever been to Cuba - you can't walk five feet without seeing a pro Castro poster. mural or billboard. Who do you think pays for that.

Maybe education should be privatised and all students should pay their full fees - we'd see a lot less of you going if that was the case. But at least those who went would be serious about it rather than using it as an excuse to sit on your arse for three or four years moaning about how bad everything is in the outside world or dying your hair green, like thousands of others, to express your individuality.

The points you make a utterly invalid, mate.
You cant use jobs as a justification for the production and distribution of weapons, designed to kill and supress.
The 'war on drugs' is simply a means of control of the distribution of narcotics. The government takes the profit and the masses a subdued and driven to crime, this is both self-perpetuating and incredibly useful to those in power.
Hey, wow, the communists use propaganda so it must be alright. Yeah, right. We dont need taxes spent on billboards telling us that so-and-so is a cunt, and another geezer is incapable of running the country. This is obvious, wasteful, and frankly insulting to our intelligence.

Why are you so abusive?

Anyway I shall try to answer some of your points.

I don't want to put thousands out of work
but surely you don't advocate paying people
for work that doesn't need doing.

My point is that the armed forces are a waste of
money. If the work the army does is not necessary
then surely it would be better to pay people to do nothing than to do stuff that isn't necessary.

OK we should have a small army to help out
in peacekeeping in the balkans and stuff but there
is a hell of a lot of money that is being spent on
totally unnecessary military stuff.

As for your second point you seem to be suggesting
that we should be happy about the fact that corporations have our government by the throat demanding lower and lower corporate taxes and even asking for subsidies. It sounds an awful lot like
EXTORTION to me, blackmail. You are right in that
big business threatens to disinvest and go somewhere else if it can't have everything its way. Hence the global 'race to the bottom' as governments
A) Cut corporate tax
B) Provide subsidies (hey, the corporations are taxing
the government now!)
C) Continue to lower health,safety and environmental standards.

This is a major problem and we must fight it.

If corporations will only provide jobs for us under extortionate conditions then we should have the courage to tell them to leave, why can't we create our own jobs, why do we need big undemocratic unaccountable selfish greedy profit seeking giant organisations to provide us with menial tasks for menial cash? Surely there's got to be a better way.

Now I know as well as the next man that if we cut our armed forces in half and abolished the subsidies which are economy has grown used to and hence come to depend on, that this would cause a major recession. But what we do need to do is have long term goals whereby we direct the economy so that it evolves in certain ways... ie we don't need to be abolishing things, just phasing them out.

Another big waste of money: Supporting
bush's NMD plans. These aren't even going to
defend britain, they just defend the usa and in return we get the privalege of the usa withdrawing its threat to
allow us access to its intelligence. Again, if this
guy is going to be a bully there's no reason why
in principle we shouldn't have the courage to tell him
to bugger off.

As for corporate subsidies, we need to have a long
term goal of promoting small and medium sized
business, which won't get so big that it starts threatening the government itself. TNCs are often
more powerful than the government.

As for legalise cannibis then why not?
It's less harmful than alcohol.
The war against drugs is failing, we can't stop
the criminal drug dealers. If we legalised stuff,
drugs would be cheaper and safer and the supply
of drugs would not be funding violence and civil war.

As for "grow up" I fail to see how this is connected
with your claim that all political parties spend money
on self promotion. So what, that doesn't make it ok.
I didn't say that I think having adverts for the Party
all over Cuba is a good idea. I didn't even say
I was a communist.

Where I really started to lose respect for you
was when you started with the personal insults,
deploying a range of generalisations, none of which
- I hasten to add - were true, so er.. bad guess.
You really don't know anything about me, other than
that I am a student.

As for moaning about the world, what's wrong
with complaining about SOCIAL INJUSTICE?
Surely that's a far worthier thing to moan about than
the sorts of inane inconsequential things you probably spend time losing sleep over. And if SOME OF US
are actually going to go beyond the 'moaning' and
actually try to do something to make the world a better
place, for other people, for ourselves and even for you,
then surely that's a GOOD THING.

I'm sick of being attacked on the internet by
cynical narrow minded pessimistic apathetic tory
um.. people, just because I dare to dream of a fairer
society.

And to be quite honest, the world DOES need saving.
We're in the process of destroying the environment.
Are we just supposed to sit back and watch that happen and let that happen?

It's conservatives like you who poured scorn over
every single progressive social movement in history.
You slagged off the working class when they wanted
8 hour days instead of 16 hour days in Chicago,
you slagged off women when they wanted the vote
in England, you derided the international anti-apartheid
movement, the civil rights movement in the southern USA, even the abolition of slavery in the usa...

What's so mature about being a pessimist?
People used to tell John Pilger he'd "soon grow out of
it" but he's still standing up for social justice today.

you're the one who's sitting around while people like
us are trying to change the world.

As for green hair, what the hell is wrong with that?
Each to his own I say.

I'm not going to let people like yoo put me off.

There's an old Christian song,

" ...Who so best him round, with dismal stories.
Do but themselves confound, his strength the more is
There's no discouragement,
Shall make him once relent
His first avowed intent..."

It's part of an old Anglican Hymn.

Which is kind of ironic because most
C of E church goers are tory voters and yet
that song is against everything conservativism stands for.

I don't actually believe in God, but as far as the whole being a good bloke aspect of the religion is concerned,
I must be a better 'Christian' than any of you tory church-goers.

Maggie went to church and yet was it not she who said
"Greed is good!"

Greed is good, my arse. What ever happened to
thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's oxen?
What ever happened to "the love of money is
the root of all evil"

As for calling me a prick, well.. since you don't
know me personally I can only assume that
you insult me so because you can't handle my opinions.




I just listed 5 things that I would like the government
not to waste MY tax (when I start paying tax, soonish)
on. I fail to see how expressing my valid opinion, to
which I am entitled, could offend you.

Maybe you should have a bit more sex.
Or take up yoga or something.

sorry, that should have said that bush was going
to withdraw the threat NOT to allow us continued access to usa intelligence

Liberty should investigate the cases of people who - 'were instructed by the police to leave work early and embark on a journey home which took double the time'. Umm so you think the Police should be prosecuted for 'instructing' people to close shop? I agree. Infact though they probablly only 'advised' firms to close early and so they would have done so so 'at their own liberty'. If not, and they were instructed, then regardless they have no legal case as the Police always work to the rule book that is UK Law. If the Police didn't in this instance (!) then as I say encourage the workers to raise a legal case.

Oh yes I was held up on a bus once by Armistice Day Commemorations so is that an infringement of my liberty to freedome of movement? No that would be very silly to suggest so wouldn't it. So would trying to prosecute the London Carnival or a Sunday Market or the London Marathon for holding up your bus journey.

Well it's clear your points are rediculous. Yes crime should be punished but marching and peacefully protesting is not a crime - it seems you are desperately trying criminalise the people in Oxford Circus who did nothing but dance and er stand about for half the day? Any Facist party would be glad to have u as a member fella - even the Met Police.

Given the case that the police attacked the strators, it could well have been that they were the ones that smashed the John & Lewis windows.

I suggest to give to the public acces to the police videos,
and then some middle class people might have surprises about who really are the ones that provoqued .

DEAR LIBERTY ,
Could you help me out because I could not attend work pn mayday.
I therfore lost a days wages which I canill afford because of the arseholes that you represent...
......using my tax money of course...you pricks

What happened on the 1st of May was a gross violation of our civil rights. Is Britain a democracy? If so, why is that the people had the right to imprison us on Oxford Street without us having committed any crimes?

I tried to have a decent conversation with the coppers with their riot gear, explained to them I had an important meeting to go to (which I did have), but they weren't having any of it.

If that kind of gross violation of human rights had occurred in Pakistan or Malaysia the MPs wouldn't have stopped talking about it. But not a word from any of them about what happened on 1 May. They've all got shares in the shops on Oxford Street; that's all that matters to them.

Also, what's happened to MayDayMonopoly.net ?

No doubt the police have closed down that website too.

I really do hope somebody sues the police. Though no doubt the upper-class judge who listens to the hearing will side with the capitalists...

I suggest the demonstrators try new tactics next year. It's not a level playing field.

Bob the Builder

This posting has been sponsored by  http://www.moqawama.org/page2/main.htm - Islam: the only ideology which can defeat capitalism.

To the people at 'Liberty', can I sue the demonstrators for a days lost wages which
I can ill afford because I had to stay away from work on May Day .
Incidentally I assume that the legal bill will be paid for by the taxpayers .

as...welll...mas...consuption..mas...destruction...

I was wondering if there are any grounds for
challenging the legality of the s.60 orders imposed by
the police on May Day under the provisions of The
Human Rights Act 1998.

There seems to be a prima facie case that the police
were in breach of Article 5 ( the right of liberty and
security of person ) and article 8 ( the right to
privacy ) since during the long containment women were
forced to urinate in public which is clearly a breach
of privacy.

Also I heard that arrested demonstrators had polemical
literature confiscated which would amount to a
contravention of Article 10 on freedom of expression (
and perhaps also Article 9 on freedom of thought,
conscience and religion ). Indeed since there is
abundant evidence that the concept of May Day this
year was to transform London into a street theatre, a
space for the expression of dissent and alternative
visions of life, the s.60s foisted on the Critical
Mass bike-ride and the Oxford Circus "parade" ( which
so I have heard was the intention of "The Sale of the
Century" ) were on the face of it both in flagrant contravention of Article 10.

I am aware that the HRA is an Act with weak provisions
that are trumped by interests of national security and
crime prevention etc. But doesn't the burden of proof
then fall on the police to show that they had
reasonable grounds for suspecting that specified
crimes would be committed by specified individuals ?
They cannot claim that they suspected criminal acts on
the basis of newspaper or other leaked intelligence
information since the police themselves planted those
stories. As someone involved in the preparations who
talked to many people who were planning a wide array
of May Day activities and investigated claims that
"Black Bloc anarchists" were turning up in their
thousands, I could find no evidence whatsoever of
anyone planning to commit criminal damage or any other
crime. The only really threatening pronunciamentos
came from Scotland Yard itself.

There is no doubt that, in respect to norms of natural
justice, the human rights of the protestors were
grossly abused on the day. Basically they were treated
no better than a herd of animals. Also I have heard
rumours ( no more than that as yet, but I continue to
probe ) that certain activsts suffered a campaign of
harassment from the police ( obtrusive surveillance,
covert threats to their personal safety, dirty tricks
) on the lead up to the day which if provable would
amount to clear breaches of Article 5 ( the right of liberty and security of person ) of THRA. If any one else has any accounts of harassment, obtrusive and invasive surveillance or any other form of police pressure sufferered by activists prior to the day I would most like to hear of them.

It seems that the civil liberties of us protestors were definitely trampled on. The question now is whether any remedies are available in the British or European Courts. The recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights finding that the British State had violated the right to life ( under Article 2 ) of IRA victims of the SAS ambush at Loughall suggests that the best hope of remedy may lie with the institutions of European justice.

Any reflections anyone may have on these comments would be greatly appreciated.

Ya Basta!

Does anyone know any legal shit w. regards to police i.d. numbers being covered up or "becoming wonky during a scrap"?
If there was a way to force each of these officers to recite their numbers, it would sure make for a funny documentary.

I think i'm now starting to understand the just of the anarchist debate. Some things i've established.

1). It's ok to deny someone a "human right" as long as you personally don't agree with that human right for example, stopping people from operating their shops etc last week is acceptable as anarchists etc don't agree with that. It's OK to deny may others the "human right" to walk peacefully down the street as long as you are trying to protest against a denial of a human right.

Overall denial of "human rights" is ok by anarchists etc as long as they don't agree with the provision of that "human right" in their viewpoint.

You cry about police etc stopping your "human right" to protest but yet it's ok for you to disrupt other people's human right.

Aah it makes perfect sense, not a contradiction in terms at all.

2). I understand some of you are against all forms of leadership, government, police etc and you don't recognise the legal system. Yet am I right in thinking that some of the protesters last week are considering suing the police. So you don't agree with the oppressive criminal justice system yet you are prepared to seek the benefits of it. I personally witnessed protesters receiving medical attention from the police after they had been hit by debris from their "comrades" had thrown off John Lewis roof for ammunition. You don't want the police force yet again you are willing to seek the benefits of it.

Again not a contradiction at all.

3). You seem to use the Internet as a medium. Yet the Internet possibly represents the single most positive symbol of globalisation and mass corporate power.

Again you state to be against these things yet you will use them when it suits you.

4). I understand some people don't want to be governed have laws etc. It is of course stupid to think that mass looting, murder, violence and chaos will rein as a result of this. What am I thinking

Overall can I say that your principles and viewpoints stink to the core of contradiction and hypocrisy.

PS I presume the wearing of GAP, Nike, Addidas and the drinking of Becks, Stella and general use of mass cooperation products on Mayday is allowed by anarchists, anti capatalists etc as long as they decide so. This is the only day of the year this can happen.

I don't actually agree with the idea of "Human Rights". I think they are a pointless liberal abstraction. All of these "rights" are things which have been _fought for_ by ordinary people over the years (in rather the same way as the Mayday demos).

"Rights" aren't global things, so while it would be very nice to live in a world where everyone had food, clothes and shelter, we don't. I suppose you could argue that everyone has the "right" to these things, in the same way you could argue that everyone has the "right" set up multinational corporations which use child labour. The point surely is to decide what sort of world you want and then to act accordingly. This may deny the ruling class their "rights" to exploit the rest of us. Sorry if that doesn't sound very fair or fluffy, but it's probably more coherent than all this liberal bollocks about "rights".

The streets of London are obstructed by a number of events like the Notting Hill Carnival, the London Marathon and the Lord Mayor's Parade. Do those who protest so strongly about the "right to roam" throughout our capital city also consider these events to be a violation of their "rights"?

The arguments about protestors wearing Gap stuff or benefitting from the legal system is a moral argument, isn't it? It is impossible to exist outside of capitalism and so you would expect people involved with demos, etc to be wearing clothes which are made by capitalist companies. It's too cold for nudism! Companies like Gap are merely singled out as being the worst examples of the excesses of capitalism and may or may not be singled out for boycotts, etc, as appropriate. It is about politics rather than some moral lifestylism for me.

Similarly with sueing the police - you have an oppressive force and you act accordingly. You either resist or you don't. This resistance may take different forms. It may be preferable to resist being hit over the head and illegally imprisoned by sueing the police rather than trying to respond with similar aggression.

One thing is pretty clear - oppression does not subside in the absence of resistance.

To stay that people can't exist outwit capitalism is utter crap. If you really wanted to anyone could live independently, it is a question of whether you want to do that.

It's all very well complaining about governments etc but you reap all the benefits of our political system, such as a transportation infrastructure which I'm sure some of the mayday protesters used to travel?

I presume it is acceptable to use mobile phones made by mass corporations as long as it is used in the process of protesting about mass corporations.

It's not a contradiction at all to use the benefits of mass corporations and capitalism such as the Internet and mobile phones whilst demonstrating against them?!?

It appears that you don't really know what you want and just want to rebel against anything. It seems a middle class game that hasn't been thought out well.


HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY HYPOCRISY

I dunno about you, but I always find my point gets across better if I repeat the same word over and over again at the end... :-)

The point (again, for me, other people obviously feel differently) is to establish a world human community based on co-operation rather than competition. Or rather - people's needs rather than profit.

That doesn't mean I am against computers, necessarily. In fact it's been pointed out in another thread that computers may well be _more_ developed in a non-capitalist society because there is a huge amount of undeveloped intelligence and potential in the world. When people are starving they generally don't have the inclination, resources or time to worry about making better kit.

It isn't really to do with the products of capitalism - more to do with the way they are produced and distributed. (Though what gets produced is also an issue). By your argument it would be impossible to protest against being badly treated in prison: "oh, but you eat prison food and use up prison electricity!"

I don't accept that people who don't like the current system should go somewhere else - even if you go and live on a deserted island you still suffer the effects of global warming, etc.

It's about improving the material conditions of the majority of people on this planet - not about a few relatively privileged people in the West setting up their own exclusive village or whatever. In my opinion _that_ would be hypocritical.

Is it really that much of a problem to arrive home a little later, face a few delays and dress down for the day?? The issues the people were campaigning for are surely far greater than one day of very slight dicomfort. Surely child poverty, huge gaps between the rich and poor, huge groups of dispaced, poor or unheard people, governments that don't listen to the people and a world where material possesions and money seem to mean more than people,animals and our natural environment is a cause for concern? Excuse us for interrupting your day. It will happen again.

Nobody is saying that all technology and consumer products should be band. The point is that the production of such products be they cars, computers, phones, clothing, etc, should not exploit human resources. It is ok to wear designer labels, should you wish, so long as no persons are exploited - other than the wearer - in the process.
I'm sick to death of hearing [from the media right] of anti-capitalists wanting to ban everything; this is absurd. We still have to eat, drink and clothe ourselves - just in a more socially sympathetic manner.

I agree with you - it's only right that we "exploit" all the benefits modern technology brings to us. The internet and mobile phones (for example) are needed to disseminate information and bring together disparate groups. You don't fight surface-to-air missiles with one man and a stick.