I don't see how the demonstrators wasted any money at all. It was the police who wasted the tax payers money.

Can someone PLEASE sort out the clock.
It's completely wrong. It says 12.00 and yet actually
it's 20.01

Also, can someone sort out the software so that
we can click on http://www. links...

From what I saw, it seemed more like post party revellers than any form of organised protest. On arriving at the Town Hall Square at 2am, I noticed that there seemed to be quite a party going on, so we stopped to look. It was then that we noticed that the doors of the town hall were open and there were lines of people on the town hall steps dancing.
Then 4 yellow jacketed Met Police arrived and attempted to move people away and seemed to grab one individual. The crowd weren't having much of this, but there was no violence.
5 mins later, police vans started arriving and officers with vests on and long batons ran into the square and up the steps. With no warning to the crowd they delt people blows and threw some people down the steps and they entered the building.
The violence was shocking and the crowd reacted by jeering. No damage was caused to the exterior of the Town Hall or the gardens.
More and more police vans arrived with fully kitted out riot police to the extent that they eventually outnumbered the crowd. At no point did they announce instructions to the crowd, instead they proceeded to spend an hour and a half clearing the area miltary style.
At one point a man was restrained and pinned to the floor, surrounded by a wall of 30 officers who were doing a good job of moving their legs to block the view of people who were crouching on the floor with cameras or just to see what was happening to the guy. He was held down for 5 minutes before being led handcuffed into a police van and taken away.
At bo point were the people who had enetred the building lead out the front door, one can only assume they were still inside until the main square was cleared.
At the end of the fiasco at around 4am, there was some commotion around a bus on Graham road, where a young guy had been stabbed and beaten by muggers. They ran into Mare Street to be confronted by riot police and they quickly turned heel and dispersed. The injured young man approached the poilice line thinking that they would help him but he was met with a frosty response. An ambulance man flagged down a police van and the office responded to the injured guy by saying "yeah? So, what do you want me to do about it?" and promptly spead off!
So it seems that the police weren't interested in fighting crime more in playing soldiers and intimidating people by getting all of their toys out at once.
I caught a lot of the events on DV.

What a bunch of idiots-did they really think that turning up pissed at 2.00am in the morning for a sit in was going to achieve anything. Forget left (or right) wing political activism and join the"human" party where choice & opportunity should be accessable to all. I am strongly anti NWO, TNC & Global Corporatisation but I am not anti free enterprise, which is definitely different-however,it should be just that, free enterprise, where independent traders and the self employed are able to compete fairly with corporations in order to earn a living and not have to constantly worry about corporate cartels fixing supply & prices etc as a means of freezing out & bankrupting smaller (independent) companies.

What's the problem with gentrification? Surely it brings more investment into the area? It is the existing residents which have been voting in the corrupt councils so any change must be for the better...

Haven't you read the press. Hackney Council is a hung council with only a majority of one held by Labour. Two local councillers were jailed two-three weeks ago for vote-fixing. See Guardian about two weeks ago for how they and others party's are still stealing votes.

Yes, I have read the press...but part of the demonstration was against gentrification! Why is that a bad thing?

The problem with gentrification isn't the act itself, it's the way it's done, and the end result.

If gentrification meant that local council-house and sheltered accomadation residents had the exterior of their properties 'done up', then that would be great. Similarly, if the area itself was repaired, re-painted and generally tidied up, that would also be good news for all, businesses included.

The problem comes when we understand that this is not what is happening. 'Gentirification' is now a happy-faced euphamism for a directional shift that targets people with higher disposable incomes. This is achieved by turning local pubs into wine bars, community centres into boutiques and parks into shopping malls.

The net effect of this is that people with very little disposable income are effectively barred from much of civic life. How so? Because there is now an 'entrance price' to all 'communal' activities. No money, no point in going to a boutique or expensive wine bar (where they probably wouldn't be welcome anyway). All contact points for community life have now been turned into retail-led, fast turnover outlets, where human interaction is minimised. The local people without disposable income are marginalised, and even those with money - including incomers - are 'atomised': that is, they experience far less contact with other local people. Their circle of friends is likely to be restricted to those they know through work, already know, or at best are of a similar age, income bracket and outlook.

Finally, those who have been marginalised feel bitter and resentful, civic pride is lost, and the young now no longer have anything to do. Leading to crime and delinquency.

Do you see the problem with gentrification now?

You should read a book by one of the first anti- capitalists who was writing in 1950s California, namely VANCE PACKARD's "THE STATUS SEEKERS" (also check out his earlier masterpiece "THE HIDDEN PERSUADERS"). Economic social elitism must necessarily produce political elitism.
I personally find packard more and more relevant and exciting. the kind of thing he observed there then with Kennedy, now seems to be emerging here with Blair.

Naomi Klein has merely revived his general thesis, but she fails to give Vance a full credit for his pioneering work, so dont take her faint praise as definitive.

First they were about 30, then about 50 riot-geared cops came and then the dogs were taken into scene.
People were thrown down the front stairs of the hall, police seemed to be hurting people just for the sake of it.
I could see three people badly injured, certainly bleeding. I dialled 999 on my mobile in the hope to provide an ambulance for those injured. The operator kept me 5 (five) minutes with an answering machine... when I could speak to some one, she kept me another 5 minutes asking questions like, tell me exactly what is happening, are the police attending injured people, who are the injured people, or asking for the address of the events 3 times. Eventually she said an ambulance would turn up in about 10 minutes. 20 minutes later another friend (please don't call us protestors, we were not protesting, we were celebrating and reclaiming a public space), called 999 again. Same story. And the ambulance never came.

Tahnks to both electrification and p.Layton for taking the trouble to answer my question concerning gentrification. Both your replies were very comprehensive. However, I am a bit concerned that the analysis used by electrification seems worryingly similar to those of the far right or nationalist parties when arguing against outsiders.

Paul - glad my analysis was of some use. Also good to see that there are some sane people left who'll listen to an argument, even if they don't neccesarily agree. Regarding your worries that my analysis seemed similar to those used by far-right groups. I can see why it might appear so, but the opposite is in fact the case. Let me explain. I wrote, in part,:

"Finally, those who have been marginalised feel bitter and resentful, civic pride is lost, and the young now no longer have anything to do. Leading to crime and delinquency."

This does sound a little 'Widdecombe-ish' you might think. Where my analysis is diametrically different to a far-right one is in the cause. People like Widdecombe et al blame the poor, refugees (whom they call 'asylum-seekers') and minorities for crime and social tension. They look no further, simply implying that these are 'bad people'.

My point is that 'bad people' are not born, but made. We are all, in the end, the same whatever the colour of our skin. Remember the film, 'Trading Places'? A twee piece of sentimental Hollywood tosh, but it had a kernel of truth. It all depends on your environment.

When people have their area taken away from them, when they are priced out of their own communtities, when they are denied the chance to live a normal life; what then? Do we seriously expect them not to feel resentful? How would you or I feel? Is it any wonder that kids on a run down estate commit more 'crime' than those in better off areas with parents who have a job, and money to buy things to entertain them? No, of course not.

This is the sickness of the Tory or far-right diatribe. Their economic and social policies sideline, exclude, and pauperise people, and then those same people are blamed for all of societies ills. The victim is also the perpatrator. It is Luciferian in its evil brilliance. I'm not suggesting an overarching conspiracy here, simply a mindset that counts everything in monetary terms, not human.

Oh no, now i probably sound like a far-left fanatic. Oh well, better that than a facist!

peace & love,

Electrification.

That's funny because I was there on Saturday and all I could see were a bunch of pissed up Crusties looking for trouble. I was personally amazed with that number of people and Old Bill, that the whole thing didn't escalate into a major riot. Well done to the police on this occasion. But then I was very, very, drunk.

interest in vance packard. "Vance knew it in advance" might be a fair slogan. before he died, he reaffirmed his analysis in the 80s.
however, naomi klein has somewhat 'inverted' his thesis: vance thought that governments were starting to imitate the techniques of consumer mega- companies , whereas klein seems to think that these companies are taking over the function of government. but it is true that she doesnt really give him full acknowlegement for his work. He was far more than a critique of advertising: look at chapter "Persuading us as citizens" in "The Hidden Persudaers", 1957.

The filth just love to ruck. My eldest brother used to be in the met and all we used to hear from him was how much fun the fights were, you should have heard him after the poll tax demonstration. They are all sadistic fucks.

Glad to see you read some intellectual crap from the 1950's.Didn't realise there was no opposition to capatalism either written or physically prior to 1950. Cheers for clearing that up for me! May Naomi Klein burn as bright as the Bureaucrats and cops in the fires of revolution!!!xxx

And the BOSSES!!!