> Meanewhile the MET police agreed to meet with people from the Climate Camp group this

And in the UK ecological direct action campaigners have a long history of not engaging with the police in advance of protests, for the very reasons you list and more!

Tell me why this is different, or report on what happens, for our interest.

sighs and thanks

I've got the feeling there are some people among climate campers who keep on talking about stopping climate chaos and bringing social change without really meaning it. So, how does it work? You 'negotiate' with the police 'how', 'where', 'when' we (who?) are going to protest, so they can manage it nicely. At the end we all go home after having put up a nice and 'hippie' show for the press, with some of us feeling a bit more disempowered and less hopeful with the future. In the meanwhile, those brave enough to refuse to protest (protest?) under police-sanctioned rules will get the usual state repression. Not much change gained there. In my scheme of things, you might negotiate with the police during a protest, not prior to it, and because you've got no other choice. Having a prior 'dialogue' with the police after they've clearly threatened violence against us just shows the weakness of the movement, not its strength. Please, give some good examples of any meaningful social change brought about this way. What's wrong with you people?

Unless you have been on a climate camp actionj, I think you have no grounds to crotocise. particularly if you think you have the authority to say what is or is not the 'policy' for envirnmantal direct action groups in terms of meeting with the police.

While many sit at home and criticise the climate camp movement, the camp has developed a completely effective way of bringing their cause to the public eye, using exceptional courage and intelligence, outwitting the police and more to the point, beating the media at their game.

The camp last year held strong despite an outrageous continued onslaught by the police and not once did we fight back. The result? A very public enquiry into the policing of protests and for the first time, a public reprimand of the police which has stopped them in their tracks in terms of smashing protesters and getting away with it.

The average age on the camp was 24, everybody was completely copped on, fearless, determined and non-violent. You sound like the old school of activist my friend, no offence, but come to the climate camp and see how they do things before tellign us how it should be done.

> Unless you have been on a climate camp actionj, I think you have no grounds to crotocise.
That's the biggest bullshit censorious argument out I'm afraid! People should be able to criticise X without having been on X/being X. I understand that armchair criticism is annoying and most often not helpful, but don't assume that people who post on here don't do anything.
(by the by, I have been to the camps and associated actions, but that's really really not the point)

> authority to say what is or is not the 'policy' for envirnmantal direct action groups in terms of meeting with the
I never claimed such authority or stated a policy, just mentioned what's happened before. Thankfully satuepogh went into some of the arguments about why.

I'm sorry but I think you'll find that the media are still writing bullshit stories about the camp for climate action and other ecological protest, despite the complaints. And the police still bash our heads in, and will over the next few days, despite inquiry etc.

Not quite sure about how you asked everyone their ages last year at the camp, and how does that make anyone over that age who went feel? And why is that something good, if not just to discount my views as old-school! And a lot of other stuff you say ignores the diversity of the camp, and of eco protests, and that's the way it should be, you'll see.

I have been to the camp and in a few other actions, but even if I hadn't, I still have the right to criticise what you're doing. You said, we're telling 'you' how to do it. But who are 'you'? I thought everybody who participates in the camp has a say in how it is run. I thought (and that's what actually happened in the camp) decisions of this type were taken by consensus and after consultation. Sitting in parliament to talk to the police on behalf of whom exactly? I very much admire the work of the legal team at climate camp but actually it is not true that it was thanks to you that the Joint Committee on Human Rights did an investigation on the policing of protest. Please, revise the history again. And finally, you haven't replied to my question, do you know of any meaningful social change brought about by negotiating with the police? Thanks