PDA

View Full Version : Bristol Riots


gothicangel
04-23-2011, 12:55 PM
As much as I loathe Tesco, do these people really thing violence and damage to property is the way to go?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/22/bristol-riot-police-injured

I don't blame the police for being heavy handed, with the threat of petrol bombs, they had the duty to protect the public.

Shakesbear
04-23-2011, 02:30 PM
Agree with you. Gothicangel about the police having a duty to protect the public. I also agree that violence and damage to property are not the way to go, but when the protests through legal channels are not listened to some people are driven to take action. Tesco ignore local opinion and are very persistent and will not give up. Sheringham, Norfolk had a fourteen year battle to prevent Tesco from building in the town centre. A battle they sadly lost http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-11544314

There have been other 'scandals' including the buying up of land to prevent other supermarkets being built in the area.

Thesaintterrapin
04-23-2011, 02:46 PM
It's the usual thing, the feral, brainless lost causes to Humanity use these occasions to just cause damage and destruction, because that's all they know.

None of them so brave as to carry out their acts without hoods or face masks though.

Police should recieve no critism, very easy for the PC and just as guilty sympathisers to blame heavy handed tactics.

Do you see soldiers on a battle field adopting such measures.

Force unfortunately has to be met with force.

Parametric
04-23-2011, 03:00 PM
Police should recieve no critism, very easy for the PC and just as guilty sympathisers to blame heavy handed tactics.

The local MP was there. She personally saw and experienced those heavy-handed tactics. Guess that makes her "guilty".

Thesaintterrapin
04-23-2011, 03:15 PM
If she offers sympathey to the troublemakers, then yes she is.

As an MP and person of local influence she should condemn all acts such as this.

gothicangel
04-23-2011, 03:22 PM
The local MP was there. She personally saw and experienced those heavy-handed tactics. Guess that makes her "guilty".

Yet surely she along with the council would have given Tesco's the go-ahead. If the feeling against the store was so 'anti' why wasn't she helping the campaign then? Or did she see the pound signs?

She sounds like a hypocrite to me.

SPMiller
04-23-2011, 03:25 PM
I'm trying to reframe this in terms that make sense to me. It seems based on my research that Tesco is the UK equivalent of Wal-Mart and generally engages in similar practices. Is that correct?

gothicangel
04-23-2011, 03:26 PM
Agree with you. Gothicangel about the police having a duty to protect the public. I also agree that violence and damage to property are not the way to go, but when the protests through legal channels are not listened to some people are driven to take action. Tesco ignore local opinion and are very persistent and will not give up. Sheringham, Norfolk had a fourteen year battle to prevent Tesco from building in the town centre. A battle they sadly lost http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-11544314

There have been other 'scandals' including the buying up of land to prevent other supermarkets being built in the area.

Morally I agree with you. Unfortunately, because of the violence the protestors have lost all moral high ground to Tesco's who have acted within the law - albeit in an aggressive capitalist way.

Shakesbear
04-23-2011, 04:43 PM
It will take more than a protest to make Tesco seem moral. They ride rough shod over the will of local people to attain their ends. They are also pervading so many areas of daily life - banking, internet, phones, dieting.They are also working in association with an estate agent to sell homes - so you could buy your house via their services, furnish it using their online catalogue, join their baby and toddler group. I'm just waiting for them to have burial society then they can take up the old saying that we would be 'looked after from the cradle to the grave. Or should that be 'tescoed from the cradle to the grave'. Wonder if you'd get clubcard points for your own funeral.

gothicangel
04-23-2011, 06:54 PM
It will take more than a protest to make Tesco seem moral. They ride rough shod over the will of local people to attain their ends. They are also pervading so many areas of daily life - banking, internet, phones, dieting.They are also working in association with an estate agent to sell homes - so you could buy your house via their services, furnish it using their online catalogue, join their baby and toddler group. I'm just waiting for them to have burial society then they can take up the old saying that we would be 'looked after from the cradle to the grave. Or should that be 'tescoed from the cradle to the grave'. Wonder if you'd get clubcard points for your own funeral.

But that doesn't change my point, that they are acting fully within the law, these protestors are not.

Let economics rule. If it is true the 96% do not want them there, then boycott and Tesco will soon close a shop which is losing money. Or are they not so confident in their figures?

From what I've seen the other businesses who received damage and loss of business due to the riots [some lost up to 7,000 because they had to stay closed on a sunny Good Friday] and are seeking damages from the rioters.

mirandashell
04-23-2011, 08:12 PM
I'm not sure that's true. From what I've seen, the only shop that got attacked was the Tescos. Everything else was left alone.

Before deciding who was in the wrong, you have to understand the situation. That area of Bristol is known to be bohemian. A lot of the people living there are into sustainability, organic food and not supporting The Man.

There is a squat opposite the Tescos that has been there a long time and is supported by the locals. The police got an 'anonymous tipoff' that there were petrol bombs in the squat. They turned up mob-handed, the locals came out to see what was going on, and a protest at the squat being broken up started. The police called in reinforcements from Cardiff, they turned up in a riot van and started laying into everyone who was there. Including the local MP, who got shoved about.

So no criticism of the police, then?

By the way, the local MP has no say in whether the Tescos was built or not. She isn't on the local council and they decide on what gets built.

Let's get our facts straight, shall we? Before anyone gets a broken chin from their knee jerking so hard.

Stu1883
04-29-2011, 02:20 PM
I live in Bristol and there was a real threat to the community by some self styled anarchists who were going to petrol bomb the Tesco store. The riot has, in many people's eyes, made the protesters cause untenable especially as Clair Milne - an official spokeperson for the Anti Tesco Mob said that the violence should not be condemned!

Whether or not you feel Tesco are taking over the world, the events were unacceptable. Did any of you realise that the "protesters" broke through the security grilles and looted the store, stealing cigarettes and alcohol? Then they went up the road, fighting with the police and burning bins, smashing windows and damaging cars?

Anyone who has symapthy for these idiots obviously doesn't understand the situation. Bristol is the hardest place in the country for Tesco to get planning permission for their stores (Tesco claimed this themselves, during the process of opening the Stokes Croft store.)

Tesco is a business - yes it is aggressive, but it is not a Big Brother type regime and neither does it oppress or hurt others. The people and protesters of Stokes Croft should have boycotted the store and peacefully picketed it. After all, just becasue the store opened, it doesn't mean people should use it.

It is all about freedom of choice; the anarchists decided to use violence and endanger life - the mist stupid choice they could have made. Don't blame Tesco, blame the stupid and ignorant layabouts who decided to break the law.

Stu1883
04-29-2011, 02:35 PM
A response to the facts (as you claim them to be) from a resident of Bristol:

I'm not sure that's true. From what I've seen, the only shop that got attacked was the Tescos. Everything else was left alone. Not True


Before deciding who was in the wrong, you have to understand the situation. That area of Bristol is known to be bohemian. A lot of the people living there are into sustainability, organic food and not supporting The Man. True - but that doesn't give them the right to make petrol bombs, something that could kill or seriously injure someone just because they have a supermarket in their high street.

There is a squat opposite the Tescos that has been there a long time and is supported by the locals. The police got an 'anonymous tipoff' that there were petrol bombs in the squat. They turned up mob-handed, TRUE because there was a genuine threat to the safety of the community at large the locals came out to see what was going on, and a protest at the squat being broken up started True - peaceful protest to begin with. The police called in reinforcements from Cardiff, they turned up in a riot van and started laying into everyone who was there. Including the local MP, who got shoved about. True (ish) - reinfoircements were called in because of the severity of the proposed actions by a small group of people; reinforcements allowed the operation to take place without minimising the regular policing taking part in the city - surely that is acceptable???? Kerry McCarthy MP was probably shoved, but then again she was in the mob the police were trying to contain, again in my opinion, not exactly an outrageous act made by a totalitarian regime but by a lawful police force doing their best to keep the community at large safe.

So no criticism of the police, then? Yes - they may well have been heavy handed in certain acts, but it is a position they were put in by a group of idiots with petrol bombs. They were reacting to what was in front of them, not actively being aggressive.

By the way, the local MP has no say in whether the Tescos was built or not. She isn't on the local council and they decide on what gets built. True

Let's get our facts straight, shall we? Before anyone gets a broken cYeshin from their knee jerking so hard.

Yes, why don't you.........

Stu1883
04-29-2011, 02:37 PM
It will take more than a protest to make Tesco seem moral. They ride rough shod over the will of local people to attain their ends. They are also pervading so many areas of daily life - banking, internet, phones, dieting.They are also working in association with an estate agent to sell homes - so you could buy your house via their services, furnish it using their online catalogue, join their baby and toddler group. I'm just waiting for them to have burial society then they can take up the old saying that we would be 'looked after from the cradle to the grave. Or should that be 'tescoed from the cradle to the grave'. Wonder if you'd get clubcard points for your own funeral.

Then exercise your right to choose where you shop and don't use Tesco. I am no lover of them myself, but I wish people would speak with some sensibility. They are a business, not a fascist government or oppressive dictatorship.

Stu1883
04-29-2011, 02:39 PM
:hooray::TheWave:

Well said, Sir

It's the usual thing, the feral, brainless lost causes to Humanity use these occasions to just cause damage and destruction, because that's all they know.

None of them so brave as to carry out their acts without hoods or face masks though.

Police should recieve no critism, very easy for the PC and just as guilty sympathisers to blame heavy handed tactics.

Do you see soldiers on a battle field adopting such measures.

Force unfortunately has to be met with force.

mirandashell
04-29-2011, 11:48 PM
I never actually said that I agreed with what the protestors did. I just put the other side of the equation. A lot of people on the thread immediately took the side of the police without knowing what actually happened. That's why I posted.

And yes, I do condemn violent protests. No, it's not the way to get things done.

But let's not jump to conclusions about the behaviour of the police, either. Sometimes they also like a good ruck.

mirandashell
04-29-2011, 11:50 PM
And as for the petrol bombs, could you provide some evidence that they were actually there?

I'm afraid I don't take anyone's word for it. Whether they live in Bristol or not.

Sam I Am
04-29-2011, 11:53 PM
Whether or not you feel Tesco are taking over the world, the events were unacceptable. Did any of you realise that the "protesters" broke through the security grilles and looted the store, stealing cigarettes and alcohol? Then they went up the road, fighting with the police and burning bins, smashing windows and damaging cars?
The supposedly deplorable actions are miniscule compared to the actions of large corporations, like Tesco, commit every single day.

Tesco is a business - yes it is aggressive, but it is not a Big Brother type regime and neither does it oppress or hurt others.
Large corporations like Tesco don't hurt others? They are a global capitalist corporation, and the use of cheap labor exploits every man, woman, and child who has every engaged in labor that benefits Tesco.

The people and protesters of Stokes Croft should have boycotted the store and peacefully picketed it. After all, just becasue the store opened, it doesn't mean people should use it.
If we want to see real change, we can't believe that peaceful protests will always work. Those in power must know that those below are not going to take it laying down.

It is all about freedom of choice; the anarchists decided to use violence and endanger life - the mist stupid choice they could have made.
Don't assume that every anarchist there used violence. The MP and a police rep even said it was a small minority. People peacefully protesting, playing saxophone even, were assaulted by the police. Yet I don't see you condeming the police (who have done far worse to people than any anarchist group has).

Don't blame Tesco, blame the stupid and ignorant layabouts who decided to break the law
Some laws are meant to be broken. See: American Revolution.

Stu1883
04-30-2011, 12:54 AM
Mirandashel - yes there were petrol bombs, as well as the paraphenalia that goes with it and 4 people have been charged accordingly.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Road-closed-squatters-targeted/article-3479322-detail/article.html

Sam I Am - You are seriously comparing this to the American Revolution??? Please allow me to help you off that high horse!

Your comment about peaceful protest not working is not entirely accurate; do the names Ghandi, Mother Theresa or Jesus not fall into people who have changed the way millions of people live, by acting peacefully?

The basic fact of the matter is this: a minority of people decided to break the law and endanger innocent lives just because they didn't get their own way. Then a few more idiots decided to start a fight and cause damage to property by smashing windows, cars and setting fire to bins.

I do agree with you (to an extent) about Tesco; they are a hideous organisation but in a democracy we have to accept some things will be a part of our lives/community/way of life, that we do not like or feel is abhorrent. That, however, does NOT give us the right to riot, steal and loot. (The troublemakers were happy to steal Tesco stock, yet felt it was inappropriate to hold a peaceful protest outside the store and encourage people to shop elsewhere).

Another question that comes to mind is "why didn't the protesters start up their own co-operative shop?" Why? Because it is easier to resort to violence and moan, than put up and shut up.

SamIAM you also say that I do not condemn the police - if they acted incorrrectly towards innocents caught up in the violence then of course I condemn it. I merely feel that they are being "blamed" for something that is not their fault. The police had to react to a situation and I firmly believe they coped with what was in front of them. After all can we get some perspective here, if they hadn't found out about the petrol bombs they could have been used and people could have been seriously injured or died.

Violence should only be used in extreme circumstances, I fail to see that an ordinary shop being opened on a street, comes close to fulfilling any part of that criteria.

If you feel the violence was justified and that petrol bombing shops that is your right and I would defend your right to say it. I will not, however, defend the intended actions of some idiots feel it is acceptable to use violence in such a way.

mirandashell
04-30-2011, 01:03 AM
You see ... what you've given me is an newspaper article quoting what the police said.

So if I don't automatically believe the police, what on earth makes you think I'm going to believe a newspaper?

Sam I Am
04-30-2011, 02:31 AM
Your comment about peaceful protest not working is not entirely accurate; do the names Ghandi, Mother Theresa or Jesus not fall into people who have changed the way millions of people live, by acting peacefully?
Circumstance were much different. In Ghandi's case, people could use non-violent protest as a tactic, as they were much more self-sufficient. Living in an urban area in a consumer culture is much different, and requires different tactics.

The basic fact of the matter is this: a minority of people decided to break the law and endanger innocent lives just because they didn't get their own way.
What innocent lives were they endangering?


Then a few more idiots decided to start a fight and cause damage to property by smashing windows, cars and setting fire to bins.
As a sign that they will not take the corporate takeover of the world without a fight. Actions speak much louder than words. Do you criticize those in Egypt who fought against a dictator with violence?

I do agree with you (to an extent) about Tesco; they are a hideous organisation but in a democracy we have to accept some things will be a part of our lives/community/way of life, that we do not like or feel is abhorrent. That, however, does NOT give us the right to riot, steal and loot.
That's an entirely subjective statement. I, for one, feel it is fine for people to loot from large corporations. People need to take back what is theirs.

(The troublemakers were happy to steal Tesco stock, yet felt it was inappropriate to hold a peaceful protest outside the store and encourage people to shop elsewhere).
I wouldn't say innapropriate the way you are using it. Rather, they felt it was a better decision to stage different form of protest to gain more coverage of their cause.

Another question that comes to mind is "why didn't the protesters start up their own co-operative shop?" Why? Because it is easier to resort to violence and moan, than put up and shut up.
There are several reasons why they did not. First of all, it's not an easy thing to do. They would have to spend, most likely, years planning, preparing, and then running this cooperative. Maybe that isn't how they want to live their lives. Secondly, that would not result in any serious changes in the system. Just as one cannot take themselves out of a global system, it will not end with a small amount of people choosing differently. Now, I'm all for co-operatives, but I'd rather have those with the skills needed to run them do so, not people who are not capable, as you suggest.


if they acted incorrrectly towards innocents caught up in the violence then of course I condemn it. I merely feel that they are being "blamed" for something that is not their fault. The police had to react to a situation and I firmly believe they coped with what was in front of them. After all can we get some perspective here, if they hadn't found out about the petrol bombs they could have been used and people could have been seriously injured or died.
You're assuming there were petrol bombs.

Violence should only be used in extreme circumstances, I fail to see that an ordinary shop being opened on a street, comes close to fulfilling any part of that criteria.
It was not just about a single shop, but about a global capitalist system.

xhouseboy
04-30-2011, 02:37 AM
If we want to see real change, we can't believe that peaceful protests will always work. Those in power must know that those below are not going to take it laying down.




Never mind, you won't have to take it lying down much longer. The Greens are advocating real change, and I just don't mean in an environmental sense.

So when they get their working majority at the next GE, problem solved, anarchy averted.

xhouseboy
04-30-2011, 02:50 AM
[QUOTE=Sam I Am;6091616]

There are several reasons why they did not. First of all, it's not an easy thing to do.

Unlike looting.


They would have to spend, most likely, years planning, preparing, and then running this cooperative.

Can't have that, when then would they find the time to march against the system and steal booze and fags from The Man?


Maybe that isn't how they want to live their lives.

You're freaking right it's not. What self respecting, looting anarchist wants to be working a living? Talk about setting the world to rights, but actually lifting a finger to make it happen? You kidding?


Secondly, that would not result in any serious changes in the system. Just as one cannot take themselves out of a global system, it will not end with a small amount of people choosing differently. Now, I'm all for co-operatives, but I'd rather have those with the skills needed to run them do so, not people who are not capable, as you suggest.


There not capable of too much, are they? Except maybe spouting off, and then having Mummy and Daddy apologise for their actions when they're caught.

Stu1883
04-30-2011, 04:11 PM
Circumstance were much different. In Ghandi's case, people could use non-violent protest as a tactic, as they were much more self-sufficient. Living in an urban area in a consumer culture is much different, and requires different tactics. So these so called "greenies" who want to live in a squat and try to live outside the realms of normal society can do what they want? You condone the violence? That says a lot about your moral character...


What innocent lives were they endangering? Those of the local community and those walking home from a night out when they were caught in the melee. And of the police, who again put themselves in harms way to protect the civilians.


As a sign that they will not take the corporate takeover of the world without a fight. Actions speak much louder than words. Do you criticize those in Egypt who fought against a dictator with violence? Egypt & Tesco - an extremely realistic and appropriate comparison; you are really covering yourself in glory with your arguments, here!


That's an entirely subjective statement. I, for one, feel it is fine for people to loot from large corporations. People need to take back what is theirs. Are you totally and utterly serious????? It isn't a statement, it is THEFT! It isn't theirs it has been legitemately bought by an organisation to re-sell at a profit.......it is called business! You are priceless!


I wouldn't say innapropriate the way you are using it. Rather, they felt it was a better decision to stage different form of protest to gain more coverage of their cause. A riot is not an alternative form of protest, it is the last refuge of a desperate cause; and please do NOT do me the dis-service of taking my comment out of context and applying it to the harrying of the north or the invasion of the body snatchers


There are several reasons why they did not. First of all, it's not an easy thing to do. They would have to spend, most likely, years planning, preparing, and then running this cooperative. Maybe that isn't how they want to live their lives. Secondly, that would not result in any serious changes in the system. Just as one cannot take themselves out of a global system, it will not end with a small amount of people choosing differently. Now, I'm all for co-operatives, but I'd rather have those with the skills needed to run them do so, not people who are not capable, as you suggest.
So you are saying they couldn't be bothered? Or they took the easy way out? Even the simplest of souls can buy a product for one price and sell it at a profit; it has been happening for millennia. Bristol was founded on commerce and I cannot - for one moment - believe that out of all the "anti - tesco" brigade there were not a handful of people with the where-with-all to think that this idea would benefit them and their cause.


You're assuming there were petrol bombs. No I am not. I have given you access to the links as reported and it was reported that there were items found. If you choose not to believe it, that is your choice.


It was not just about a single shop, but about a global capitalist system. No it isn't, it is about a group of idiots who don't accept the democratic and lawful way a business operates. They could have taken the correct path and done the things I have already mentioned, but they didn't. They were going to break the law and endanger life; no pack drill, no argument.

Did you know that before the store was granted planning permission, there was a peaceful occupation of the premises? Everyone was proud and accepting of this and pledged their support to the cause. Many of those people now refuse to be associated with it due to the actions of a few thugs.

This is not a global protest, not a repressed people crying out for democracy, it is a group of people who are too stupid to realise the damage they have done to a community.

Oh - this happened last night.......I expect you applaud it and are giving yourself a high five.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/THUGS/article-3506787-detail/article.html

Stu1883
04-30-2011, 04:12 PM
[QUOTE]

Unlike looting.




Can't have that, when then would they find the time to march against the system and steal booze and fags from The Man?




You're freaking right it's not. What self respecting, looting anarchist wants to be working a living? Talk about setting the world to rights, but actually lifting a finger to make it happen? You kidding?



There not capable of too much, are they? Except maybe spouting off, and then having Mummy and Daddy apologise for their actions when they're caught.

:hooray:

Stu1883
04-30-2011, 04:16 PM
You see ... what you've given me is an newspaper article quoting what the police said.

So if I don't automatically believe the police, what on earth makes you think I'm going to believe a newspaper?

Its up to you, I'm just sending you the links to the newspaper reports. I would go down to Stokes Croft and ask some of the squatters but would you believe them????

That's the beauty of a democracy, you can believe what you like. When it comes to violence you believe the man who hits you the least.

mirandashell
04-30-2011, 10:51 PM
I would believe them if I could speak to them myself. But sorry, I wouldn't believe your report of what they said as you obviously have an agenda.

And yes, that is one of the joys of living in a democracy. I don't have to take your opinions as fact.

The downside is people resorting to violence to get their point across. Or just because they want a ruck with an authority figure like the eejits that started the trouble on Thursday night.

C'est la vie.

As much as you don't like it, protest is the lifeblood of democracy. The day we stop protesting, democracy dies.

Stu1883
05-01-2011, 03:44 PM
I have no agenda, only one that says the protesters should have continued in a non-violent way. There were many other alternative ways they could have continued to make their voice heard - and ways that would have been more effective and kept the community on their side.

Your democracy quote is exactly how I feel - protest, make yourself heard; I am all in favour of free speech and all that it entails whether the opinion I hear I find acceptable or deplorable. BUT, the fact remains that I - and as has been widely reported - the local community are now distancing themselves from the campaign. They have played right into Tesco's hands and made them out to be the good guys.

We will have to agree to disagree (except the common belief that the perpetrators of the violence are idiots). I have no reason to have an agenda and I would love you to comment on what you think that is.

NoGuessing
05-01-2011, 06:05 PM
I do agree with you (to an extent) about Tesco; they are a hideous organisation but in a democracy we have to accept some things will be a part of our lives/community/way of life, that we do not like or feel is abhorrent.

Does not compute.

These people didn't want Tesco on their land, but Tesco being the big corp it is muscled in and did what it wanted to do. Very democratic.

Also, the generalizations and stereotypes in this thread about anarchism and libertarianism are extremely offensive. There are many people on this forum, including myself, with anarchist or libertarian world views of varying degrees, and I find them to be fantastic people who I would love to share a beer with on my tab. They are living according to their ideals and believe it or not, contributing to their fellow human beings.

xhouseboy
05-01-2011, 08:25 PM
[QUOTE=NoGuessing;6095490]

These people didn't want Tesco on their land, but Tesco being the big corp it is muscled in and did what it wanted to do. Very democratic.

These people voted in their councillors by exercising their democratic right to do do.

Their councillors then gave Tesco the go ahead by a casting vote, by adhering to the manner in which the system works. Tesco then did what it was granted permission to do.

The people don't like it. Vote their councillors out the next time around, or spend their money as they see fit.

In short, don't shop at Tesco.


Also, the generalizations and stereotypes in this thread about anarchism and libertarianism are extremely offensive.

The Bristol rioters weren't being stereotyped or generalised. Note 'rioters' not 'protestors'.

They looted, intimidated, endangered the safety of others.

I think you'll find there is very little support for these criminals in Bristol.

Stu1883
05-02-2011, 12:49 PM
Does not compute.

These people didn't want Tesco on their land, but Tesco being the big corp it is muscled in and did what it wanted to do. Very democratic.

Also, the generalizations and stereotypes in this thread about anarchism and libertarianism are extremely offensive. There are many people on this forum, including myself, with anarchist or libertarian world views of varying degrees, and I find them to be fantastic people who I would love to share a beer with on my tab. They are living according to their ideals and believe it or not, contributing to their fellow human beings.

What doesn't compute? Your opening comment is incorrect; there was big support for the anti-Tesco brigade before the planning eprmission was given. Also there isn't a similar store within 500m or so, not exactly muscling in more like plugging a gap.

Anarchists & Libertarians; a great choice of words for people who feel violence is the only way to bring change. I call them idiots who cannot think through a problem and come up with a peaceful and more targeted approach to protest.

If they don't like Tesco then don't bloody use it! I have said on previous threads on how I believe they should have continued their protest by peaceful means, and kept the community onside.

You wanna share a beer with people who justify their actions by believing they are some sort of freedom fighting super-heroes then you carry on mate. Just make sure you go to a small bar, owned by one person; if you go to a pub owned by a brewery or chain, you might get petrol bombed for giving money to "the Man".

NoGuessing
05-02-2011, 01:20 PM
What doesn't compute? Your opening comment is incorrect; there was big support for the anti-Tesco brigade before the planning eprmission was given. Also there isn't a similar store within 500m or so, not exactly muscling in more like plugging a gap.

Yet Tesco still got their way, because ultimately the Council went for what they wanted over what those who elected them wanted. Democracy in action.

Anarchists & Libertarians; a great choice of words for people who feel violence is the only way to bring change. I call them idiots who cannot think through a problem and come up with a peaceful and more targeted approach to protest.

If they don't like Tesco then don't bloody use it! I have said on previous threads on how I believe they should have continued their protest by peaceful means, and kept the community onside.

You wanna share a beer with people who justify their actions by believing they are some sort of freedom fighting super-heroes then you carry on mate. Just make sure you go to a small bar, owned by one person; if you go to a pub owned by a brewery or chain, you might get petrol bombed for giving money to "the Man".


Haha, oh dear.

The rioters are not anarchists or libertarians, they're just violent idiots, and not representative of the political belief as a whole. There are violent conservatives, progressives, theocrats and greens.

I like the people who hold anarchistic beliefs on here, and they're some of the nicest people I've ever met. Way to twist my words to suit your argument.

Shakesbear
05-02-2011, 02:31 PM
I have no agenda, only one that says the protesters should have continued in a non-violent way. There were many other alternative ways they could have continued to make their voice heard - and ways that would have been more effective and kept the community on their side.

Your democracy quote is exactly how I feel - protest, make yourself heard; I am all in favour of free speech and all that it entails whether the opinion I hear I find acceptable or deplorable. BUT, the fact remains that I - and as has been widely reported - the local community are now distancing themselves from the campaign. They have played right into Tesco's hands and made them out to be the good guys.

We will have to agree to disagree (except the common belief that the perpetrators of the violence are idiots). I have no reason to have an agenda and I would love you to comment on what you think that is.

I so disagree with the sentence I have bolded! Some of Tesco's business practice have compromised their integrity. they show no interest at all in the wishes of local communities and smaller local businesses. Google 'tesco sheringham' and read some of the articles there. It took Tesco's fourteen years to get planning permission. What is the difference between Tesco and a rottweiler? The rottweiler eventually lets go!

movieman
05-02-2011, 07:14 PM
Some of Tesco's business practice have compromised their integrity. they show no interest at all in the wishes of local communities and smaller local businesses.

Um, of course they do. Tesco build stores where people are going to buy stuff; there's no point in building a store where people won't use it.

If 96% (or 92% or 98% or whatever news story you believe) of people don't want a Tesco store in their area then they won't buy stuff there and Tesco will look stupid when they close it down because it's losing money.

In reality, people complain, then the store opens, then they say 'ooh, I can get my booze and cigarettes for half the price of the corner store' and most of the protestors start buying at the very supermarket they opposed.

whacko
05-03-2011, 01:57 AM
I like Tesco. What's to complain about cheap commodities, i.e. booze, and employment for a lot of people?

But what these crusty gits(TM) are protesting about is an organisation that gives good value but makes a cool billion a year in profit. That's anrchists for you. Hate to see success but happy to get a giro.:evil

Naturally, as I'm a balanced sort of idiot, I do invite you to Google Tesco and Linwood Shopping Centre. To save you following a link, and me finding one, Tesco basically bought a shopping centre, secretly, and deliberately ran it down. The fact that a new Tesco hypermarket is now about to replace it may somehow be connected. Possibly.

Regards

Whacko

Stu1883
05-03-2011, 04:44 PM
Haha, oh dear.

The rioters are not anarchists or libertarians, they're just violent idiots, and not representative of the political belief as a whole. There are violent conservatives, progressives, theocrats and greens. I agree, it is the rioters themselves who label themselves as lebertarians and the "voice of the community" when they clearly aren't.

I like the people who hold anarchistic beliefs on here, and they're some of the nicest people I've ever met. Way to twist my words to suit your argument. I am not twisting your words, simply replying to them.

Stu1883
05-03-2011, 04:55 PM
I so disagree with the sentence I have bolded! Some of Tesco's business practice have compromised their integrity. they show no interest at all in the wishes of local communities and smaller local businesses. Google 'tesco sheringham' and read some of the articles there. It took Tesco's fourteen years to get planning permission. What is the difference between Tesco and a rottweiler? The rottweiler eventually lets go!

Disagree - that is fine, I welcome it and will not go out and burn a bin just because I oppose your view!

You can "Google" anything on any big business and you will find negative press, as well as good things. But what about the positive elements of the Tesco business - regardless of the ethics of their business model.

They give local people jobs, they put money into local communities by sponsoring projects and support schools with their "Computers for school" vouchers. On a broader level, they pay a lot of money in corporation tax etc, they give a livelihood to the beleagured British Farming industry (yes, I know there are issues here, but come on.....we can't discuss every minutae) AND they provide a service.

A few doors down from the Tesco store is a well-known independant business; Fred Baker Bicycles, it has been trading for about 90 years. It has no connection to Tesco, it is not a competitior, nor will Tesco drive trade away from it. Yet the idiots who decided to start the riot smashed in the front of the shop making the business incur a higher insurance premium and stopped them from trading for two days. They suffered due to the inconsiderate and selfish attitudes of a minority. Go figure!

Diana Hignutt
05-03-2011, 04:58 PM
Morally I agree with you. Unfortunately, because of the violence the protestors have lost all moral high ground to Tesco's who have acted within the law - albeit in an aggressive capitalist way.

When the law can be bought, what affordable recourse can obtained through legal channels?

Personally, I'm pulling for a worldwide, though non-violent, revolution against multinational corporations.