RTS CLOUDINESS

by Joe Sheehan Mon May 20, 2002 15:45

Can't answer all the questions but what I saw when I arrived the Fire Brigade were there they were cutting the locks and chains on the blockades at the end of the street. I assume the RTS organisers decided on the location and had put the barriers up to reclaim our space.
Can't say of all the Gardai that were there but at one stage shortly after the Car incident I counted 45 garai at that end of the Quay and there were others at the top of the street and more (20 ish) on the street parallel to the Quay.

by James - Reclaim the Streets Mon May 20, 2002 16:31 rtsmayday at yahoo dot co dot uk 087 9455422

RTS decided on Burgh Quay. Butt Bridge end of the quay was blocked. Cops arrived soon after, then Fire Brigade, who only had to come from Tara St after all. I assume that they work with the cops all the time. That makes sense to me, car accidents etc. Didn't see anyone harass the Firemen, dont think that anybody has ever even suggested that this might have occurred. street had been filled by partygoers at this stage anyway, so barrier had served its purpose.

by Andrew Mon May 20, 2002 16:49

You'll find somes answers and pics in the reports at http://struggle.ws/wsm/news.html as well

"Who decided on Burgh Quay?"

The RTS group who organised the event

"Where the Dublin Fire Brigade there already?"

There was a critical mass just before we arrived which blocked the street and put a chain across it. The Fire Brigade were called to cut the chain and arrived before most of the RTS crowd did.

"If so do they act with the police often ?"

Clearing blockages is probably pretty standard (they even cut bike locks off for people).

"Did anyone see them harassed?"

Who - the fire brigade? I didn't and while people might have booed them I can't see anyone harassing them otherwise.

"Where the protesters corralled at College Green as part of some deliberate police operation?"

It sure looked that way

"How many cops were there altogether?"

At least 60 or 70

"Did anyone see any physical attacks on cops?"

You need to ask 2000+ people this but the lack of injuries on the Gardai side would suggest no one attacked them in any meaningful way (almost none had riot equipment). Actually given the serious assault carried out by the Gardai is is quite remarkable that no one lost the head.

"I did see empty cans hurled at cops on Burgh Quay but they were chucked from the middle of the throng. "

Saw this too, quite funny as unless they are crushed the are about as effective as paper airplanes and the ones I saw all came down on the crowd rather then the Gardai. Didn't cause any injuries of course because they were empty and uncrushed.

by Madanarchist Mon May 20, 2002 22:31

The worst form of abuse that I saw from any protestors was on Burgh quay when a bottle was thrown and hit protestors - not gardaí. The bottle didn't even break. No-one was injured and this was in the aftermath of the Gardaí using batons viciously against the crowd.

One of the most amazing aspects of what happened in Dame Street was that despite continued assault by gardaí not one single protestor (or the supposed elements that we are told had minlged with the crowd intent on causing trouble) in anyway or form retalliated at any stage. I didn't see everything that happened but I saw a lot.

Furthermore the Gardaí in particular seemed to go for those who were least threatening - teenagers and especailly teenage girls. This isn't to suggest of course that a few hundred hippies and the like are really a massive threat to about 60 baton wielding gardaí.

by POLICE Tue May 21, 2002 00:25

why not sign a confession too .

by J Edgar Vacuum Cleaner Tue May 21, 2002 00:35

This is fucked up. You say these were the questions asked of you. If as you claim you were at the "RTS" and "in the middle at the end", should not you be the best person to answer "if there were physical attacks on cops" etc etc. I was right by your side [in the middle at the end] and the only physical attacks I witnessed were against innocent bystanders and peaceful protesters. Again, the "cans thrown at the cops from the middle of the throng" would, from your post, seem to exhibit that you were in the vicinity. Surely you would be the best person to answer these questions, and perhaps post back your tel number so we can share your undoubted insight on the events of this day. Regarding your interest in Firemen.......[?]
What happened on RTS2002 is still affecting many innocent individuals and your efforts may be better employed in assisting these efforts, not wondering why Jack Ruby rented the car or why Lee Harvey Oswald was briefly seen leaving Easons with a copy of the Garda Review....

by 8den Tue May 21, 2002 02:00

This is an anonymous posting on the internet, not exactly a smoking gun.......

by ollie Tue May 21, 2002 02:39

A bit wet behind the ears, folks...POLICE is right, why not sign a confession, in fact, why not let weeks old chinese whispers create a vague, hazy memory of general violence. How better to forget the reality of police brutality? After all, that's how all these things get remembered...Seattle, Genoa, Prague...
for E.G. the mainstream press has collectively forgotten about the police attack on sleeping protesters in the school in Genoa. Instead, they refer to general 'trouble' or 'violence'. It's our job to never let them get away with forgeting the truth.
RTS Dublin 2002 no police were injured. None.
Protesters were hospitalised.
Which part of this do you find difficult to understand?

One last thing:
Q: How many Pierce St. Guards does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None! There never was a fuckin' lightbulb!

by Andrew Tue May 21, 2002 17:07

Look folks the easiest way to avoid giving the police evidence is to stay at home and never communicate with anyone else. The only problem with this approach is it means we will achieve nothing.

On the other hand trying to convince people of our ideas (or in this case clarify what actually happened) means saying things in public and semi public forums. Sure the cops and the media may be listening. So what, providing you are careful not to identify people they might be after, its a 'risk' we should be taking all the time. Otherwise indymedia might as well shut down now!

by ollie Wed May 22, 2002 01:38

of course we should continue to be public or semi public, but not everyone is as 'clued in', so to speak, as you are, Andrew. Polemics, like "Otherwise indymedia might as well shut down now!" aren't always helpful. Accessing and utilising Indymedia can be a learning curve, and some of the earlier comments in this set of posts were a bit naive, imo. That said, even the continuation of the discussion we're having has its place.
But in light of the 'double' investigation that seems to be going on, a bit of forethought on our part goes a long way.
I'll end on a specifically polemical note myself...more because it needs to be said, again, than because its 'the whole story' ...
'Just because your paranoid.. don't mean they're not after you...'

by Andrew Wed May 22, 2002 10:47

Ollie,

if you think people revealing information about protests is a mistake then obviously indymedia shut be shut down. There are endless pictures of the RTS demo here for instance, I'm sure some must show people who were arrested. Potentially these could be used in court cases if those taking the photos co-operated with the prosecution.

Its also important not to privilege some people in the respect of who can/should make positings. The way to tackle it is to create a very simple ethos in the activist community where co-operation with the Gardai in evidence gathering in relation to protests is simply considered to be wrong. For instance if your video or pictures of a demonstration are to be used in a court case this can only happen if you first testify that they are genuine. Our standard approach should be to refuse to do this for any prosecution case. This might not fit in with some peoples broader political agendas but its the best way of making sure accurate information continues to be available.

by ollie Wed May 22, 2002 15:14

people should, quite simply, think b4 they speak/write, that's all.
On the second point, the site will always latently privilege 'experts', be they wsm, swp, gr or whoever. Not because of anything indymedia does incorrectly, but because 'underground' experts still fulfill the function of experts - and the appearence of heirarchical knowledge tends to 'intimidate'.
That said, there is still an 'ordering' of newswire articles which follows the political leanings of the indymedia people, however noble their intentions. In fact, even 'reverse discrimination' on their part would be shaped by their own ideologies.
Overall though, I think we share a desire to get over these issues, we share an awareness of the problems and a desire to 'bottom-up'as many aspects of our lives as possible - micro, meso and macro. And the attemps to be reflective on our part are part of what makes us true democrats.
And I agree with you point on caution vis-a-vis prosecution cases. It's certainally an issue that needs to be, in some sense, formally worked out by the people with footage and those being charged.
Some maybe we could agree that people need to be aware of, and perhaps reminded that, the police are constantly watching, and sometimes even posting?

by saortinn Tue May 28, 2002 17:21

Ive just seen this, and dont believe it.

To answer any sceptics, try being 5'6" in a large crowd and see what is going on. For your info i was about 15 feet away from the car incident on burgh quay, all I knew until later in a pub when I met somebody I knew was the colour, I heard booing but had no idea what was going on.
Why not shut indymedia down. Take it that it wasnt someone 'claiming' to be there, say it was Joe Public , and he didnt believe the Times or The Indo and he asks for the other side... and he's an undercover cop all of a sudden..absolutely pathetic.