[ssf] what is behind a mask?
robin_amparo at tiscali.co.uk
Mon Mar 21 08:23:16 GMT 2005
> I think its clear that we need to get a very large number of people
> to come if we are to achieve anything, and this should in my view be
> the priority of the local group. Clearly a dozen of us cannot bring
> the thing to a halt on our own, so instead of bickering about what we
> should be saying, lets make sure that we are able to fulfil the
> function of bringing groups in to Sheffield and together.
Why not include this statement into the non-violent peaceful herd
I don't think you are asking for an apology: nobody has been offended,
insulted or anything like that here in a "confrontational" discussion;
just let me say that it comes as a shock that your approach is in favour
of capitalism, so what are you protesting against? Break of
communications with the g8 governments?
or, rather impersonally (nothing personally meant), why is a space
created for a given group? in order to control that group perhaps?
How can you ask for a statement of non-violence in the name of Peace in
the Park, for instance, and at the same time willing to attract large
numbers of bearded anarchists into Sheffield?
And at the same time, joining Peace in the Park's judgement that no
legal support or arrest support group will be necessary, since everybody
should adhere to "non violence"?
If you are against G8, summit, what is your intention in not attempting
to stop them coming in the first place? Did it ever occurred to you that
they might leave the country and not go to Scotland for instance (a bit
too futuristic but...)
My apologies if you don't appreciate.
o hell o yell o butterflies!
I would like to know exactly what you think my position is and
> intentions are?
No, we are free of course not to tell our positions or intentions.
Chris Malins wrote:
> Whoa, Amp. Which concerns are you actually talking about? For the
> record, I didn't originally want or consider necessary a 'statement
> of non-violence', but as several members of the group clearly did I
> have taken it upon myself to take that away from the meeting (where
> it met consensus) and formulate it, and insist that the point about
> non-violence is respected - if it isn't, I don't think we can go
> However, I don't appreciate the tone of your last message, nor for
> the record being referred to by my surname, nor do I really
> understand it. I think that we have a breakdown of communication, but
> I would like to know exactly what you think my position is and
> intentions are?
> I was indeed in Derby on M17, and there are certainly lessons to be
> learnt from that experience for any action in Sheffield. Not least
> that any venue we legitimately acquire is likely to be leaned on by
> the police to ban us. More importantly though, I think its clear that
> we need to get a very large number of people to come if we are to
> achieve anything, and this should in my view be the priority of the
> local group. Clearly a dozen of us cannot bring the thing to a halt
> on our own, so instead of bickering about what we should be saying,
> lets make sure that we are able to fulfil the function of bringing
> groups in to Sheffield and together.
> R&A wrote:
>> Following reports from Derby M17, how ridiculous all this sounds!
>> All this rubber talk about violence to property, g8-sheffield, firm
>> decisions... in the view of five steel rings, twelve arrests to
>> cyclists from Critical Mass, and *above all* in the view that the
>> city council in Sheffield *will* ban all processions during the
>> event, and a protesters' *pen* will be built where protesters will
>> be forced to demonstrate or do *street theatre* only, for the
>> benefit of children and passers-bye,
>> for your god's sake, Malins, there is no *room* for controversial
>> approach, there is no *violence* but theirs. Don't you see there is
>> no possible confrontation, at least make room for confrontation of
>> ideologies, words, thoughts, or use what tools you have available
>> to do what you are intending to do, anyway, and why not? You are
>> travelling to Edimburgh to meet Chancellor Brown with Make PH,
>> that's excellent in your point of view. You have the support of a
>> sheffield councellor, at least. Good for you. Everything else
>> happening in Sheffield will be under control, and you know it, what
>> i don't understand are your concerns.
>> we shouldn't slag off at each other...
>> my best wishes
>>> Subject: Re: [ssf] Agenda and Minutes of last meeting for
>>> g8-Sheffield meeting, 16th March From: Chris Malins
>>> <chrismalins at gmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:28:57 +0000
>>> To: SSF <ssf at lists.aktivix.org>
>>> Dear Cuthbert,
>>> This statement is not intended as a statement to the media or as
>>> a justification to the media. We are sending out a message that
>>> we represent local people ready to support actions against the G8
>>> in Sheffield. This clearly delineates those actions which the
>>> group is willing to support, and which no member of the group
>>> feels uncomfortable with, and conversely those actions which we
>>> wil not support. It is not intended as a condemnation of any
>>> actions by other individuals or groups, although I admit I have
>>> slipped slightly into auto-pilot and that it could be read that
>>> Anyone who wishes to support actions including property violence
>>> or anything else is free to do so, but the facilities provided by
>>> G8-Sheffield will not be made available for these purposes. We
>>> judge groups not by their philosophies, but by their specific
>>> intentions while in Sheffield.
>>> It is something that members of this group felt was important,
>>> and which a firm decision was made to implement. It will be
>>> attached to the group's webspace, and to the call to action.
>>> If anyone would like to reword it at all, be my guest.
>>> noone noone wrote: I dont understand the need for a 'statement of
>>> non-violence', i find that all it does is help the media create
>>> some sort of division between the different groups of protestors.
>>> Surely it is up the individual to decide how non-violent they are
>>> and what constitutes violence and non-violence. For example for
>>> some people damage of property is ok for others it isnt, it
>>> doesnt mean that you have to write a statement - which by the way
>>> will end up being used by the media to create a division between
>>> yourselves and other possible groups of protestors.
Gift of Tongues
50 Constable Place
Sheffield S14 1AX
More information about the ssf