Good, bad and simply ridiculous: post-camp commentary around the web
As Climate Camp 2010 winds down, there’s been plenty of debate happening online. So here’s a quick tour of some of the articles which are doing the rounds.
Starting with some light amusement, we have Alan Cochrane in the Telegraph calling us ‘useful idiots’. He blunders past the reality of climate change and the role fossil fuel companies take in perpetuating it, preferring to brand us ‘nutters’, ‘arrogant’ and ‘unashamed apologists for illegality’. (That last one at least is true!) Sadly Alan doesn’t really contribute anything useful, but it makes for some entertaining reading if you try to ignore the fact that we are talking about the biggest threat humanity has ever faced.
Staying with the mainstream media, well known protest photojournalist Marc Vallée says Climate Camp is restricting freedom of speech through our policies on press access to our working camp. This may ring bells with those who remember the Heathrow days; John Vidal came out with a similar article back in 2007. While we understand photojournalists have a job to do and access policies are a frustration to them, it’s really not that hard to see the reasons for them.
During the camp, it is our home. Yes, the land legally belongs to RBS but for a week we took it from them. On it we cooked, worked, debated, socialised, lived out our personal lives, and of course planned actions. We understand the camp is of interest to the press and want to provide access for them, but they have to understand it is also our home for a week. RBS were not inviting journalists into their boardrooms or staff kitchens, either.
In the ‘blogosphere’ a number of campers have been sharing their personal reactions to the camp. Sophie Lewis makes ‘a case for the Camp for climate action‘, Jack writes a huge article titled ‘The Mighty Mighty Climate Camp‘ and Dominic Rowland chips in with ‘Homage to Caledonia‘. These articles cover a wide range of areas so I won’t try to summarise, but whilst they are written from the perspective of supporting Climate Camp, they also contain insightful critique about how we could be better and more effective as a movement.
Over at Indymedia Scotland, camper Harry Giles posted an article called ‘Climate Camp Criticism: Onwards!‘ Again he makes a number of important points about how we need to improve, but explains how this year’s camp changed him from feeling ‘cynical and disillusioned’ to ‘inspired and optimistic’.
At A Daisy Through Concrete, Danny Chivers is writing a series titled ‘Five things you didn’t know about the Edinburgh Climate Camp‘. We’ve already talked about the supposed ‘oil spill’ here, but Danny gives a thorough analysis on why it’s a ridiculous slur. (Also check out our article, published today on the Guardian Environment Blog.)
Finishing as we started on a light note, Guardian journalist James Randerson published an absolute hatchet job with ‘Twitter backfires for Climate Camp‘. In it he wrangled a melodramatic article out of three Twitter users who posted abusive comments about the camp. James even managed to find one with links to far-right fascist group, the English Defence League. Amelia, one of our tweeters, gives a perspective on her blog.
Have you read any interesting and/or laughable articles about the camp? Let us know in the comments!
On your Guardian blog someone say s that spreading syrup on a motorway is safe. Maybe some of you idiots belive that, maybe you have some sense. It’s impossible to tell though because at no time has anyone from camp ruled out or condemned such an action.
You are stupid to the degree of being dangerous.
It hardly matters that most of you are children of wealth, nor that most of you are obvious hypocrites when it comes to your inflated carbon footprints and air-iles, the importnat thing is you have been accused by the police of trying to kill locals and you have shrugged your shoulders.
Scum.
Anonymous on August 27, 2010
So, you deny knowing who did it, and have started to blame the police and the roadcleaners and the bus-drivers for conspiring against you. Yet you still won’t conden anyone who spreads oil on roads. That’s terrorism whether it originated in Danny’s ‘Stiener School’ or in ACE or the Forest Cafe. It’s the not the first time in recent history that a bunch of upper-class thugs have risked the lives of everyone to get their names in the papers.
And you expect applause?
Anonymous on August 28, 2010
Lol at the right wing trolls. Nobody from climate camp put any oil on roads and so we have nothing to apologise for. The people who need to apologise are the police for deliberately spreading lies and malicious propaganda. You guys are either a part of this propaganda effort, trying to distract attention from the MILLIONS of deaths worldwide that are a result of the actions of RBS, or instead you just passively accept whatever the media and police tell you.
Thanks for plugging my article, I’d very much welcome responses and people’s thoughts on it. Also on our site, I’d recommend Liam T’s (who was at the camp as well) take on the ridiculous lies and propaganda spread by the media about the camp. Especially to the two commenters above /\
http://ssy.org.uk/2010/08/hysterical-media-go-on-misinformed-rampage/
Jack (not afraid to put my name) on August 28, 2010
Thanks Jack for nailing the SSY colours to this upperclass attack on the workers of Edinburgh and the Lothians. Even on your link to your own forum, Zoomable rips your apathy and denial to bits. You are in a hole of your own making and you won’t stop digging.
Anonymous on August 28, 2010
Jack, if you are not afraid to put your name, why not put it? Wanker.
Jack's cancerous colon on August 28, 2010
What’s yours?
Jack Ferguson on August 28, 2010
Zoomable’s comments are about better media management, if you read them they make clear they support the aims of climate camp. But I’m not sure Climate Camp will appreciate us taking up space on their blog with details of what’s going on our site.
I’m not in any kind of hole, I’m proud to have confronted finance capital last weekend. There is absolutely no way you can back up the accusation that this was an attack on the workers of Edinburgh, it was non violent confrontation of a financial institution who’s actions are responsible for deaths across the globe. You are the one in denial and apathy – about the murderous projects being supported by RBS with our money.
People are full of tough talk when they’re anonymous on the internet aren’t they?
Jack Ferguson on August 28, 2010
Btw, “Anonymous”, what road cleaners and bus drivers? The only people that have repeated the false allegation that climate camp poured oil on the road are the police, the compliant media, and you, the internet echo chamber.
Jack Ferguson on August 28, 2010
Anonymous on August 27, 2010:
“On your Guardian blog someone say s that spreading syrup on a motorway is safe.”
For the record I never said any such thing. Here is my comment on the Guardian:
‘Phantom’ oil slick was a smear against Climate Camp
My comment 27 Aug 10, 3:28pm
“The oil slick smear has clearly backfired as this article demonstrates.
FYI we used molasses in a recent demo in Brussels, which looks incredibly like oil, but doesn’t have anything like the same properties. If a road got covered in th stuff the worst you could expect is a sticky situation…
Funnily enough the police were reluctant to arrest anyone who was covered in the stuff. A welcome change from being kicked, beaten and thrown into a cell for peacefully demonstrating.”
Note that I never said putting syrup on a road is safe. We used molasses on our skin to demonstrate against deep sea drilling, not on any road. This is a typical smear to discredit the movement.
So let’s see the facts, otherwise it’s a case of rule by lynch mob.
Bluecloud on August 29, 2010
What is there still an insistence on the use of the phrase “non violent” – since when was firing golf balls at plate glass anything other than violent. The use of hammers by a random mob who clearly couldn’t give a toss whether or not there was anyone behind the huge window they were about to attack is also “violent”.
Do, please, stop pretending.
Edinburger on August 30, 2010
there was no one behind the window – it was a sunday evening, all the workers had gone home, and RBS was well aware that the building might be a target of protest, as there was a 600-people strong protest camp on their back lawn.
the only people hurt in the protest, as always, were protesters assaulted by the police (one now has a fractured leg).
it’s also extremely important not to talk about damage to property as violence. Why would anyone want to equate threat to human life with the breaking of inanimate things? it’s a classic argument of the ruling class: if you damage our stuff, we’ll treat it like a threat to our lives.
i don’t have a problem with violence in many situations: self-defense; freedom-fighting (e.g. anti-slavery struggles; the warsaw ghetto), but don’t say people are violent for smashing the window of a company that’s consciously funding the most destructive projects on the planet.
dickie on August 30, 2010
An act of violence is just that, whether it’s against a person (such as the clearly distressed lady trying to get out of the bank branch whilst 3 uncaring idiots prevent her from leaving) or a pointlessly negligent act of vandalism aimed at an inanimate object.
Peaceful protest would be something like quitely standing around holding placards (but then, where’s the fun if there’s no adrenalin rush or party atmosphere).
Edinburger on August 30, 2010
See below one definition of violence, you may chose to use another. Your posts follow the same pattern as many others under different names on the previous blog. Narrow minded and vehement interpretation of the situation. I extend to you the invitation to a face to face discussion that I made with the other blogger guises
Violence is the expression of physical or verbal force against self or other, compelling action against one’s will on pain of being hurt.[2][3][4] Worldwide, violence is used as a tool of manipulation and also is an area of concern for law and culture which take attempts to suppress and stop it. The word violence covers a broad spectrum. It can vary from between a physical altercation between two beings where a slight injury may be the outcome to war and genocide where millions may die as a result.
Beir Bua on August 30, 2010
“Violence is the expression of physical or verbal force against self or other” – so, no physical force was used by the druggie ned-pack to get past the police cordon when they stormed the RBS headquarters?
Also, were the folk blocked into the RBS branch against their will not held there by the force of others?
Whatever airy fairy definition trading takes place on websites, the video evidence is clear and we’ll let the courts decide on the element of criminality.
You do believe in the rule of law don’t you or are all eco-warriors so morally superior that they don’t feel the need to be bound by the laws of whichever jursdiction they choose to carry out their petty acts of petulance in?
Edinburger on August 30, 2010
I’ve seen worse in various organised sports…
Was anyone blocked into an RBS branch?
Face to face discussion?
Beir Bua on August 30, 2010
“I’ve seen worse in various organised sports…” – where the violence is consensual (after all, surgery is simply an assualt with an edged weapon that happens to have been consented to. Are you saying that a few gashed heads and torn ligaments would have been acceptable – the Police acted with admirable restraint in the face of childishly irresponsible provocation.
“Was anyone blocked into an RBS branch?”
See image links listed below (proudly shown in the RBS Branch Closure link from the CC website……..)
http://www.minimouse.me.uk/rbs/nine/source/img_6746.html
Lady trying to get out and clearly voicing her disgust at being blocked into the branch.
http://www.minimouse.me.uk/rbs/nine/source/img_6831.html
Someone trying to exit and someone else being (physically) prevented from entering the branch through the use of force……
Why these morons have pleaded not guilty and will end up wasting a Fiscal’s and court’s time as well as public Legal Aid funds heaven alone knows – the money that’ll be wasted could have been used by the Government to pay for someone’s bypass operation. I hope that the Fiscal moves for full cost recovery – that’ll make mummy and daddy clip Tarquin, Jocasta and Meribel’s wings.
Edinburger on August 30, 2010
“An act of violence is just that, whether it’s against a person (such as the clearly distressed lady trying to get out of the bank branch whilst 3 uncaring idiots prevent her from leaving)”
I imagine you are reffering to the photograph at http://www.minimouse.me.uk/rbs/nine/source/img_6746.html
If you think that the lady looks distressed then you are putting you own spin on the photograph, which shows nothing of the sort.
Is that the best you can do?
John on August 30, 2010
“Was anyone blocked into an RBS branch?”
I doubt it. The photograph at http://www.minimouse.me.uk/rbs/nine/source/img_6831.html is clear, at least one person was able to get out of the place.
Had the protestors blocked people from coming through the public entrances and blocked the fire exits then one could say that people had been blocked into a branch, but the campers didn’t do that. It would be against direct-action training.
John on August 30, 2010
dickie, no they hadn’t. There were people in the building. Not as many as usual because it was Sunday but to say no one was in the building is at best misleading.
And you accuse the media and police of the very same thing.
Hypocrisy: Our New Democracy
idiosta on August 31, 2010
“…the only people hurt in the protest, as always, were protesters assaulted by the police (one now has a fractured leg)…”
You live by the sword…
My sympathy is limited.
idiosta on August 31, 2010