|
U-Know! Forum » Young, Nazi and Proud |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
RiotGibbon 1527 posts |
Nov 05, 2002, 11:53
|
||
|
"Yet another example of unnecessary revisionism is the two line dismissal of the return to London of B&H in January 1994, when according to WN "anti fascists gave the authorities little choice but to cancel the event." In fact, while generally not as acclaimed, as either 'The Main Event' or the 'Battle of Waterloo' encounters, events around 'The Little Driver' pub in Bow, E. London proved to be the final nail in the B&H coffin. And as a by-product the beginning of the end for Cl8. As soon as night fell a 150 strong AFA stewards group advanced on the pub. Initially, about 50 C18 emerged to do battle, but whether they were unnerved by a flare hitting a bridge overhead, or the 'Zulu' chant of the menacing mob, they broke ranks and were there for the taking. A complete rout was prevented, by the intervention of mounted and baton wielding police from a station opposite and the attack lost momentum. Leading C18 figures utterly humiliated, were seen begging for police protection, one even jumping unsolicited into the back of a cop's car in an effort to get out of the area." that was really scary! We'd been waiting in a pub in Islington, finally got the call to go to Bow, steamed out of the station, flares going off, coppers beating us back - piled down a side road, and all these gates were unbolted and all these police horses poured out! shocking. we were all rounded up and taken to Earls Court, where we went to another pub, and watched the ANL being beaten up by the cops ... happy days indeed RG
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 05, 2002, 12:01
|
||
|
> > but my scar is from the 2nd March on the BNP > HQ, the one where whilst we were surrounding > the HQ and taking a pasting... > ooooh, i remember that one too. A group of mates and myself got separated from the crowd and wound up down a back street, crouched behind cars... about 6 of us... when a big crew of BNP-supporting thugs suddenly arrived on the scene. I genuinely thought "this is it... we're dead", but just before they laid into us, a big contingent of riot cops showed up. i can honestly say i have never in my life been so glad to see the police. in the scuffle that ensued, i was saved by being dragged behind the row of riot shields by a policeman whose hand was bleeding. I remember him holding up his hand and shouting at me "And it was probably you who threw the bottle at me and all!" He was shaking like a leaf. Very potent image in my memory. That said, i can honestly say that 95% of the other demos i've been on that turned ugly; got that way *because* of police action. And i have been assaulted by police officers for absolutely no reason on several of them. So this isn't a defence of the police. But that memory of being dragged to safety always flashes back when i see A.C.A.B.
|
|||
|
RiotGibbon 1527 posts |
Nov 05, 2002, 12:06
|
||
http://www.guilfin.net/stories/?sy_id=syINET30
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 05, 2002, 12:16
|
||
|
i wasn't defending "the actions of the police on the day", merely pointing out that no blanket statement... whether it's "All police are our protectors" or "All coppers are bastards" can ever do justice to the complex nature of an organisation comprising thousands and thousands of people. On that day, a policeman who believed that - at the very least, i was capable of being the person who badly injured his hand - put himself in danger to drag me away from 4 or 5 thugs who had jumped on me. It's very possible he saved my life. That said, and to expose the schizophrenic nature of my thinking on this issue... having just said that you can't claim "all coppers are bastards"; one of my favourite quotes on the subject is from Bukowski: "... when a man puts that uniform on [...] he is the paid protector of things of the present time. he is here to see that things stay the way they are. if you like the way things are, then _all_ cops are good cops. If you don't like the way things are, then all cops are bad cops. there is such a thing as ALL bad..."
|
|||
|
RiotGibbon 1527 posts |
Nov 05, 2002, 12:24
|
||
|
???? seems very coherent to me. http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/schizophrenic.html In popular usage, "schizophrenic" (and the more slangy and now dated "schizoid") indicates "split between two attitudes." This drives people with training in psychiatry crazy. "Schizo-" does indeed mean "split," but it is used here to mean "split off from reality." Someone with a Jekyll-and-Hyde personality is suffering from "multiple personality disorder" (or, more recently "dissociative identity disorder"), not "schizophrenia." cool site for anal retentives such as myself. Especially as it's neglected to include the correct definition of my own misattributed psyhological term ... hooray!
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 05, 2002, 12:33
|
||
|
Sadly, i'm familiar with the illness, schizophrenia, having seen it up close. However, i tend to use the word in it's more colloquial meaning more often than not - i don't believe the meanings of words are fixed, and feel that the correct usage of language is actually that which conveys the information or image that you wish; rather than a usage that is literally correct. But this runs the risk of thread-subversion, so i shan't expound any further on my obscure beliefs about semantics and linguistics. You should hear me expound on the subject of haikus and their potential uses in NLP... or not.
|
|||
|
RiotGibbon 1527 posts |
Nov 05, 2002, 12:40
|
||
|
but to follow your course of thinking, that means *any* word can mean *anything*, if I decide to let it. I'm all for evolution and all that, but doesn't it cause extra problems for sufferers of schizophrenia if everyone thinks they've got "split personality" but it gives picky wankers such as myself something to subvert threads about ... RG
|
|||
|
lissy 202 posts |
Nov 05, 2002, 12:50
|
||
c'mon, rg, can you be both a picky wanker and an anal retentive??!! teehee x
|
|||
|
RiotGibbon 1527 posts |
Nov 05, 2002, 12:51
|
||
depends who I am today ...
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Nov 05, 2002, 12:53
|
||
|
> > but to follow your course of thinking, that means > *any* word can mean *anything*... > No it doesn't. I've no idea how you got that out of what i wrote - cos that's precisely the opposite of what i was saying. Words do *mean* something aside from their dictionary definitions. These "new" or "supplementary" meanings are bestowed by socio-cultural factors mostly. And they are common across a culture. The vast majority of people (i believe - and i accept this is just a belief... i haven't got a MORI poll to back me up or anything) when they hear the word "schizophrenic" think of the usage i put it to. "Schizophrenia", the noun, almost certainly has the image of 'mental illness' attached to it for almost all people, but the adjective has - i believe - changed meaning. This doesn't mean that *any* word can mean *anything*. It means te opposite of that - it means that words have universally (or near as damnit) understood meanings which change over time. Those meanings aren't arbitrary - and they aren't random. They may often be specific to a certain locale, but that's the nature of the evolution of language. When i was in Texas, the word "ride" was used by people to mean "admonish" or "verbally antagonise". The first time i heard this was from a barman who'd been having trouble of some kind with one of the waitresses in the bar. He sighed despairingly to me "Jeez, she's been riding me all night". In Ireland that phrase would have an altogether different meaning. And neither meaning is the one you'll find in the dictionary. That doesn't mean that i can just decide today that "ride" means "to hunt caribou with obsidian arrows". The word means something very specific in those locations.
|
| Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
