RTS and the magical mystery tour

by rome rule Tue May 06, 2003 01:11

so that loon is called 'black pope'? that i did not know. i assumed his name was trev. why knows why.

good article.

by thomas Tue May 06, 2003 01:49

yep the police were grand and the party was fun. There was no direct action planned at amiens st, the Top oil station was chosen for obvious reasons as was the IFSC-we all had a blast and reclaimed space from financial institutions and a petrol station and then went to the best benefit
I have been to in ages. So why the whining?. Sure -people smoking on a petrol station forecourt is dense behaviour but this sort of thing was not typical of the day at all. There was no trouble whatsoever and making out that people were taking stupid and pointless risks does not fairly convey the atmosphere of the day.

by they owe us a living Tue May 06, 2003 02:55

Yea its a shame that no-one thought of blowing the petrol station up, diffrent time diffrent day its a good idea.

nice objective write up, sod the complaints.

For myself i'd like to know why these things end up looking like a Punk revivalist meeting?
Punks Dead, get over it,

by Sidlebar Tue May 06, 2003 09:46

I have to agree with the original post, the party was great, being on the CM cycle & passing by the crowd outside the GPO was a great buzz. A bit nervous going up onto Parnell St. not having a clue what to expect but well done to the (dis)organisers they put on a great afternoons entertainment, seeing all the local kids dancing around made me realise that the RTS had gone beyond what I was worried about ie: that it was just going to be a party for a few people & their mates.

I decided to head off just before the move to the garage, exactly for the reasons above, half pissed people somking at a petrol station and I also had visions of someone trying to fire juggle or something like that. It seemed a bit pointless to move around like that & I reckoned that it would have got a bit too messy. Fair play to the cops they were happy enough to let the party go on so why push things? Anyway thats my 2 cents worth, well done again to all involved & looking forward to Car Free Day on the 22nd of Sept

by Joe Sheehan Tue May 06, 2003 10:15

I want to thank the (dis)(un)organisers of RTS for a good day, don't know how ye manage the weather but keep it up.
I have to say I agree with Aidan though, had a ball down Parnell Street, Amiens street seemed to stretch the party that bit too far. As for the smoking on the forecourt think people just were not thinking,many were still in party mood that is not an excuse smoking on the forecourt was stupid and very dangerous!
Just a point for the next one, thank again one and all, see you all at the next event.

by kitty-kat Tue May 06, 2003 10:23

C’mon Aiden. You know better than to hold the Legal Reps responsible for crap like that. Despite the hi-viz vests it’s not a stewardship. It’s LEGAL SUPPORT. You also know that the spirit of RTS is about people taking the initiative and not being idiots and discouraging people around them not to be idiots – that’s everybody’s job. I was doing legal support and I did go around and point out the obvious but not because it was part of my role as a legal rep. why would you “…found a legal support rep, and shouted out him "are you out of your fucking mind"? it’s as much our responsibility as anyone elses. I would’ve expected that you’d know better than this stewarding the crowd crap Aiden. Really. You don’t think legal reps have enough on their hands?

This is not so much a report on the day as a critique of it. I thought the Top Oil thang was a good idea, though if the black pope hadn’t wandered off, or if there had been another loudhailer, it would’ve been better to explain why we were there – especially to a few idiots who were actually shopping at the station they were occupying!!! fucking dense.

The IFSC was only supposed to be a dispersal point and people were urged to move because, quite frankly, the organisers and legal heads were exhausted at that point and I for one did not want to just wander off without letting people know that they were at risk, legal support absent etc. and it would be safer to just go home or to a park or our gig. Which, by the way turned out to be an absolutely fantastic night (and we raised lots of money to support peace protestors!)

I think moving around so many times was not ideal but once again, important spaces were occupied. Anyone who didn’t like the “itinerary” should maybe make it along to a meeting or two for the next one and put forward alternatives, or post on the rts list.

by pat c Tue May 06, 2003 10:26

At about 5 pm I was in Henry Street observing 3 Grim Reapers carrying anti war placards proceeding down the road. They were followed by 3 plain clothes gardai in a car.

proving that irony is not dead, they passed a security van which was guarded by 2 gardai in a car!

by Astounded Tue May 06, 2003 10:37

Really Kitty if you are acting in a steward like capacity wearing a bright orange jacket then you must have some responasibility for stewarding the march.

Surely if RTS organise an event then they should ensure basic safety procedures are adhered to. Having people smoking on a Garage forecourt is insane.

If RTS call a Direct Action, RTS should make sure that no Looney Tunes stuff goes on.

by Durutti Tue May 06, 2003 10:42

But then so is all real journalism. Kat did you want Aidan to just say how great everything was? He has made some valid points which should be considered so that we can do things better next time.

by Andrew Tue May 06, 2003 10:52

I'd gone home by the time the move from Parnell st happened so can't on the occupation of Tpo Oil. (For those who don't know the background Top Oil is the company that refuels US war planes at Shannon, GNAW and others picketed the station on a couple of occasions recently).

Anyway Legal observers are not and should not be the same thing as stewards. If arrests are being made it is the function of stewards to try and defend the crowd. Legal observers on the other hand should be in the middle of the arrests noting down details. In order to avoid giving the cops an excuse to nick legal observes its important that they are NOT involved in running the event etc.

I'd guess if there were more people involved in the organisation of the RTS then the potential problem of smoking on the petrol court would have come up and volunteers could have been got to go around and point out to people that wasn't very bright. However as usual there were not enough people willing to do the advance organisation so in that case its up to anyone who spots a problem to do what they can to rectify it. And that doesn't mean hassling the legal observers, it means getting a few people together and going around and pointing out the obvious yourself.

by Durutti Tue May 06, 2003 11:24

It was only a critisism and we should take it on board rather than be defensive.

by Andrew Tue May 06, 2003 11:39

Well I've no need to be defensive about the criticism as I played no role in organising this RTS.

I commented because I think its important
1. To maintain a clear distinction between the role of a legal observer and that of a steward.

2. Because its important to emphasise that although 1,000 may turn up to consume the party the number willing to put work into organising it is 1% of that. So those turning up should be willing to do what needs to be done on the day rather then simply complaining about what the organisers were or were not able to do for them.

Critiques of events are very good but this does not mean that problems raised within such critiques should go unanswered. In terms of indymedia such critigues and the answers to them are a useful way of resolving issues and preparing for future events but that requires discussion beyond 'well done for bothering to write up a report'.

by Durutti Tue May 06, 2003 11:46

Aidan wrote a piece of your journalism. In that piece he made some comments. You and Kit kat are critical of his criticisms. Thats your right. I find his criticisms well founded. Thats my right.

by kitty-kat Tue May 06, 2003 11:55

Hopefully that clears things up for you Astounded. Legal Support is JUST that. A role I take very seriously and wished to give my undivided attention to (insofar as I could).

Kat did you want Aidan to just say how great everything was?

No.

He has made some valid points which should be considered so that we can do things better next time.

I wholeheartedly agree, I welcome criticism as, together with reflection, it is the only way something can be improved upon – and there’s always room for improvement. I take Aidan’s criticism in the spirit in which it’s intended and I agree to a certain extent with the too much moving point. The strongest criticism after May 6th ’02 was that there was no end plan; chaos seeps in. I am inclined, however, to agree that it may have been better to stay where we were – 5:30 was very early but given the no show on the parts of various musicians and the fact that the decks etc. were needed up in the Gingerman for the gig there was little room to manoeuvre.
I was just reading the above thinking but my god so much went right this time, football games, hopscotch, skipping, to name but a few; the kids & diversity of crowd you mentioned, I know, but missed Food Not Bombs!, more people bringing along their own shit; people are starting to get the hang of the whole thing – not as many just showing up and waiting to be entertained.

i just read Andrew's second posting and i want to reiterate, i'm not being defensive or passing the buck. People need to be aware of the role of Legal reps. there seems to still be difficulty in accepting that there is no one in charge and folks ought to know that if you're coming to a Street Party you should be ready to take responsibility. whether you're in bright orange or not.

by Noone Tue May 06, 2003 12:07

the streets moved on up too Daim street. Obviosly without media attention, as no one seems to know about this. About 70+ moved across the bridge after the official event was over. They took up the streets, and headed towards Pearse train station. The group then occupied the roads, (with the cars!), as they slowly walked up towards the Garda station. At this stage, the crowd had narrowed down to about 50 or so.
They sat down on the streets at the traffic lights, across from Trinity Arch.
Garda arrived and diverted traffic. The people who were occupying the streets incouraged only buses to go by them, despite the gards telling the bus drivers to turn around.
The crowd headed up Daim street, still in a strong 50+. A human wall was made from path to path as the they walked up. By this stage, the majority of Daim street had been closed off.
It ended about 9.30 with a sit down at the junction at Georges street. Daim street, Georges street, and many side roads in Temple Bar were 'Reclaimed'.
Well done to all those involved in the reclaimation of Daim street.
Also to the organisers of the whole event. Had a blast. Hope next one is just as good.

by chrsitna Tue May 06, 2003 12:15

there are many things that could be changed about RTS parties... but i get pissed off with armchair critics who come and pick holes in what people are doing and yet are not prepared to do the work themselves.
I had a damn great day. I really appreciate the RTS heads facilitating carnival in Dublin so we can dance our arses off on the streets...

by Durutti Tue May 06, 2003 12:47

RTS are not perfect. Constructive criticism (As was Aidans) should be taken on board and considered by RTS. The knee jerk reactions here are what you would normally expect from Leninists.

Actually its like the attacks made on Aidan after his article on the IAWM protest at the Dail. The length and tone of both Andrews and Kats replies show that they have lost all sense of proportion.

Kat, you did a lot of good work yesterday. But you were not the only one.

by Andrew Tue May 06, 2003 13:02

'Durutti' what on earth are you on about?

by Durutti Tue May 06, 2003 13:17

Read your own comments and consider what you are on (or) about.

by Andrew Tue May 06, 2003 13:52

'Durruti' I have just re-read them and I still can't see where you are coming from here. It might be helpful if you could point this out as obviously I'm being a bit slow witted today!

by Durutti Tue May 06, 2003 14:02

This is one of those times. I think your criticism of Aidans article is out of all proportion.

by Andrew Tue May 06, 2003 14:08

Look 'Durruti' you may well be right. It's just I can't see how my response is out of proportion to the article and I'd really like you to explain this to me. I've asked twice already and I am genuinely puzzled as to what you are on about here. Educate me!

by Aidan Tue May 06, 2003 14:13

Right I'll deal with a few seperate things in one go.

Christina. Armchair bitcher? You obviously don't know me. As for not getting involved we've spent the last year trying to tell people that Indymedia isn't RTS and vice versa, so you can see the conflict there. Also I'm still dealing with the headache from last Mays RTS and will probably still be doing so next May. So you'll pardon me for not playing an "active" part.

Andrew. I am aware of the difference between a Steward and Leagal Rep. But the fact is, there were no stewards. Nor any visible sign of any organisers aside from the legal reps in their orange bibs. So you're making a moot point.

Kitty Kat, I'm really not having a go at you, but "You don’t think legal reps have enough on their hands?" There was one arrest. You weren't doing anything. As for the "it’s as much our responsibility as anyone elses.". It's a wonderful ideal, but if there had been an accident, you could try and justify yourself in court and in the media with that response and see how far it gets you.

RTS brought the demo to the station, RTS then have to take responsibility for the crowds safety there. And if the only representive of RTS than I can see is legal support then I'm telling legal support "are you out of your fucking mind". My healthy sense of self preservation got me the hell out of there.

Thomas. Who were you reclaiming the IFSC from? The space taken over was a public space, you can actually go there. And it was on the evening of the bank holiday monday. You may as well try and reclaim the south pole. Reclaiming from whom, from what?

"There was no trouble whatsoever and making out that people were taking stupid and pointless risks does not fairly convey the atmosphere of the day."

Actually the more reports I hear the more staggered I am that there wasn't any trouble.

There was the kid who fucked a firecracker at the Gardaí in the IFSC. Not arrested just cautioned.

The crowd of twenty odd drunks, who beliggerantly sat down on Dame st, and according to witnesses tried to pick a fight with the Gardaí, around 8pm.

(And I can't believe I'm writing this)The Gardaí did an excellent job avoiding conflict. They closed off Dame St for a period of time, and just waited till the crowd, including one guy who repeatadly made to strike a Gardaí across the head, got bored and left. This group also had my psycho of the day, the nutcase in the green shorts and stockings. At Parnell St, he went for an IMC journalist several times. None of these people were arrested, and even though there wasn't anyone with a camera, I have it on good authority no one was hurt.

Looking back at the day, I'm wondering whats the point? Kitty Kat is right, RTS is about offering an alternative to current street life, but the majority of people who got there just sat down and got stoned or drunk. There should be more activity, and more alternatives presented at RTS. It's something I'm going to think about before the next one. A friend who runs free parties usually says "Bring what you want to find". I'll leave the camera at home next time, and figure out something else.

But this RTS, to me anyway, at times seemed like it was an attempt to push the Gardaí to see just how much we can get away with before they push back.

Again don't get me wrong, I hope I haven't offended you and the others seriously Kitty Kat, I've got tremendous respect for RTS, and the ideals involved. I had a great time for part of the day. And will be back.

by Andrew Tue May 06, 2003 14:27

Aidan i think you are still missing the point on the distinction between legal observers and stewards. It's not a question as to how busy you are.

So here is another way of looking at it. You've been keen to point out that RTS is not the same thing as indymedia. You were walking around with an Indymedia press card around your neck. If someone had rushed up to you and demanded that you do some RTS organising on that basis how would you have reacted?

The argument for keeping a clear line between journalists and RTS organisers is very similar to the argument for keeping a clear line between legal observers and stewards. It's not because you might be too busy at the moment in time to act in the role of the other. It's that acting in both roles would damage the credibility of one.

The fact that there was non RTS people delegated to sort out problems as they arise is one item of discussion. The argument that by default the legal observers should have done so is another all together.

by Durutti Tue May 06, 2003 14:35

Your comments on Duruttis criticism are out of all proportion. Thats my opinion. You no doubt feel that the length at which you have gone on is justified.

As Aidan pointed out the Legal Observors werent exactly overtaxed. Aidan made some valid criticisms which I am sure will be taken on board by RTS.

Now you can have the last word and be happy that you have won.

by Aidan Tue May 06, 2003 14:37

Re read what I wrote.

I do get the point. But if the Legal reps are the ONLY visible sign of the RTS organisation, then they should be prepared to take on a multitude of roles, because other people won't see the distinction.

If there aren't any stewards or any way to indentify organisers, then the legal reps with their highly visible bibs are going to take more flak.

by Andrew Tue May 06, 2003 14:51

So presumably if there had been no legal reps you'd have been happy with people coming up to the people with indymedia tags demanding they take charge?

Seriously the problme here is your conflating two criticisms

1. That there should have been somebody to go to if there was a problem and tell them about it. That person or person(s) should then have been able to do something about this.

That's something that can be argued about.

2. That in the absence of 1. the legal reps shold have filled that function.

That's something that doesn't make a lot of sense if you want them to function as legal reps.

The interesting point of discussion is not the silly argument about legal reps. It's whether or not RTS should have the people suggested in 1. whether they are called stewards or something else. In terms of Irish RTS events they have never existed so its quite a deep item of discussion in itself. Just leave the poor legal observers to one side.

by Dorothy - RTS Tue May 06, 2003 14:58

No point in turning this into a scrap, what we have is a disagreement, which is good, let's not turn it into a fight. In particular, I don't think that calling Andrew 'pompous' is helpful, especially without refering to what exactly is pompous in what he wrote.

I agree with andrew and kat that the solution to the problems was not that the legal observers should have taken on the responsibility themselves. Criticising the legal observers is also not really valid since they were the best organised part of the event - fair play I say. The problems lie elsewhere - we have a need for better co-ordination on the day itself and we also need to think things through a bit better (like the Top Oil problem), I don't think that just saying that more people should get involved is good enough. We should really tailor what we do for what we are capable of. Anyway, we are learning all the time and so hopefully will be able to digest the experience and improve next time.

by Aidan Tue May 06, 2003 15:00

Legal reps Vs stewards.

If you're going to have one have the other. At previous RTSs there wasn't any visible sign of organisation and leadership, now producing one arm of organisation, and announcing these guys only do this, anything else and you are own your own, is just (to me anyway) bloody stupid. You can't do it. If you're going to introduce legal reps, you'll have to have stewards. Can't have your cake and eat it.

And the Indymedia press pass argument is just plain stupid Andrew, sorry, but you know it. Indymedia aren't RTS, we're journalists, to follow your line of thinking to it's rational conclusion I could demand a travel agent in an airport to tackle a terrorist just because she's there, and in a uniform and namebadge.

by Andrew Tue May 06, 2003 15:06

Aidan surely you are the one demanding the travel agent tackle the terrorist because she happens to be wearing a uniform? As you are the person arguing that the legal observer tackle the smoker just because they are wearing a bib.

(My suggestion that those wearing indymedia cards were the next logical point of call was not intended to be taken seriously - it was intended to point out the problem with your underlying argument.)

by kitty-kat Tue May 06, 2003 15:19

Kat, you did a lot of good work yesterday. But you were not the only one.

No shit. I didn’t suggest for a second I was. I can only talk about the day in terms of how I experienced it. And I don’t think it is disproportionate to respond to questions posed by Aidan regarding, for example the generator/why the music stopped so early. he asked intelligent questions and he got honest answers, as far as I can see.

I know Aiden. And if he knows me as well as he should, he knows damn well my responding to the Legal observer bit is not an “attack” on him. Perhaps give him a little more credit, he’s not quite the hypersensitive eager-to-be-offended type.

There was one arrest. You weren't doing anything.
That’s pretty presumptuous and downright ill mannered Aidan. Just as I have no idea what occupied you yesterday, you have no idea what I was doing yesterday. It was a big crowd and as there were only 4/5 legal reps. it is not really feasible to ask them to also police the party. Surely you could just as easily have asked others to give you a hand going around and mentioning the cigarette thing? I just don’t see why it should fall on people who are already doing something else, when there are plenty who are not busy leave FNB to giving out food, Indymedia to filming & recording or Legal reps informing folks, answering questions and keeping eyes & ears peeled, you know?

Andrew. I am aware of the difference between a Steward and Legal Rep. But the fact is, there were no stewards. Nor any visible sign of any organisers aside from the legal reps in their orange bibs. So you're making a moot point.

Aidan I don’t see the moot point. You know yourself the way RTS works. Stewards are just not a part of the deal, Legal Support is, but the roles are very very different.

"it’s as much our responsibility as anyone elses”
but if there had been an accident, you could try and justify yourself in court and in the media with that response and see how far it gets you

What on Earth do you mean? Legal Support are there to observe, take notes, provide court witness, contact family & a solicitor, do practical support work in the event of arrest or assault. I can’t think of a situation whereby the Legal Support Team should have to justify the actions of the party in court & in the media. Because WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE for everyone.

Look my only bloody problem is just that I would really like people in general to be more aware of the boundaries that exist once a Legal Support vest goes on and that there are only certain functions one can undertake. For future reference. It occurred to me yesterday that there are misconceptions out there. Aidan articulated one and I thought this thread a prime opportunity to clarify a murky issue, which needs clarification. I’m not bloody attacking anyone or suggesting I ran the whole thing myself, I’m not taking offence or rejecting people’s right (indeed duty!) to criticise. I respect that a definite line needs to be drawn and maintained to protect your journalistic integrity and I would expect you could see the parallels in the role of Legal Support.

the RTS organisation??????

then they should be prepared to take on a multitude of roles, because other people won't see the distinction.

Sorry you’re honour, I didn’t see that bit because I was asking someone to extinguish their cigarette???? Hmmmm…

Indymedia aren't RTS, we're journalists, to follow your line of thinking to it's rational conclusion I could demand a travel agent in an airport to tackle a terrorist just because she's there, and in a uniform and name badge.

That’s precisely what your argument sounds like to me. Legal Support Team are not RTS, we sorted our shit entirely independent of the organisation of the party and act independently. This is going round in circles with myself and Andrew explaining the terms of reference and your dogged determination to dictate what Legal Support Team should be. Isn’t that for the Legal Support Team to decide?

by kitty-kat Tue May 06, 2003 15:27

hit several nails on thier respective heads i reckon.

by Befuddled Tue May 06, 2003 15:43

Sounds like her.

by Aidan Tue May 06, 2003 15:44

"There was one arrest. You weren't doing anything.
That’s pretty presumptuous and downright ill mannered Aidan."

Actually I was speaking about the exact moment when we arrived at the forecourt. I arrived before everyone else, and saw three members of legal support (at that moment) doing nothing. I felt it was important that someone who was in position of responsibility (and those orange bibs just scream authority ;) take charge and quickly). Seriously no disrespect intented.

"Indymedia to filming & recording or Legal reps informing folks, answering questions and keeping eyes & ears peeled, you know?"

You're missing my point. I was refering to one dangerous moment. I'm sorry it was beyond fucking stupid of RTS not to even consider the dangers of bringing the crowd there. Ever seen a petrol station on fire? I have. I cannot comprehend why no one thought of the dangers of this.

"What on Earth do you mean? Legal Support are there to observe, take notes, provide court witness, contact family & a solicitor, do practical support work in the event of arrest or assault. I can’t think of a situation whereby the Legal Support Team should have to justify the actions of the party in court & in the media. Because WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE for everyone."

If the worst had happened (I really don't want to seem melodramatic) and the media were baying for blood, I guarentee the police would have grabbed you legal support guys, You could argue in court while up for manslaughter about your role, but you would have been seen as an organiser, because there was no one else walking through the crowd talking responsibily to people, and you would have been scapegoated.

"I respect that a definite line needs to be drawn and maintained to protect your journalistic integrity and I would expect you could see the parallels in the role of Legal Support."

Yes but don't you get it. Theres little point in having one highly visible arm of RTS, while the rest duck away.

"the RTS organisation??????"

You know what I mean.

"Sorry you’re honour, I didn’t see that bit because I was asking someone to extinguish their cigarette???? Hmmmm…"

Sorry your honour I didn't stop him being engulfed in flames, I was too busy checking to see if his rights weren't being infringed.

"That’s precisely what your argument sounds like to me. Legal Support Team are not RTS, we sorted our shit entirely independent of the organisation of the party and act independently. This is going round in circles with myself and Andrew explaining the terms of reference and your dogged determination to dictate what Legal Support Team should be. Isn’t that for the Legal Support Team to decide?"

Okay we're going around in circles. And this is getting boring. I'll present my point one last time.

You're called RTS legal support. Indymedia have enough trouble trying to get people (media/Gardaí) to distingush us from RTS, and we don't call ourselves "RTS legal support". You can proclaim and shout that you're separate, and you're right you are.

However, thats not the perception. And if you're playing an authoritive role, no matter how singular the remit you give yourself, if there is no one else there taking responsibility for other aspects of the day, people will start expecting you to take on added responsibility, esp in a situation like at the station, because theres no one else there.

Do I think this is wrong? Yup. Do I think its going to happen if the situation remains the same. Yup.

Sorry.

by kitty kat Tue May 06, 2003 15:56

and still buzzing off the success of yesterday and last night.

the best party so far!! thanks to all involved.

by kitty-kat Tue May 06, 2003 15:59

who's aoife ni whatever?

by Aidan Tue May 06, 2003 16:06

Had a hissy fit when I did the similar write up on the Dail blockade.

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=40210

Theres no comparisson. Nine out of ten cynical IMC hacks said they prefer kitty kat.

by kitty-kat Tue May 06, 2003 16:10

you ole charmer you!

stay well, I'm on me hollllllleeeeeeedaze!!!!
;-)

by :¬) Tue May 06, 2003 16:10

Now put out those smokes you filthy anarchists.
A fucking air stewardess should wrestle the bastard suicide bomber to the ground!
Durruti - I don't follow your column very well....

by Mark Tue May 06, 2003 16:12

Is one of the SWP's two credible looking 'anti-capitalist' yoof full timers (maybe they should be called lifers?).

by Durutti Tue May 06, 2003 16:15

I was meandering a little thats why I gave it a rest. My column will be back in top form shortly.

by now now aidan no flirting on here Tue May 06, 2003 16:51

we note your flirting with pat -c too

by pat c Tue May 06, 2003 16:57

i only want aidan as my boswell.

by Brian O'Connor - Dis Tue May 06, 2003 21:49 SF, CA

Interesting banter back and forth. Sounds like most folks had a good time, despite a few bumpy spots. Well done to all those involved!

The legal folks CANNOT be involved in DIRECTING the street party, as that they then lose objectivity. They would no longer be removed from the action, more a part of it, thus subjecting themselves to detention by the Gardai.

Aiden, why didn't you stop them from smoking yourself? Too big a job or can you only offer your wisdom in hindsight? Why attack the legal observers, especially when only one person gets arrested? Seems like they did their job, then, huh?

Criticism is criticism but attitude is another thing. Taking a seemingly positive event and portraying it in an entirely negative light only serves our opponent's goals: to divide this uprising of the people.

by Aidan Tue May 06, 2003 22:30

Criticism bad.

Brian, y'know what, shut up. I'm tired of this, sush don't complain don't divide the movement. Unless a group is willing to adapt and listen to criticism it's simply fucked. Period.

Why didn't I do it. Two reasons. One I wish to live a long and healthy life, so didn't fancy sticking around the forecourt. Two RTS brought people there so it was beholden to them to ensure their safety. And if the legal support are the only people there who appear to be RTS, then they should muck in and sort it out

Negative my fucking hole. I'm tired of Indymedia being a "ra we're fucking great" and being mostly a propaganda tool. We should look at our own sides mistakes and fuck ups and appraise them harshly but fairly, thats the job of the third estate.

Why was it negative? You want postive? You want that fucking attitude you can fuck off and read the Socialist worker issue that I've been using as bog roll.

by but i thought... Tue May 06, 2003 23:57

but isnt Aidan (O'Brien) of IMC ireland not a member of the SWP?

a genuine inquiry, apologies if incorrect.

by Daithi Wed May 07, 2003 03:05

Em, I can safely say that he's not. But there are SWP people involved in Indymedia.

by Curious Wed May 07, 2003 10:03

Have a lot of them gone on to the editorial list recently?

by Spitfire Mk III Wed May 07, 2003 11:11

My understanding is that as RTS is an 'illegal' party that it's organisers wisely keep a low profile. That is why there are no stewards or other visible presence of the RTS. Past experience from previous RTS & other street protests shows that there is a potential for people to be beaten and / or arrested. These type of problems can be minimised if people are given good advice, have a legal support number etc... Also there's less chance of prosecutions if there are good eyewitness and photographic evidence of any incidents. Indymedia have done an excellent job recording evidence (Mayday last year), but who would provide legal assistance, advice etc...? A group of people who like the idea of the RTS parties (but who are not the RTS) have out of the goodness of their hearts got together to provide assistance to partygoers. They setup a legal support number and distributed information to people at the party. Apart from that they're simply there as observers to record what's going on (like Indymedia & the various other reporters). If the 'Legal Observers' were to act as 'Stewards' they couldn't claim to be observers, nor even just participants, they would be regarded by the authorities as organisers and could therefore be subject to legal consequences.

It's fair to say though that if the only people in hi-viz vests are the 'Legal Observers' & 'Indymedia' then Joe Public could be forgiven for thinking that the event was organised by one or both of those groups. He'd be wrong though !!!

My theory is that the party was organised by the guys in the yellow jackets (a cunning plan to earn lots of overtime simply by directing a bit of traffic)

by fergus robson - free thinker Wed May 07, 2003 12:51

although i dont agree with all of aidan's points i can see where a lot of them are coming from ,we have to assume a certain responsibility for our actions ,direct or not,but one thing that i take offnese was the almost derogatory nature of the authors reference to 'smokers' .Even at the start of the article he accepted that everyone is entitled to their own opinions i.e. preferences and i think that a bit of solidarity towards another group of people who are treated unfairly by the powers that be wouldnt go astray.And to all the argument-heads here i can admit that maybe i misinterpreted the nature of the comment and if so i do apologise

by Aidan Wed May 07, 2003 13:16

Smokers Fergal (you should meet my flatmate or girlfriend to see fanatic anti smokers)

Its smoking in a petrol station forecourt I have issues with. Its dangerous, and not in just a passive smoking way.

And no I'm not in the SWP or SP or any political party.

by :¬) Wed May 07, 2003 13:28

Ye are... on the sly....

by Aidan Wed May 07, 2003 13:38

But after a hard day working my two jobs, and surpressing news, sabotaging the left, engaging in insideous Pro Zionist sublimal propaganda, and worshipping cuthulu with my Illuminati breathern, I'm just knackered and haven't the time for the SWP meeting and paper selling.

by Pat C Wed May 07, 2003 13:42

You are an abomination. You spelled the name of Our Lord C'THULU incorrectly.
You will be hurled into the nether darknes for that.

by Aidan Wed May 07, 2003 13:50

Unless I meant to spell it incorrectly so people would think I wasn't infact one of you, to y'know throw you off scent.

Y'know thinking like a Paranoid fruitcake is fun.

by :¬) Wed May 07, 2003 14:41

you need "Jesse" James McKenna on the staff to lighten your workload.

All hail The Bavarian Illuminati!

by pat c Wed May 07, 2003 14:57

James McK is the keeper of our sacred scrolls.

by kitty-kat Wed May 07, 2003 15:47

Lets get back to spitfire’s comment. S/He deals very simply and eloquently with the issue at hand here. and I think people need to be aware of this and I hope that we will continue to see a growth in awareness amongst people who come along to Street Parties. There’s no room for passive poopers. Be assertive, look out for each other, point out the obvious sometimes (as painful as I find it – people were shocked I reminded them to take their litter because we had no more black bags; but needed someone to point out the smoking near the petrol fumes dilemma???!!) if the party was in your gaff, you would want the people there to have a good time, no? But not trash the place [improve, decorate ;-) for sure] you’d want them all to be safe and relaxed. Well, it’s your street isn’t it? Our street, our party, our responsibility, we keep the mantra going that we don’t need the shikiloonies around or any powers that be. And we don’t, as far as I’m concerned, but with this liberty, comes responsibility; the more that resp. is shared around the greater a time everyone can have. Individuals who do take on particular roles need to be given the freedom to determine the boundaries of what they are capable of on the day. Everyone knows their limitations, strengths, skills and capabilities. If we stretch a few too much, they’ll buckle.
I’m really keen to see what kind of street reclaiming ideas are put forward in the next few weeks.

RTS Dublin Mailing List
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rts-dublin/

by pat c Wed May 07, 2003 15:56

an idea to reclaim capel street as a pro-choice zone. youth defence have their HQ there. hmmmm.

by Cleaver Wed May 07, 2003 16:22 sidlebar at netscape dot net

I'd be into doing a bit of real space reclaiming, it'd involve a bit more work than sitting in the street getting pissed though. Its a thing that seems to happen in New York where activists & local Community Groups find a derelict site thats a bit of an eyesore & turn it in to a garden that local people can enjoy for more than just an afternoon.
If anyone knows of a good site & has contacts with local groups in the area it might be a good project.....we can still have a sound system & still get pissed afterwards....all more rewarding with a bit of dirt under your fingernails.

by tom Wed May 07, 2003 22:33

Couldn't all the stuff about RTS be put under one heading. I 'm pleased everybody had such a nice day and the filth were so nice to you and everything but is it so important?

by soundmigration Thu May 08, 2003 21:11

surely one of the main motivating factors for all those involved in "organising" events such as Mondays brillant responsible amicableand fun funkyness is the central idea of taking responsiblity primarily of our own actions pretty much all the time.... personally i was one of the fecking eejits asked to stop smokin in the forcourt of da top garage.. no i consider myself intelligent articulate and possibly even a little attractive, if the complimentary comments i got on my pink dress are to be taken at face value... thruth is i never thought, was on a rush, and not pissed either.. my stupidity was highlighted and the possible ramifications of said foolishness became immediately apparent to myself....piont being to make a longstory abit shorter..it didnt matter who pionts it out..after i became aware of the risk i took, like several other, bibbed and unbibbed alike and adviced my fellow reclaiming revellers of da dangers...much quicker aid if ya had of just pionted ur finger the stupidity as it occurred
a little self respondsibilty goes along way and saves folks having to read the stuff eejits like me write
mucho love
thanks again to all those involved. a very empowering day for "outsiders" like myself. Could i get some contact detail for RTS & food not bombs dub...thanks again

PS.. where can i get one of

by ollie - katalyzer Thu May 08, 2003 22:38

Nothwithstanding the good day (esp on Parnell st) personally I think there was too much drinking and passive, what can only be described as audience-like behaviour at the rts. And both of these elements have been growing at the last 2 rts's. Last year, imo, (in may) there was a lot more energy and a lot less drinking. There is a connection!(It also looks bad on the news, and, in the soundbite culture we live in ,this is important).

More ingenuity, more creativity, less sittin around drinking and expecting others to entertain you. Its a free space to do things! In the city centre! For e.g. - its been good to see more footballs arrive. Simple, participatory kickarounds can draw in locals/passers by ,and even (I have seen this, only once, mind) solicit a kick back (;-))from a cop. (I didn't manage to get a snap of that, but wouldn't it make a great picture...cop involved in football kickabout at rts)

The big rig was great too...mummmmm

by Joe Duffy Fri May 09, 2003 01:58 joe at kia dot us

reclaim the streets? more like we're afraid of those cops so we'll have a unpolitical, symplistic party on the footpath to avoid being beat up.

by Simpson eh? Fri May 09, 2003 13:16

I would agree with Ollie.

I brought a few friends along to this RTS who had not been to other ones and said they wouldn't bother coming again. If an alternative use of the street is making some multinational rich by getting pissed drinking Buckfast/ Dutch Gold/ Carlsberg/ whatever what is the point? I love a drink as much as the next amadan, but isn't this supposed to be different to 'Witnness'?

Kids on pogo sticks, drumming, juggling, footie, face painting, food not bombs, dancing, painting a mural on Parnell st. etc makes it look and feel like something different - a family picnic. The 'Accidental Death of an anarchist' play at the last one (September I think) also provided more of an element of spectacle (in the situationist sense of the word). More of this and less Buckie!

Until people know what the RTS is all about I think passive consumers need a little spoon feeding. Making a leap from passive observers, or an audience, to actively particpating in their own party will take a while.

Why don't I get involved in organising it etc. - dunno... maybe soon.

by food not bombs Sun May 11, 2003 15:04

[email protected]