Jagtvej 69: Copenhagen Burning

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by galraen

<snip>
Xandax, You're the one doing the mudslinging, not me. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you, or stating views you can't tolerate,I suggest you stay out of political threads.

Sorry but I have to laugh at you.

You stated quite clearly:

So yet again the state uses violence against it's citizens, then complain when the citizens use violence in retaliation, typical!

Point in case. Where did the "state" you violence against it's citizens?
The police - if that is what you mean by state - acted upon violence from rioters, meaning stone throwing and molotow cocktail throwing.
But I'm sure that little factoid will be forgotten because the oh so evil "state" is opressing everybody else. Simply reminds me of a scene in Monty Phyton's Life of Brian.

I'm afraid this is just another example of western, so called 'democracies' slipping further and further to the extreme right.

And then this brilliant political observance?

Sure.....

And call me facists one more time, please....... Unlike how you present yourself, I'm actually quite objective and neutral, taking into account *multiple* points of view before I form my opinion.
I dislike (strongly) people using violence and recklessness for other peoples wellbeing and property as a means of pressure to get what they want - from both right as well as left wing people, in a democratic country as Denmark - democratic which you can put into quotation marks all you like, but with a 80ish percent of people voting in a simple majority election, you get little more democratic then this. Democracy is not the rule of the strong or themselves as these people seem to think.

In fact - the people trying to use violence to get their way would be the fascists, as they are the ones intolerant of other peoples opinions and wellbeing while violent.

If you had bothered to follow this case, which you clearly didn't, then this is far from a political matter of "right vs. left" as you so desperately wants to pin on the situation. It is also not a matter of "main stream culture" vs. "sub culture", as the other part in the case (Faderhuset) hardly is a main stream culture.
The only ones who care about the politics in this instance are the rioters and supporters of the "house". To most others this is merely a matter of law vs chaos/democracy vs. violent pressure and not left vs. right.

It would serve you to actually debate in this thread, other then attempting to able me fascists (which I see you've now editted out) and using simple one-line pointless statements without foundation in reality. Debate, using words and arguments. Not by shouting propagandistic statements.

[Kipi]

Originally Posted by galraen

Xandax, You're the one doing the mudslinging, not me. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you, or stating views you can't tolerate,I suggest you stay out of political threads.

Sorry, but agreeing Xandax in this.
First of all. as far as I know (basing on the news different tv channels show here), it has not been the police who were the aggressors, but the rioters. Police is just trying to keep things as peaceful as they can, and usually only force works against such ferosity what these rioters have been showing...
Or, hwo would you try to calm down group of people armed with different kind of things ranging from stones and clubs to molotov coctails? Especially when these people have showed quite clearly that they are not ready to negotiate about anything.

Secondly, before accusing anybody else for not being able to listen others' points of view, could you give us some background why you believe what you stated in the first post is true? Thus far, when you have not explained to us why your statement would be true, we just can't take it fully serious... or at least I can't.

[Lady Dragonfly]

@Vicsun
Thank you for the explanation.

I agree with Xandax, there is no excuse for this vandalism. We don't have much information here, but according to BBC "a heavy police presence has prevented any serious violence". I personally think it was serious more than enough, but at least nobody was killed, if that is what they meant by "serious".

It is good that run-down building is being demolished.

Edit: my understanding is that Faderhuset is going to build a parking lot, right? As was planned when they purchased the joint?

[galraen]

Unfortunately history has demonstrated time and again that the only language that politicians really understand is violence. Maybe I'm misunderstanding this particular case, but it reminded me very strongly of what happened in Brixton in London 25 years ago.

For years the area had been neglected, many derelict houses had been squatted, most legally, including one which was used as a gathering place for anarchists. This, and other legal squats were regularly raided by the police for no apparent reason, especially the notorious Special Patrol Group (SPG). Anyone who didn't fit the norm (especially black people) were routinely stopped and searched, again for no apparent reason. Despite repeated attempts to resolve the problems through 'normal channels', nothing was done. Until eventually the pot boiled over, full scale riots ensued, followed by riots in other inner cities around the UK. In very short order, the SPG was disbanded, money miraculously appeared and Brixton and other inner city areas suddenly started getting all the funding and redevelopment that years of peaceful attempts had failed to get.

Years later, when Maggie Thatcher decided to impose a poll tax on the nation, all the negotiations and peaceful protests did nothing to top it. Eventually peoples frustration, coupled with police heavy handedness resulted in riots across the UK, the message got through, and the poll tax was finally killed off.

Just two examples out of many, it's a shame it has to be that way, but as long as we live in countries ruled by the rich, the only way the less well off can get their voices really heard is by threatening the property and wealth of the rich. Sad, personally I hate violence, I couldn't bring myself to join in the rioting, even though I was living in Brixton at the time and fully sympathised with the rioters.

Oh, and for the benefit of Americans, do you think it was the underperformance of the US army that resulted in abandoning the war in Vietnam, or numerous, often violent, protests back home that was the reason?

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Lady Dragonfly

<snip>
Edit: my understanding is that Faderhuset is going to build a parking lot, right? As was planned when they purchased the joint?

The plans this "Faderhuset" has announced recently is they'll attempt to build a activity center to be used by anybody - but being of a religious persuasion, then it is not unthinkable it'll be used as an attempt to "mission" their religious beliefs.
Very few in Denmark actually likes these "Faderhuset" above any other religious group - religion to most danes is a hugely private issue (but not taboo) and should be kept there ("sort of belief what you want as long as it doesn't affect or involve me" type of attitude) so it is not because this group has support this situation has escalated - it is only "Ungdomshuset" and supporters who believe this.

I think the idea to pull the house was not only based on the state of the house, although asbestos have been found in the house as well and it have been run down. It is also a security issue.
This "Faderhuset" has have buildings vandalized for the last long periode of time, and the leader of the organization have had deaththreats et al, towards her.
If the house would remain up, it'd be a symbol and focus point for continued vandalizme and violence and would have required much police guarding/protecting it for years to come. By pulling it, the "physical" focus point is removed and these kids can work on moving forward - which some are also doing. And the fund "Jagtvej 69" is talking about simply buying a house which they can then use..... something many of us have said they should to begin with (instead of the kids refusing the offer and saying they want it for free).

Originally Posted by galraen

Unfortunately history has demonstrated time and again that the only language that politicians really understand is violence. Maybe I'm misunderstanding this particular case, but it reminded me very strongly of what happened in Brixton in London 25 years ago.

This is Denmark, not the US nor UK. We have a long history of actually attempting to work things out politically and socially. This is in no small part due to our democracy which consists of more then just 2 parties ranging from far left to far right.

There are rarely riots of this manner - and none of them have actually solved any issues for the rioters other then turning public opinion away from them.
Heck - the Copenhagen municipal is actually socialistic while the government is more right (is what we call liberal), but this being a local politic problem, it is the socialists who were in charge, and until these riots, these politicians actually tried to find a compromise. After the second round of riots they "washed their hands" and would no longer work with these rioters to find a compromise because violence should not be rewarded, because that'd only give others a reason to riot to get what they want for free.

Had these kids not utilized this weapon of violence to try and blackmail their own intolerant view to be accepted; public opinion would be very much different towards them.
Had the "Jagtvej 69" distanced themselves sharply from the rioters and not supported them but tried to stop them, chances are they'd either have another house about now, or the current one wouldn't have been cleared yet and the case still under debate with much more support towards them.
Violence solves nothing, but create more violence and anger when it comes to situations such as this, in a democratic country (without quotation marks)

[Kipi]

Originally Posted by galraen

Just two examples out of many, it's a shame it has to be that way, but as long as we live in countries ruled by the rich, the only way the less well off can get their voices really heard is by threatening the property and wealth of the rich. Sad, personally I hate violence, I couldn't bring myself to join in the rioting, even though I was living in Brixton at the time and fully sympathised with the rioters.

I don't know where you live, and thus I can't say if that comments is accurate to your country, but can assure you that it's not at least here where I live. For example, here everyone is allowed to vote in different elections (though you must be over 18...), and here the actual ammounts of votes one person gets is important for that person. Poor and rich has as good ability to get their voice heard.

So, please don't generalizes when you haven't even bothered to checks how thing are in reality.

[Maharlika]

Seeing that the exhange of posts have the potential of getting really heated, may I just remind everyone to stick to the issue and refrain from making unnecessary or unfounded statements of opinion.

Let's be proactive and get along despite differences in ideas.

Thanks.

[galraen]

Originally Posted by Kipi

I don't know where you live, and thus I can't say if that comments is accurate to your country, but can assure you that it's not at least here where I live. For example, here everyone is allowed to vote in different elections (though you must be over 18...), and here the actual ammounts of votes one person gets is important for that person. Poor and rich has as good ability to get their voice heard.

So, please don't generalizes when you haven't even bothered to checks how thing are in reality.

And poor people have as much chance of getting elected as rich people? I suspect not, at least that isn't the case in most countries.

I live in the UK, which has a phony democracy, for example in the last general election two thirds of the people who voted, voted against Blair's 'New Labour', the result, Blair 'won' with a massive majority! So, I guess personal experience has jaundiced my view of things. I was surprised at what went on in Copenhagen, Denmark has a very good reputation for tolerance. I still find it difficult to understand why the Anti-terror police were used to raid the house. In this country if you have to reposess a property you have to hire bailifs to do it, if trouble is anticipated the the police will act as back-up, but the ordinary police, not the anti-terror specialists.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by galraen

<snip>
I live in the UK, which has a phony democracy, for example in the last general election two thirds of the people who voted, voted against Blair's 'New Labour', the result, Blair 'won' with a massive majority! So, I guess personal experience has jaundiced my view of things.
<snip>

That is because UK have fewer parties then for instance Denmark. We currently have (off the top of my head) 7 major parties which people can vote on and a number of smaller ones, and also independant people running.

Originally Posted by galraen

<snip>
I was surprised at what went on in Copenhagen, Denmark has a very good reputation for tolerance.
<snip>

And still has, because this issue has nothing to do with tolerance, except the lack of from the rioters and supporters of "Jagtvej 69" which were the intolerant part in this situation.
You seem to think - as some others do - that the house was closed because of the "sub-culture" it represented. That could not be further from the truth and the situation is so much more down to earth then that. It is not a cultural struggle or social revolt or any of those issues.
It is simply a misrepresentation used by the one part of the situation to give a possible martyring to their case.

Originally Posted by galraen

<snip>
I still find it difficult to understand why the Anti-terror police were used to raid the house. In this country if you have to reposess a property you have to hire bailifs to do it, if trouble is anticipated the the police will act as back-up, but the ordinary police, not the anti-terror specialists.

First - it was not the anti-terror task force as such, but merely a specialized task force within the police which amongst others handles terrorist issues, but it is not a specific anti-terror taskforce. We have few specialized units in Denmark as the need for them is rather limited.
And due to this task force strategy, only one person was (minor) injured in the evacuation of the house. It was performed excatly as smooth as one could only hope for compared to the situations leading up to it.

As for why a "bailef" didn't close the house, then that is because it now was a police matter. It was the police which should clear the house, as other attempts had failed.
This house had been legally owned by other people for several years. The people occupied it had fortified themselves within and prior to this used violence and riots to defend it and their points. They had not left voluntarily for years or acknowledges the attempts to put them out, so they'd most certainly would not now. In fact they had publically stated they'd fight to defend it. It was as said now a police matter.

So one can hardly find faults in this, regardless of how hard ones tries and view of the prior and following events.

[Moonbiter]

I always find amusing the strange idea that some people harbour about these counterproductive, semi-criminal lowlives somehow being persecuted by the establishment, when the establishment has in fact been busy sewing pillows under their arms. They wouldn't have gotten away with their behaviour anywhere else in the world, hell, quite a few of them would probably be shot dead the moment they started throwing petrol bombs. The Danish police has done a great job in performing their duty with as little bloodshed as possible.
There also seem to be this twisted, ludicrous conspiracy theory supported and encouraged by a a lot of armchair radicals about these conflicts being misrepresented by the media. Let me make it perfectly clear that there is absolutely no convincing way in this age of information to falsify the facts of this situation without being caught. That's what I find so great about the information age.

[Vicsun]

Originally Posted by Xandax

Yes, less violent, but that is hardly any type of benchmark to go by.

What benchmark should we go by?

Nobody, absolutly nobody, other then the rioters carry blame of any kind for this. Nobody.
Nobody is forcing these people to go out in arms destroying other peoples property and putting peoples life in danger.

Now, you're being silly By that rationale, we can't blame the any municipality for a high crime-rate (nobody other than the criminals carry the blame), or blame the US administration for creating a breeding pool for terrorists in Iraq (terrorism is the fault of terrorists after all). This doesn't absolve the criminals/terrorists/rioters of guilt, but placing all of it on them requires a black and white mindset.

One can think that Copenhagen as a political entity did not "do enough", but there were absolutly no willingness to compromise from these "Jagtvej 69" people. They were not inclined to move their position an inch despite being offered a new property they could buy

This is patently false. As I wrote in the original post, Knud Foldschack, the youths' lawyer, said they were willing to buy the school they were being offered if the municipality agreed to pay for its upkeep after the municipality rejected the previous offer of the youths paying for the upkeep in turn of receiving the building for free (err one krone).

When unable to find a compromise the blame falls on both parties for said compromise. But this does not give any type of carte blanche to go out and perform vandalism and riots of this manner. Not in a democratic country. Not in this country.

I agree completely with everything you've written here.

The blame for destruction of property falls solely upon the ones destroying it. Otherwise we are getting over into the stupid analogies of "well, they didn't protect it so it was okay for me to ruin it"-type of statements.

When I make that analogy feel free to jump me for it I'm not quite there yet, though, so I guess I'll just put some of the blame of the lack of peace on those charged with preserving it, because I've elected them and I'm paying them handsomely. The same people I'd blame if the crime-rate skyrocketed.

The reason I think that is because these money are tied to the "aid" of these kids. However by actions performed in the name of these, and from within the house, I think responsibility does in fact fall upon Jagtvej 69 and that crowd.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, sorry. Can you clarify?

And no - I know not everybody is burning cars who used the house, but there is no sort of cutting off the ones who did.

So you have a group in which some people are violent and others aren't and because you can't separate the two, you want to punish both? I'm pretty glad Denmark's legal system doesn't see things the same way.

Even the peaceful protesters state something along the line that "We do not appreciate violence, but...." There should be no "but". Allowing these people to wreak havoc in their name is to me the exact same as supporting them directly.

But what? And which peaceful protectors? All of them? Since we were playing the fallacy game recently, I'm going to take the liberty calling 'Biased Sample'. Unless you can prove to me this is some sort of general consensus amongst the youths, I'll disregard it completely.

Also we shouldn't forget that there have been plenty of incitements to riot coming out from the house itself and they fortified themselves and only because of the superior tactics of the police did they get thrown out of the house without problems.

The past few weeks the house was filled with violent morons because they knew they were getting kicked out. What's your point?

And yet nobody seemed to want to distance themselves from the people who cause vandalism to a school ?

Nobody? I recall a lot of distancing going on from the rioters. I think that would include those responsible for the school vandalism too.

These are spoiled kids who use the fact they belong to another "sub culture" then mainstream to be incredible intolerant and violent. They want something for free, they couldn't have it, they caused riots.
They alone carry all blame for the riots. Imagine how far this could go if everybody started acting like these kids/people?

This is a horrible simplification of the situation and you're intelligent enough to know this.

I agree with Xandax, there is no excuse for this vandalism. We don't have much information here, but according to BBC "a heavy police presence has prevented any serious violence". I personally think it was serious more than enough, but at least nobody was killed, if that is what they meant by "serious".

It is good that run-down building is being demolished.

Edit: my understanding is that Faderhuset is going to build a parking lot, right? As was planned when they purchased the joint?

The 'building a parking lot' was tongue in cheek I don't understand how you reached your conclusion from your premise though, assuming your first paragraph was your premise.

Also, galraen, much like the rioters, you're hurting the cause you're fighting for

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Vicsun

What benchmark should we go by?
<snip>

A benchmark of no rioting would be a start. Of no destruction of other peoples rightful property and no violence towards police or other people who might not share a specific belief system.
That would be a good benchmark to go by.
I do not subscribe to the notion of "well, if they are to riot, then at least it is not as violent as other places".

[quote=Vicsun;926684]
Now, you're being silly By that rationale, we can't blame the any municipality for a high crime-rate (nobody other than the criminals carry the blame), or blame the US administration for creating a breeding pool for terrorists in Iraq (terrorism is the fault of terrorists after all). This doesn't absolve the criminals/terrorists/rioters of guilt, but placing all of it on them requires a black and white mindset.
<snip>[quote]

Yeah - might be black and white, but many situations are in fact black and white.
You can not blame other people for the actions you choose to perform in a democractic country. So yes, I belive that the criminals choose to perform their crime and do not take an high road of blaming society, especially a society which they have a chance to be a part of changing.
Using terrorism is a more difficult matter, as that are situations which you have little to no effect upon (Iraq people have no influence on US policy), although I'd at the core still claim that the people in Iraq taking up arms to perform terror toward innocent civilian choose to do so and the blame for it falls upon themselves.

Opening up for blame by transferal in this manner you also open up and give the victim part of the blame - there is no longer any innocents - such as giving the US reason to actually invade because of the terrorists bred in other countries, and then we have the neverending downwards spiral, because what came first - chicken or the egg.
I do likewise not point blame upon a rape victim either even if dressing provocative, or the ones getting hit by a drunk driver - afterall, they could just be somewhere else.

I appoint blame upon the ones performing the actions, the active part. Not the passive part. The people in question here, choose to go out and be violent, they weren't forced to do so. Therefore the blame falls solely upon them.

You seem to mix up responsibility for a situation and responsibility for the actions done in the name of said situation.
There is blame for the selling of the house, yes, which falls upon the politicians. There is blame falling upon Faderhuset for - out of spite likely - not wanting to sell anymore.
However, the blame for throwing a rock endangering peoples life, fall upon the thrower, as he choose to throw the rock instead of protesting another way.

Originally Posted by Vicsun

<snip>
When I make that analogy feel free to jump me for it I'm not quite there yet, though, so I guess I'll just put some of the blame of the lack of peace on those charged with preserving it, because I've elected them and I'm paying them handsomely. The same people I'd blame if the crime-rate skyrocketed.<snip>

The criminals are to the blame for the crime, yet we elect people who's responsibility is to try and stop people from breaking the law.
It is their responsibility to "fix" it, but it is not their fault that other people choose to break the laws.

Originally Posted by Vicsun

<snip>
So you have a group in which some people are violent and others aren't and because you can't separate the two, you want to punish both? I'm pretty glad Denmark's legal system doesn't see things the same way.
<snip>

Never mentioned punish in a legal sense, but they are punished by proximity regardless of whether you want them to or not; the very least through public opinion.
We have a group of people who by actions and words encourage violence and riots and we have a group of people who take up this encouragement and perform said violence and riot. Some people overlap, but I doubt all. But the people associated with the violent lot, will be type casted with them, as they did not actively and publically try to stop them.
Then there are of course the ones completely uninvolved, yet still supporting the cause but not the action, it is not those which are mentioned.

Of the protesters which I've seen expressing themselves it has constantly been excusing of the violent ones and their actions.
I'm sure there are those who take sharp distance from the violence and will not excuse it ... at all ... and I do not think these people should be blamed either. But when they distance themselves with a "but..." then they do not distance themselves. It'd be like saying that I take distance from the US in Iraq, but I do think part of the blame falls upon Iraq as they could have ...... (insert random action here), or using the drunk-driver argument that yes, I should not have driven drunk, but if the other person had just stayed at home he'd not get hit.
It doesn't swing that way when wanting to debate and be taken seriously. It is a faulty argument at best.

Originally Posted by Vicsun

<snip>
But what? And which peaceful protectors? All of them? Since we were playing the fallacy game recently, I'm going to take the liberty calling 'Biased Sample'. Unless you can prove to me this is some sort of general consensus amongst the youths, I'll disregard it completely.
<snip>

The peacefully protesters who've expressed this both via television or other medias, of course.
The ones who distanced themselves completely are not in that sample, as they did not use that line of argumentation, that line of excusing.
So if you want to "play" a game of semantics we can go that way, although I'd prefer to keep it based on actual arguments instead of semantics as I'm not that good with words cause then I'll have to pay much more attention to the excat wording of my text instead of just attempting to explain a position.

But once more - It is the excusing of the violent elements which I have issues with, not the position or point of view in the situation. Two hugely different areas.

Originally Posted by Vicsun

<snip>
Nobody? I recall a lot of distancing going on from the rioters. I think that would include those responsible for the school vandalism too.
<snip>

Okay, so I shouldn't use the word "nobody", but the "public" people. Then we can start blaming the news media for using selected and biased peoples interviews instead of presenting a more wholesome image, and the Internet for allowing fanatics to speak for a group without direct consequence..... another debate.

Originally Posted by Vicsun

<snip>
This is a horrible simplification of the situation and you're intelligent enough to know this.
<snip>

Actually - if looking intelligent at situations, you'll find most problems are actually quite simple. And when intelligent analyzing issues, then simplifications help to understand complex issues by breaking it down into smaller fragments. So what you see as simplification, I see as cutting to the core- free of all the surrounding nonsense.

I've see the argument over and over that this is an "attack" upon the culture this youth represent and thus there is no "place" for their "culture", when the actual question is much more simple and is little more then a real estate issue.
It is not a religious struggle, it is not a clash of cultures. It is about some people legally owning a house and others not. Simple yes, but false? Not at all.
So instead of attempting to find additional (faulty) complexities, some simplification would in fact be in order to get to the core.
However, I would also wager that the reason this is done, is to cause some sort of martyring with which these people can recruit additional to riot. After all - propaganda is most effective when it targets multiple people at once.

[Lady Dragonfly]

@Vicsun

The 'building a parking lot' was tongue in cheek I don't understand how you reached your conclusion from your premise though, assuming your first paragraph was your premise.

There was neither premise nor conclusion in my short post. Just a few separate notes. As I said, we don't have much information here, so I am trying to get some from you.
I disapprove of any vandalism, period. Tongue in cheek or not, the best thing that can happen to any dilapidated structure of that sort that caused so much anguish besides just being ugly, is demolition and conversion into a parking lot. The more parking lots (or parks if you will, or whatever) are created out of the ugly ruins the better for the neighborhood.

I think the blame for the confrontation can be laid upon all parties involved in the conflict, but not 50/50. The lion share of responsibility (or rather of irresponsibility) is on the ones who started the actual riot, because they planned to profit from it with disregard for many innocent people affected by the mess on the streets.

The strikes and riots have been weapons of the underprivileged for eons and it is a topic for another discussion, perhaps; now all I have to say is the reason for this particular 'upheaval' is pathetic. No sympathy from me, sorry.

[galraen]

As as a result of the disagreements in this forum I decided to explore the background of the current events. My conclusion so far are as follows:

Primary responsibility for the outcome has to rest with the squatters who, in 1996 refused to cooperate with the council in renovating the house, and making renovation impossible. This seems to have left the council with the feeling that their only recourse was to sell the house.

Things might stil have turned out OK had Faderhuset not acquired the building through an intermediary, Human A/S, with the intention of destroying it as a strike against people it found offensive. At this point, IMHO, the council should have intervened and compulsorily purchased the building (assuming such powers are available in Denmark) as the original purchase had been made under false pretences.

Jagtvej 69's invitation to people from everywhere to help them fight against eviction and demolition was foolish in the extreme, it was bound to attract trouble makers and violence seekers from all over Europe, with inevitable consequences. If this was deliberate on their part (in flagrant contravention of their own rules) then they are extremely hypocritical, and have become what the proclaim to hate.

I've studied video of the demonstrations, and it abundantly obvious that the overwhelming majority of demonstrators were intent on peaceful demonstration, but the demo was hijacked by a mindless minority intent on violence. Unfortunately this nearly always happens at such events, heck, it happens at football matches all the time! The inability, or unwillingness (the former I suspect in this instance), of the police to distinguish between violent and peaceful demonstrators escalated the problem.

The Blame Game: In summary, primary responsibility has to be shared between Jagtvej 69 and Faderhuset, the former for its intransigence, and the latter for deliberately provoking events. The council has some responsibility, as IMO, it could have done a lot more in the past to circumvent the final outcome.

So did I go off 'half-cock'? Yes, what I saw as similarities between Copenhagen in 2007 and Brixton in 1981 were superficial in the extreme.

This months events were an isolated incident within the wider community, triggered by a confrontation (effectively) between two ideologically opposed groups (Faderhuset and Jagtvej 69), with the authorities caught in the middle. Unlike Brixton 25 years ago, which was triggered by a confrontation between the whole community and an oppressive, uncaring government.

Do I regret my intervention? A little, but on the whole no. If I hadn't got annoyed at Xandax, and annoyed him in return, I would have carried on being misinformed. Nothing of course is 'black and white', and I still disagree with some peoples apparent carpet condemnation of the protesters. And I also stand by my assertion that 'strikes and riots have been weapons of the underprivileged for eons' (as LD put it) and can be a legitimate political tool. Just not in the way that it was used in this instance.