6 ms·
Personally I just think it's sad that these people are considered so important that they're allowed to inconvenience thousands of other people solely for their
by aarongough 16y ago
Personally I just think it's sad that these people are considered so important that they're allowed to inconvenience thousands of other people solely for their own safety/comfort.
I think that if you're going to organize something like the G20 it should be held in a remote location. Easier to secure, less disruption for everyone else...
- semanticist 16y agoThey had the G8 (as was) meeting in a remote location (Gleneagles) in 2005. It just meant that all the protests, demonstrations, and marches were held in the nearest city (Edinburgh) instead. We had half the Met. (London's police force) up here acting like thugs. Meanwhile, some lunatics blew themselves up on the London Underground. These meetings are a farce. Anything that's going to be agreed at the meeting was in reality agreed beforehand. Why bother creating a target for protestors and a distraction that evil bastards can use? Never mind a remote location - why do it at all?
- billswift 16y agoIt isn't about "agreements" - it's about a bunch of politicians and courtiers demonstrating how powerful they are.