Comment: The real victims of Tesco protest
The target – as it so often is – was Tesco. That target, however, was missed. Instead, the victims were Bristol workers doing an honest job to the best of their ability.
A group of squatters had taken residence in the former Jesters Comedy Club in Stokes Croft, protesting at Tesco's plans to develop the site. But yesterday the time had come to ask them to leave.
In many ways it is heartening that people can protest in this country without being dealt with severely by the authorities.
However, yesterday the right to protest was taken by the squatters but they failed to combine this with any sense of responsibility.
Their actions were dangerous, both for themselves and for the bailiffs. Their actions were probably unlawful when they threw foul water over their opponents and their actions were selfish because the city ground to a halt and emergency service crews were needlessly deployed.
Like many who protest over "just causes", their belief that they are right appears to blot out all other considerations.
They fail to see the bigger picture and they fail to understand an opposing viewpoint.
But, of course, their real enemy, Tesco, barely suffers. It was ordinary Bristolians who bore the brunt.
We would always defend the right to protest. But it must be done with responsibility and the squatters failed miserably.
9 Comments
by Simon Hopkins, Tewkesbury
Friday, April 29 2011, 1:30PM
“Tesco, a minimum wage employer relies on state benefits paid to staff and is a key reason why the local economy collapses in small towns.
There's zero joined up thinking in our government who typically support the enforced economic decay, as we see here in Bristol.
Totnes on the other hand has succeeded in keeping Tesco and the like out and is thriving as a result.”
by Ryan, Easton
Saturday, March 20 2010, 8:35PM
“It IS a very biased article. It speaks of an opposing viewpoint, but as Jane says, none has been put forward. Stokes Croft/Cheltenham Road is a very culturally important area for Bristol and for the Council to carry out such a poor and unrepresentative consultation of residents and visitors shows that the only consideration being made is that of money. Do those defending Tescos have a positive argument for ANOTHER Tescos in an area already saturated with them to be built here. Or are they just arguing against free speech and proper representation because it unfortunately disrupted their bus route for one morning? It is sad that people will not let others put up a meaningful protest because it inconveniences them so slightly for one day.”
by Jane Buttigieg, Redfield
Wednesday, March 17 2010, 8:14PM
“I am disappointed at the conclusion of this rather poorly argued editorial comment. I feel that the statement ¿They fail to see the bigger picture and they fail to understand an opposing viewpoint¿ is a rather trite summary of what caused the protesters to act the way they did.
What is ¿the bigger picture¿? What is the ¿opposing viewpoint¿? Has there been a visible opposition campaign from Stokes Croft and Cheltenham Road residents who wish this store to be built?
Can an opposing viewpoint from local residents be gleaned from silence? Or could it equally be argued that this silence means that they don¿t care either way?
The truth is that the real opposition to the protesters comes from a multinational who build what they want, where they want. Have Tesco listened to the ¿opposing viewpoint¿? Do they instruct their lawyers and planners to consider the opinions of local people as part of the general ¿bigger picture¿? I think not!
If all goes well for Tesco, it will do so not after consideration of differing viewpoints and big pictures, but on the principle that if you¿ve got enough money, such considerations can be dispensed of entirely.”
by Sam, BS3
Wednesday, March 17 2010, 4:44PM
“Now imagine the fuss if Tescos wanted to put a shop on Stokes Croft.
But they dont, they are going to put one on Cheltenham Road.”
by Sally, Bristol
Wednesday, March 17 2010, 12:18PM
“Vic , but the plans went in months ago and no one protested against them”
by Vic, Bristol
Wednesday, March 17 2010, 12:14PM
“And Paula, before you start pointing the finger at protesters' name calling, look at what you've written.
Referring to someone as belonging to the 'unwashed' is not exactly taking the moral high ground, is it?”
by Vic, Bristol
Wednesday, March 17 2010, 12:10PM
“I disagree. The assertion that Tesco is the 'real enemy' of the protesters is is wrong. The real enemies in this situation are the Bristol City Council planners and therefore the BCC councillors. They are the ones who should be looking at what is appropriate development in the Stoke's Croft area, so they bear at least some of the responsibility for what happened.
So it's not ordinary Bristolians who bore the brunt of the protestors, its the agents of authority.
Regardless of how the protest was conducted, I am grateful that there are people out there who are willing to stand up for what they believe to be right and that we live in a society where we are allowed to protest.”
by Paula, St Geroge
Wednesday, March 17 2010, 9:33AM
“The last 3 sentences really sum up the whole debacle.
No doubt the unwashed will be on here later, proving the article right and verbally abusing us law abiding citizens who didn't protest.
As the article says, they are so arrogant that they cannot see anyone elses viewpoint and have to resort to name calling and other bullying tactics.”
by Sally, Bristol
Wednesday, March 17 2010, 8:53AM
“What a good, true straight to the point story”