I think this is only part of the truth of what people experienced in Stokes Croft. I live right in the middle of it, my front room window looks three storeys down onto the Pipe & Slippers, and what I don't understand is how police presence in itself invokes violence. It's as if they're viewed as inherently evil - a presence to be purged!

Stood in my front garden I was surrounded by riot police for almost the entire night, and at no point did I feel the urge to go and hurt any of them. That would be mental.

It takes a certain kind of person to partake in a riot. I don't condone police brutality in individual cases, but the police does not start riots. The people here are not blameless. This film is incredibly biased, and as a resident of Stokes Croft, I am thankful to the police for protecting me.

Yes, there as many truths as people. This film interviews a range of people involved in the community or directly experiencing the police actions or protest. The view that some protesters were out of order is also expressed in the film. Whether or not you understand how certain kinds of heavy police presence - in this case more bodies than were required to take out Bin Laden - provokes violence, the fact is that it does - all over the world - and the police know this very well. The reasons are numerous and perhaps require a little more thought Tomoi, although there are some pointers in the film.

The film is certainly not against the police carrying out the duties for which we pay them. I'm glad you felt protected by the riot police surrounding your garden all night. However, if you think you were a target, then is it possible you are a bit of a fantasist? I'm also glad you didn't feel the urge to hurt any of the police, which would be 'mental' as you put it and I don't think this is suggested anywhere in the film.

The film may seem biased to you, but perhaps this is because it does not fit so neatly as you would like with the view, maybe not hugely dissimilar to your own, which was and is reflected in the mainstream media as a matter of course, some representatives of which have an interest in maintaining disorder and promoting the conflict between people and the state. It would behove the police to correct widely reported factual errors, though where it may embarrass those in positions of authority, they are unlikely to do so. More discerning people will be glad to hear these views and may find in them a way to avoid unnecessary conflict in the future.

Perhaps you could get involved in your community more. I'm sure Stokes Croft could do with a branch of neighbourhood watch. It takes a certain kind of person. Perhaps you could ask The People's Republic of Stokes Croft if you could use them as an HQ. Try them. You never know.

Anyway, in the spirit of community fellowship I offer you this song: youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

You raise some very good points, David, albeit presented slightly abrasively.

In reply to your question about being a "fantasist", I don't think you need be a target to be a victim of collateral damage. The actions of the police on both nights directly prevented our building from being used as an avenue of attack. I was there - I watched them do it.

Secondly, if "the mainstream media" is guilty of being biased towards certain political motives, then wouldn't it be more noble to present a film that is not biased in any way - not restricted by broadcast time slots, resources and professional journalistic responsibility, to present a more balanced view of events?

I think you're correct about there being a certain element of censorship when it comes to access to police representation in this film, but the fact that the piece is dominated by those using graphic imagery (Jo Gallagher and Jalon) to recount shocking events shows that it's still being driven by what the "mainstream media" would also deem "good content." So the film is biased because there's still the motive to provide entertainment.

I think the "Following Events" section is the most obvious example of bias through shock value.

Hey Tomoi, sorry for being abrasive. It's my acerbic SOH. OK I wasn't there and maybe your building was 'protected' in some way so sorry for suggesting you might be a fantasist.
Personally I think the idea of value-free representation is a myth, though I do think it is possible to present a wider range of facts and perspectives than the usual diet we we are fed on and this is what I think this film is trying to redress. I think the main-stream media is highly value-laden and I tend to agree with Noam Chomsky's view in his Manufacturing Consent that information is passed through a series of filters before it reaches the consumer: fear, advertising, ownership, etc. I think groups like the Republic of Stokes Croft, the squatters and the anti-TESCOs campaign probably share the awareness that mainstream media often promotes a system of control which prevents people from acting in their own best interests, which if allowed would end up being in the community's best interest and wean us off the need for control by those who benefit from exercising control over us. There are many reasons people riot, usually cumulative, but I suggest they all have to do with the exercise of control. People want to feel empowered, not disempowered consumers in a police state. Just one of many possible examples of why some people felt frustrated and indignant at a heavy police presence is to do with the Tesco issue (though I would agree with David Goldblatt in the film that Tesco ultimately had nothing to do with why people rioted). Tesco, however, is a good representation of the disempowerment that people feel from control over their own lives. Tesco is seen to undermine local economies and screw down and effectively indenture its supply chains, resulting in ethically questionable methods of production and decreasing quality. It increases our dependence on its control over our food chain at the same time as alienating us from the source of our food supply and I don't think it unreasonable that some people feel like their world is being turned into a Tescopally. Some 20 years ago when BCC refused planning for Tesco on Golden Hill - the last piece of unploughed land in Bristol - not far from you, Tesco fought back with the lawyers its deep pockets and influence over the Tory environment Minister, costing the council tax payer at a time of deep recession and made the council look irresponsible for fighting the case. Tescos also decimated the local environment amid large and angry middle-class protest. flickr.com/photos/brizzlebornandbred/2054040331/
The result is that councils will no longer stand in the way of such corporate interests despite local opposition meaning that corporate interests can outbid our democracy. The law should change in this respect. The problem is that people don't feel like they're being listened to on this.

I don't see how the 'following events' section is biased. It's just a series of facts. The police handed back the projection equipment they confiscated from Mina Road park and the owner says apologized to him.

The graphic imagery is clearly in the film to identify the cultural feel of the area and out of respect for the cultural depth and diversity within the community. I hardly see that this is biased. If it entertains, fine. I don't think a film should aim to bore people in order to be credible.

That's very interesting. I didn't realise there was so much crooked history between Tesco and BCC.

The "Following Events" section is biased because it presents the eviction of Telepathic Heights as the final chapter while managing to omit the entire turn of events between the riots ending and the actual eviction, connoting that the eviction of the squatters was part of the motive all along.

I agree with you when you say that the damage done to Tesco was probably representative of the desire for public empowerment (despite the fact that the riots had little to do with Tesco by the end of it), but ironically perhaps this frustration is born of the same media that are advocating the support of these dominant businesses. At the same time as being told to aspire to the ideals of democracy and choice, we're also being told what to choose through advertising and the unethical business practises that you described, all amounting to a constant stream of misdirection and a false public consciousness. Actually, you could say that the police that night was the embodiment of this contradiction, having come as the solution and ending up as the problem...

It's a shame that all of this amounted to rioting. My views about the film's bias still stand, but, David, this has been a good conversation. The fact that it has sparked debate means it is an interesting film.

Thanks for your comments. In terms of mainstream vs independent my initial description may of indicted the mainstream may not of covered the story fully but the actual film does not explore this, it would be a different film (I did consider this). It is no longer in description or film.

In terms of inaccuracy I agree. This is basically testimony, it is edited but not authored as such. If people say things that are inaccurate it is not false in that it is what they said. Obviously we have to tread very carefully here but you have previously alluded to a similar view. The reason the 'disclaimer' was put up was to encourage people to feed back. As it happened we received no such feedback regarding factual inaccuracies. I ended up only removing one thing, and this was to err on the side of caution. I was quite careful to only put this film out when I was fairly happy with the facts. From a citizens journalism point of view it has been an interesting experiment. Deciding exactly when and if to show a roughcut is a tricky one (as you know) but in this case I think it was essential due to it being somewhere between news and documentary.

In terns of the length I initially agreed. It has been tightened up and reduced in length a bit but the general consensus amongst a number of people has been that all of what said is important. There are lots of reasons for not making films too long and I try not to be self indulgent but its under 13 mins;).

What I have now is a final version in that it is being 'printed' to YouTube and updated to vimeo in the next hour. The Vimeo version may be fiddled with a little but it is finished in so far as anything can be.

Hope I did not miss anything, mine has also turned into a bit of an essay.

Ben

No one said the police should ignore the persevered threat of petrol bombs but maybe hiding the riot cops around the corner or at least not having them in riot gear from the beginning would of helped. Basically I am sure they get lots of bomb/petrol bomb and other threats throughout the year but I cant remember anything even close to this in terms of police numbers/shutting of road etc before in Bristol for this type of threat. I have lived in Bristol for 15 years. Also liaison with local business would be good. Ben

He is captioned as 'Blogger for Peoples Republic of Stokes Croft' which is relevant and how we found him. I doubt people outside Bristol know where Bishopston is. Bishopston is fairly close to Stokes Croft. Although those who do not know the area may be under the impression that it is populated by low life scum junkies and drug dealers, being a bit Bohemian Stokes Croft does have what can be referred to as Middle Class Residents. Just to clarify the last comment is for the benefit of general readers, I am not saying the poster thinks this.

I totally stand behind the fact that people who frequent Stokes Croft and live only a mile away are part of the Community. Specially ones involved in local groups such as PRSC. I would also say there are many communities near stokes croft that make up a wider community. Are you proposing some type of gated ghettoisation? I think you need to watched the film now it is finished. I don't think it mentions 'local' community at all. Not sure what your evidence is that we sought out a particular type of contributor. I did ask Naomi Harvey if she wanted to contribute but she declined. We have also asked the local MP. We can only put in the interviews we have. I did not actually do the interviews but I know the person doing them was trying to talk to a variety of people. We can only include the interviews we have. Ultimately I think we are going to have to simply agree to disagree.

PS no one seems to of picked up that the events happened mainly in Cheltenham Road not Stokes Croft, the area of Bristol next to Bishipston so I fess up to the main title of the film being wrong;).

OK, you only had to ask;).

I think it says 'A Community-based view', not 'The Community-based view' doesn't it? Anyway it means community-based view as opposed to a national media story. I think you'll find that the national media based stories show various viewpoints too. Why don't you make an 'evenhanded' film Anthony? If not, why don't you just write an 'evenhanded' account. I'd love to hear it.