in thinking that demos rarely achieve the objective?

[Vallhala]

Just musing really.

I'm very much involved in animal welfare and have similar strong feelings on certain human related issues, such as, for example, racism or the right to have access to medication regardless of postcode.

Many of my like-minded associates regularly go on demos, something I haven't done since I was 15 and marching in support of the CND. Sometimes I feel that I'm frowned upon for not joining in.

I just wonder what demos achieve, apart from alienating people, either because they are inconvenienced by the demo or because they conclude that the supporters are unnecessarily extremist. I have known of success coming out of campaigns but these have tended to go hand in hand with other types of representation so its unclear as to just what has made political change.

What's the view here? Do you think that demos are a worthwhile and successful way of achieving the objective or AIBU to think that they are largely not worth the effort?

I don't think in themselves they do achieve an objective but they do show that people care. At least they mean that those who create the situation/legislation can't say that they have unanimous support.

Good job Gandhi and Dr King didn't feel the same way!

It can work sometimes. I am thinking about the mass demonstrations and 'Can pay, won't pay' campaign against the poll tax in Scotland.

They can be useful as part of a wider protest and campaigning movement. They are also useful in a social sense as they allow people to realise they are not alone and help people to meet each other and build grass roots organisations.

I don't think it's a question of whether protests/demos work as a form of voicing dissent, but whether they are reported on. Unless you happen to actually see one, whether or not you are aware of it depends on the news media. I went on a student (NUS) protest years ago (against student fees - which makes me old, yes) and there was not a mention of it on the news. Not one. We blocked traffic access to a main route through a city. Not a whisper...

They're a show of representation, an indication of will, a sign of solidarity.

They'e not really designed to change anything on their own, they're a tool that helps make the key, not the key itself.

I think that in this age of technology there are better and more widely reaching ways to inform people and protest. There is always for me the worry that the rent a mob types will hijack the true meaning of the protest.

All a physical march/protest seems to achieve is a traffic problem which won't garner sympathy from anyone.

It's a dated concept however worthy the cause is.

But if I can ever help with animal welfare awareness just say the word.

When was the last time you saw an internet campaign reported on the news?

Very recently there was a successful campaign highlighting loan sharks and how they preyed on people.

Barack Obama predominantly used the internet in reaching people for his presidential campaign.

Flash Mobs, whether for good or fun are planned using the Internet.

Hmm, I disagree. Flash mobs aren't demoing anything (and they still involve groups of people getting together!). The internet thing for Obama was largely a myth (in the same way that The Arctic Monkeys got famous via The Internet); he used it no more or less than any other candidate.

And I've never seen the Loan Shark thing and I'm on the net 24/7!

It's almost a cliche now that internet campaigns/petitions are less use than a tin-foil sword; it reminds me of the fuss caused about that Raul Moat Facebook group, like it was a symptom of anything.