H'okay, so decided to rejoin the blogging world, at least for the moment...
So, Watching the footage of the problems in London, the question occurred to me: at what point does protesting have any value, if you are only going to give the neds an excuse to go on a rampage? You are going to have to balance up the benefits of your protest (media attention) against damage to your side of the issue. That doesn't just mean the wholesale looting et all of London: even just standing around in a large group is negative: ask any little old lady about why the kids on her street have ASBOs. Groups of people are intimidating. Add in communal shouting, waving things in the air, and general rowdiness, and you damage your cause every second you are out there.
So, assuming you are happy to wreck your causes profile, what is the optimal time frame? Depends on your issue, but an hour is top limit: enough to be seen, not enough to start pissing people off. Lunch break protests have a lot more success: just look at how much political attention gets paid to the anarchists at the G12 meetings? No photo-ops with those leaders :)
What are the alternatives? Generally negotiation works pretty well. This whole actually talking to people (as opposed to lecturing/ranting at them :- often the same) thing works surprisingly well :P If a group refuses to allow you access to them, the government has entire bodies that pay for you to take them to court, and that get really expensive for them to challenge, and the rulings tend to be against the one the didn't try to compromise. It is much easier to find a workable solution that works for both, assuming you aren't a ranting lunatic, when they tried...
