If the protesters are non violent, why did they not disperse when ordered to?

Because they wanted trouble .. this is the perception they transmit and the message we all got, the typical look of the protesters we see at every major event, G20 and such. We all know them since they all dress the same way at every "happening" and are indeed the same mob of feral rent a crowd anti-social misfits we see at every anti-whatever event.

"Headlines such as "Occupy protest turns violent" simply generate more support for the Occupy movement"

No it doesn't, it made me reach for the phone to call the City Council in Melbourne to complain.

Flush them out .. charge them and jail them if they continue to break the law, that's what it is there for.

It's about time this mob took responsibility for its antisocial actions and was held accountable. By all means protest, but when told to move on, do so and don't whine, they sound like spoiled brats .. oh wait.

They are the 0.0001% of the public that are moronic followers of any selfish antisocial public exhibition.

We are constantly subjected in Melbourne to this same unruly minority who attack everything, claiming to be representatives of the majority .. the Occupy movement is just another excuse for anti-social behavior, before the occupy movement in the US, there was zero interest.

They should go camp in front of the Age newspaper building, where they all belong. Their rent seeking ideology would fit right in.

They have no support from the community beyond a few of their foolish mates and other social failures.

The occupy movements were dispersed because they were contravening council laws. You can't squat on council property.
There had been negotiations between the protesters and police for a number of days to try and get the protesters to move on. The protesters in Sydney only had a permit for 2 hours, yet stayed for about 5 days! The police were very lenient. Also in Melbourne, warning was given to evacuate the site but some professional protesters and other assorted layabouts were determined to be arrested so they could cry "excessive force." The refusal to move was premeditated. The police have every right to remove people squatting illegally on council property or on any property for that matter.

Furthermore, you can't compare this movement to the Arab Springs. There, people were/are tortured and murdered for opposing government policy, here no such thing occurs.

I see from Pip's own words the self-fulfilling nature of the Occupy movement writ large. It's vague targets and objectives grow daily - now police brutality has joined the list.

Look, if you REALLY believe you represent 99% of the population why not put it to the test: register a political party, publish a manifesto and put candidates in as many lower house seats as you can. And put up a Senate ticket and invite people to just tick your Senate Party box on election day.

If the votes go your way you get to effect (or at least heavily influence other parties to support) some of the changes you seem to want to effect.

If they don't you get the message and stop this silliness.

Most Occupy types run a mile form this idea because it puts them to the ultimate test: electoral relevance.

I won't hold my breath.

This member of the 99% may be fed up with corporate greed, but he's also none too fond of hippies, especially when they try to set up communes in public places. As such, I have absolutely no problem with the constabulary using whatever means necessary to turf the buggers out.

Protest by all means - but do so in a appropriate manner. How does occupying a park prove anything? When the hippies at my uni wanted to protest against some perceived injustice, they occupied the chancellery building, rather than the public areas of the uni. A far more effective way of making their point.

When the police moved in violently against protestors in Egypt onlookers around the world were shocked. Yet here we show contempt for the liberal rights of our own citizens. People say they are "ferals" or "the usual suspects". These people are *citizens*. They have liberal rights. There must be public space, and it must be clear that public space is for the purpose of free assembly. Police in Melbourne abrogated protestors' human rights as enshrined in the Victorian Human Rights Act. *They* broke the law; and legitimate laws at that. Democratic and liberal rights are always for those who think differently. Otherwise they are nothing.

Tristan,

The right to free assembly does not extend to the right to set up hippy communes in public spaces.