Two sides to every story - or is there?

I've been following the G20 protests with interest this week. Part of me really wishes I lived in London, or thought ahead to take the day off and join in the protests. The other part of me is glad I didn't. Scary scenes of violence on the news made me feel relieved I'd missed out on that.

But what's really got me thinking is - who was at fault for the violence?

Various accounts on independent media state that the police violently attacked peaceful protesters at the Climate Camp around 7pm and again at midnight on Tuesday, held in the the middle of Square Mile this week. Video evidence can be found in various YouTube videos, including this one .

Other reports speak of police cordoning in around 4,000 protestors outside the Bank of England on Wednesday - this was not mentioned in any reports by the BBC.

In fact, watching BBC News at Ten on Wednesday night, it was suggested (not ever said outright - after all, the BBC is always balanced) by the coverage of the event, that the protesters were at fault. All the footage showed protestors kicking in RBS, protesters behaving violently, and the police keeping them under control.

While I don't agree with violence, I do wholeheartedly support and uphold the right to protest, and it is entirely possible, likely even, that police antagonised protestors into behaving violently.

The more I look around me, the more I see a state turning into one not at all dissimilar to George Orwell's Oceania, a society where the Thought Police rule. 

However, despite laments from those politically active during the 60's and 70's that today's society is apathetic, this week's events showed that we are not.