Fair enough but I think a better way to do that would be to go round the store and get all they can find and then go to the middle say and start a loud speech about it, or standing outside the doors being noisy.
Then the cops get called, the protest likely ends unless preparations for arrest have already been made, then it's harder for them to get in another time. Whereas this way they jam up things for hours-- the shelves have to be restocked, could lead to overtime costs for the company-- and the likelihood of confrontation with police reduced.
Trust me, I know how this shit works.
I take it that you don't simply join forces with every political group out there, even if they happen to have the same opinions as you do as regards certain issues.
No, but come on, let's be fucking realistic-- how the fuck are you going to hope to pull off a successful divestment campaign on Israel without the involvement of Muslim organizations?
How is pissing off Tescos and customers who want just want to shop in peace going to help the Palestinians? People are quite aware of what's happening there. If they become too much of an inconvenience than security can always be called in.
I already explained the general mechanics of how a protest like this fits in with an overall boycott, and I explained a bit more about this particular tactic to Lilyesque above.
Do you think it is right that people going about their daily lives have to go through these inconveniences because of things that have no control over and nothing to do with?
Direct action can often be inconveniencing. Strikes inconvenience consumers and other parties that aren't directly tied to the dispute, political protests can inconvenience drivers, pedestrians, and put an additional burden of taxpayers. Lots of things we do in life cause inconvenience to people directly or indirectly. That's life. I don't consider it an injustice to the shoppers.