I predict more riots

daviesee

Greg T wrote:

Regime? Regime?

This is six month old Tory / Liberal coalition - not exactly a junta is it and also let's not forget this is ostensibly about the balance of state to personal funding of tertiary education, not freedom of the press, rule of law (ahem) or burning books.

Not only that but most people's objections are to outline plans without the full details far less actually feeling the pain of implementation.
Of all the plans that have caused disruptions/discussions in the past 6 months have actually affected anyone? Not future but present or past?

DonDaddyD

Greg T wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Protesting and action becomes necessary when society cannot abide living under the regime any longer.

Regime? Regime?

This is six month old Tory / Liberal coalition - not exactly a junta is it and also let's not forget this is ostensibly about the balance of state to personal funding of tertiary education, not freedom of the press, rule of law (ahem) or burning books.

.The EDL example I find a little extreme Greg. Ironic too! Considering next post was to shoot someone down for their extreme examples.

It wasn't an example it was a question - that you didn't answer by the way.

This is what I think.

We live in a liberal democracy, that democracy works just fine and we live under the law we don't get to pick and chose

OK whoa whoa whoa. I'm using the power of D to back track here.

Greg, all I was talking about was the nature of a protest and people being somewhat deluded if they believe it was going to be nice and agreeable.

It wasn't my intention to link that view or give the impression that I want the current Government deposed. As you said, and I agree, it's early days. I also don't think the Coalition will last the full term (what happens if Clegg gets ousted as Lib leader - this I suspect will happen when he loses the voting reform battle next year), I still thinks its early days.

Re. your EDL question

I suppose that if the English Defence League had done this you'd be happy to retain your view or would you be supporting a more direct police action ?

Like with the student protests, I would expect the police to do their jobs to ensure public safety, contain the protests and prevent them from escalating.

In regards to the EDL protesting. Its a protest so I'm not expecting it to be anything but disruptive and potentially destructive. What they're likely to protest about I won't agree with or support.

Initialised

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg T wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Protesting and action becomes necessary when society cannot abide living under the regime any longer.

Regime? Regime?

This is six month old Tory / Liberal coalition - not exactly a junta is it and also let's not forget this is ostensibly about the balance of state to personal funding of tertiary education, not freedom of the press, rule of law (ahem) or burning books.

.The EDL example I find a little extreme Greg. Ironic too! Considering next post was to shoot someone down for their extreme examples.

It wasn't an example it was a question - that you didn't answer by the way.

This is what I think.

We live in a liberal democracy, that democracy works just fine and we live under the law we don't get to pick and chose

OK whoa whoa whoa. I'm using the power of D to back track here.

Greg, all I was talking about was the nature of a protest and people being somewhat deluded if they believe it was going to be nice and agreeable.

It wasn't my intention to link that view to actually wanting the current Government deposed. As you said it's early days. I also don't think the Coalition will last the full term (what happens if Clegg gets ousted as Lib leader - this I suspect will happen when he loses the voting reform battle next year) I still thinks its early days.

Re. your EDL question

I suppose that if the English Defence League had done this you'd be happy to retain your view or would you be supporting a more direct police action ?

Like with the student protests I would expect the police to do their jobs to ensure public safety and contain the protests from escalating.

In regards to the EDL protesting. Its a protest so I'm not expecting it to be anything but disruptive and potentially destructive. What they're likely to protest about I won't agree with.

Trouble is the police are doing the opposite, they are protecting the ruling class from the intended disruption of proceedings in parliament rather than protecting the public from the impending destruction of the Tory's over-zealous, idealogical and irrational program of cuts. The irony of course being that they will cut the police last so they can't turn on the government and let the protesters through.

Some food for thought:



That excludes corporations btw...

And in case there was any doubt about Cameron's feelings for the masses here's a Party Political Broadcast on Behalf of the Conservative Party that says it all.

DonDaddyD

Initialised wrote:

Trouble is the police are doing the opposite, they are protecting the ruling class from the intended disruption of proceedings in parliament rather than protecting the public from the impending destruction of the Tory's over-zealous, idealogical and irrational program of cuts. The irony of course being that they will cut the police last so they can't turn on the government and let the protesters through.

Some food for thought:

Absolute gibberish absolutely.

You are taking one thing applying it to another and coming up with twelve.

Trouble is the police are doing the opposite, they are protecting the ruling class from the intended disruption of proceedings in parliament rather than protecting the public from the impending destruction of the Tory's over-zealous, idealogical and irrational program of cuts.

#1 It is not the police's job to 'protect' the public from policy making decisions made by the Government.

The irony of course being that they will cut the police last so they can't turn on the government and let the protesters through.

#2 I don't know when the police cuts kick in, if at all, I'm almost certain they aren't the first or last cuts to be made.

#3 As far as I'm aware the police cannot legally strike so I doubt they would/could 'turn on the Government' as you wrote above.

Some food for thought:

#4 Your image has nothing to do with the point you're making. It's more akin to scare mongering.

Look, I'm not a great fan of most of the Tory policy proposals. I'm also not into fabricated bashing built on hysteria.

tailwindhome

Initialised wrote:

Trouble is the police are doing the opposite, they are protecting the ruling class from the intended disruption of proceedings in parliament rather than protecting the public from the impending destruction of the Tory's over-zealous, idealogical and irrational program of cuts. The irony of course being that they will cut the police last so they can't turn on the government and let the protesters through.

THIS MAKES NO SENSE

Greg T

Initialised wrote:

Trouble is the police are doing the opposite, they are protecting the ruling class from the intended disruption of proceedings in parliament rather than protecting the public from the impending destruction of the Tory's over-zealous, idealogical and irrational program of cuts. .

As that's against the law is it?

Preventing the disruption of the due process of government sounds like a good idea to me - pretty much happy with that. The alternative is you can dictate government policy via violent means - you wouldn't want that would you?

deptfordmarmoset

TailWindHome wrote:

Initialised wrote:

Trouble is the police are doing the opposite, they are protecting the ruling class from the intended disruption of proceedings in parliament rather than protecting the public from the impending destruction of the Tory's over-zealous, idealogical and irrational program of cuts. The irony of course being that they will cut the police last so they can't turn on the government and let the protesters through.

THIS MAKES NO SENSE

Not sure at all that it makes no sense. The police have to enforce the law in a political kind of way, but they're also expendable. The point seems to be that you keep the police enforcing your way until you shít on them - but only after the police have removed the threat. I don't fully agree with the analysis but I understand the logic. This is a time when the choice between ''cut or grow'' is firmly on the cut side.

daviesee

The Police enforce the laws made by the Government. That's it.

Anything else is a coup.

notsoblue

On the one side you have people demanding they use water cannons, and on the other you have people complaining about the use of kettling. In between you have a police force that has a duty to create a safe environment for people to protest peacefully in, but also has to prevent small numbers of anarchists from using legitimate protest as cover for vandalism and violence.

The police can't really win can they?

DonDaddyD

No the police can't win.

We have built a society where the use of force is generally frowned upon. Yet everyone has seemingly forgotten that protesting isn't usually peaceful and pleasent and force, used appropriately, may be necessary in managing the negative elements of the protest (despite the negative elements that arise, protesting is still valid in my mind but so is the use of force to prevent the protesters from crossing the line, its a balance)..

The sticking point is knowing how much force to use and when.

I find that all parties (protesters and police) are prone to overreacting.

notsoblue

The problem is that people kinda like the conflict that arises from protests like these. Its exciting. Both the police and the rioters like a ruckas. So its inevitable that stuff will kick off, because enough people want it to.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

The problem is that people kinda like the conflict that arises from protests like these. Its exciting. Both the police and the rioters like a ruckas. So its inevitable that stuff will kick off, because enough people want it to.

Yeah, I also think people on both sides are living up to the sometimes glorified protests in the 80s/90s and what's happening/happened on the continent.

"Tory 'fatcat' Government, lets riot like they did with the poll tax..." Sort of mentality.

I don't think the Educational cuts are anywhere near the same level of unjust (in fact I don't think they're unjust just not suitable in the present society).

I'd much rather see more creative forms of protesting such as sit-ins and the like.

hfidgen

When I first saw the 1000 Santas wandering around London on a pub crawl on Saturday my first thought was "awesome - they've finally been creative in their protests" Then I realised they were all just heading for the boozers

10,000 Santa's staging a sit in, all chained to the crowd barriers would have been a hell of a sight and much more in keeping with the "student" protests I went on. (back in the day).

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The problem is that people kinda like the conflict that arises from protests like these. Its exciting. Both the police and the rioters like a ruckas. So its inevitable that stuff will kick off, because enough people want it to.

Yeah, I also think people on both sides are living up to the sometimes glorified protests in the 80s/90s and what's happening/happened on the continent.

"Tory 'fatcat' Government, lets riot like they did with the poll tax..." Sort of mentality.

I don't think the Educational cuts are anywhere near the same level of unjust (in fact I don't think they're unjust just not suitable in the present society).

I'd much rather see more creative forms of protesting such as sit-ins and the like.

I don't think its a matter of glorifying past protests, I think its a "heat of the moment, in a big group, being part of an (in there eyes) potentially historic event". Its like being at a festival or running the bulls. The excitement of being in a single minded group. And for many teenagers and young adults in the crowd its about them expressing their frustrations and concerns for the future, trying to get their voice heard. Even if that voice is a bit incoherent.

I hope that the authorities make it easier for the protesters to express themselves properly. Because if they don't, and they just try and stifle them, then violence, vandalism and general disrespect will be an easy alternative. Its much more difficult to protest eloquently about an issue you understand and feel strongly about than it is to grab a bin and throw it through a window.

Anyway, my sympathies are with the Met, its a tough job.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The problem is that people kinda like the conflict that arises from protests like these. Its exciting. Both the police and the rioters like a ruckas. So its inevitable that stuff will kick off, because enough people want it to.

Yeah, I also think people on both sides are living up to the sometimes glorified protests in the 80s/90s and what's happening/happened on the continent.

"Tory 'fatcat' Government, lets riot like they did with the poll tax..." Sort of mentality.

I don't think the Educational cuts are anywhere near the same level of unjust (in fact I don't think they're unjust just not suitable in the present society).

I'd much rather see more creative forms of protesting such as sit-ins and the like.

I don't think its a matter of glorifying past protests, I think its a "heat of the moment, in a big group, being part of an (in there eyes) potentially historic event". Its like being at a festival or running the bulls. The excitement of being in a single minded group. And for many teenagers and young adults in the crowd its about them expressing their frustrations and concerns for the future, trying to get their voice heard. Even if that voice is a bit incoherent.

I hope that the authorities make it easier for the protesters to express themselves properly. Because if they don't, and they just try and stifle them, then violence, vandalism and general disrespect will be an easy alternative. Its much more difficult to protest eloquently about an issue you understand and feel strongly about than it is to grab a bin and throw it through a window.

Anyway, my sympathies are with the Met, its a tough job.

Oh I agree with you.

I just think that for some there is a measure of acting up because its a Tory Government and protesting is synonomous with them (this view in the minds of some has been birthed from the last major riots).

The last Government cut and changed a lot (place so many restrictions) and went against public opinion, no one protested/rioted.

Part of me does feel that if this was Labour annoucing these cuts (or proposing a graduate tax, which would be worse IMO) there may be protests but not to the degree we are seeing currently.

rjsterry

IIRC the Countryside Alliance and Iraq War marches were both bigger (in terms of numbers) than the student protests, and they both managed to not smash things up - at least not to the extent that we have seen recently. Whilst such actions might be likely, they aren't inevitable.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

Oh I agree with you.

I just think that for some there is a measure of acting up because its a Tory Government and protesting is synonomous with them (this view in the minds of some has been birthed from the last major riots).

The last Government cut and changed a lot (place so many restrictions) and went against public opinion, no one protested/rioted.

Part of me does feel that if this was Labour annoucing these cuts (or proposing a graduate tax, which would be worse IMO) there may be protests but not to the degree we are seeing currently.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. Theres some pretty moronic tory bashing going on that totally ignores the perfectly legitimate reasons why they could (or should, depending on your point of view) be against them.

It totally plays into the government's hands though. Rioting and vandalism is the *best* way to bring public opinion against something. Bits of the media and the government appear to have made protesting synonymous with rioting. The debate is no longer about tuition fees, its about whether or not we should be using water cannons on protesters.

The people who are most disgusted by the way that the students are behaving are likely to also be part of the demographic most likely to vote*. Theres no reason for politicians to make a show of empathy for the students.

* Gut feeling, no figures to back this up.

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

IIRC the Countryside Alliance and Iraq War marches were both bigger (in terms of numbers) than the student protests, and they both managed to not smash things up - at least not to the extent that we have seen recently. Whilst such actions might be likely, they aren't inevitable.

Its no surprise that a march composed primarily of 15-21 yr olds is more likely to get out of hand than the Barbour & Tweed wearing, Archer's listening, Countryside Alliance crowd.... :P

SimonAH

I reckon that it's pretty simple.

Riot - crush. Use water cannon, use baton charges. Just make sure all the police wear helmet cams and that the footage is securely collected for any subsequent arguments.

Protest - Your right to protest should be inviolate. This is not the same as a riot. Hold a sit-in, present a petition, go on hunger strike etc etc.

bearfraser

What say we bring in the "French" Riot police now they really do know how to sort out a riot none of this namby pamby "Kettling" B.S. lets have some water canons and some good old tear gas with some quality rthyme sections on their poly carbonate shields.(and your right i cant spell rthyme)

rjsterry

notsoblue wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

IIRC the Countryside Alliance and Iraq War marches were both bigger (in terms of numbers) than the student protests, and they both managed to not smash things up - at least not to the extent that we have seen recently. Whilst such actions might be likely, they aren't inevitable.

Its no surprise that a march composed primarily of 15-21 yr olds is more likely to get out of hand than the Barbour & Tweed wearing, Archer's listening, Countryside Alliance crowd.... :P

I think you'll find they are a bit more varied than that - 400,000 of them turned up in London for a start - and not all 15-21 yr olds flee the countryside at the first opportunity. I'd guess that the Iraq War march had an even broader spectrum of participants, with plenty of properly angry people included.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

IIRC the Countryside Alliance and Iraq War marches were both bigger (in terms of numbers) than the student protests, and they both managed to not smash things up - at least not to the extent that we have seen recently. Whilst such actions might be likely, they aren't inevitable.

Its no surprise that a march composed primarily of 15-21 yr olds is more likely to get out of hand than the Barbour & Tweed wearing, Archer's listening, Countryside Alliance crowd.... :P

I think you'll find they are a bit more varied than that - 400,000 of them turned up in London for a start - and not all 15-21 yr olds flee the countryside at the first opportunity. I'd guess that the Iraq War march had an even broader spectrum of participants, with plenty of properly angry people included.

This is kinda my point, had that been a Tory Government invading Iraq all hell would have broken loose.

Look at the political spectrum. Right sided party brings out the left sided liberal-anarchists to opposition. Left sided party brings out a rise in the neo-conservative/right wing opposition. I'm of the thought that the (liberal) anarchists types are more prone to rioting and the right wing (BNP types) try to destablise the system in other ways.

As for crushing riots. All it takes is for one person (usually community leader, child or very vulnerable person) to be injured/mistreated/die due to police action and then that's it. Also I don't think policing levels have increased in-line with the population. They know that they don't have the man power like they did 10 - 20yrs ago.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

IIRC the Countryside Alliance and Iraq War marches were both bigger (in terms of numbers) than the student protests, and they both managed to not smash things up - at least not to the extent that we have seen recently. Whilst such actions might be likely, they aren't inevitable.

Its no surprise that a march composed primarily of 15-21 yr olds is more likely to get out of hand than the Barbour & Tweed wearing, Archer's listening, Countryside Alliance crowd.... :P

I think you'll find they are a bit more varied than that - 400,000 of them turned up in London for a start - and not all 15-21 yr olds flee the countryside at the first opportunity. I'd guess that the Iraq War march had an even broader spectrum of participants, with plenty of properly angry people included.

This is kinda my point, had that been a Tory Government invading Iraq all hell would have broken loose.

Look at the political spectrum. Right sided party brings out the left sided liberal-anarchists to opposition. Left sided party brings out a rise in the neo-conservative/right wing opposition. I'm of the thought that the (liberal) anarchists types are more prone to rioting and the right wing (BNP types) try to destablise the system in other ways.

While those at the Countryside March probably weren't Labour voters (a mixture of LibDem and Conservative in the rural West country), I don't think you could say that about the Iraq War march. I'd have thought that would have tended to be fairly lefty/liberal. The Tories were in full support of the invasion of Iraq if you remember.

symo

From what I have seen it is a load of Henry's and Henrietta's complaining that the cost of them studying history and politics, art history, philosphy etc, is going to rise. Not one of them seem to be doing science, maths, engineering, you know; courses with value. Yes the cost of a degree is going to rise, but it seems only to affect people who want 3 years mucking around. If they wanted to work hard they would do engineering and basically have to do work hours plus homework to just keep up, which you could get a bursary to do as firms realise that it is hard to achieve. (Please feel free to substitute engineering with any science or Maths).

If the police don't prosecute that idiot Charlie Gilmour for what he did to the Cenotaph then this country is seriously screwed. Protesting is fine but smashing up war memorials is totally unacceptable and beyond the pale, it shows a disrespect for the families of those who died in the two wars and it shows how little respect there seems to be in the country as a whole.

PresumingEd

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

IIRC the Countryside Alliance and Iraq War marches were both bigger (in terms of numbers) than the student protests, and they both managed to not smash things up - at least not to the extent that we have seen recently. Whilst such actions might be likely, they aren't inevitable.

Its no surprise that a march composed primarily of 15-21 yr olds is more likely to get out of hand than the Barbour & Tweed wearing, Archer's listening, Countryside Alliance crowd.... :P

I think you'll find they are a bit more varied than that - 400,000 of them turned up in London for a start - and not all 15-21 yr olds flee the countryside at the first opportunity. I'd guess that the Iraq War march had an even broader spectrum of participants, with plenty of properly angry people included.

This is kinda my point, had that been a Tory Government invading Iraq all hell would have broken loose.

Look at the political spectrum. Right sided party brings out the left sided liberal-anarchists to opposition. Left sided party brings out a rise in the neo-conservative/right wing opposition. I'm of the thought that the (liberal) anarchists types are more prone to rioting and the right wing (BNP types) try to destablise the system in other ways.

While those at the Countryside March probably weren't Labour voters (a mixture of LibDem and Conservative in the rural West country), I don't think you could say that about the Iraq War march. I'd have thought that would have tended to be fairly lefty/liberal. The Tories were in full support of the invasion of Iraq if you remember.

It's important to note that neither the Countrside Alliance or Anti-war marches were kettled by the police. Had they beend kettled, I reckon that a large proportion of those attending either march would have become enraged, with some subsequently turning to violent protects against the police and state.

It's not a coincidence that pretty much every demo and march that is kettled turns violent!

ride_whenever

The main reason you don't see the physical science students protesting is that they dont have time to...

notsoblue

symo wrote:

From what I have seen it is a load of Henry's and Henrietta's complaining that the cost of them studying history and politics, art history, philosphy etc, is going to rise. Not one of them seem to be doing science, maths, engineering, you know; courses with value. Yes the cost of a degree is going to rise, but it seems only to affect people who want 3 years mucking around. If they wanted to work hard they would do engineering and basically have to do work hours plus homework to just keep up, which you could get a bursary to do as firms realise that it is hard to achieve. (Please feel free to substitute engineering with any science or Maths).

"Henry's and Henrietta's" won't be affected by this... And as for humanities not being as valuable as science and engineering....Rich Chasey (sp?) made a good case against that on some other thread somewhere. If you don't agree with that then theres nothing that can be said to convince you of an alternative opinion on the matter imo.

symo wrote:

If the police don't prosecute that idiot Charlie Gilmour for what he did to the Cenotaph then this country is seriously screwed. Protesting is fine but smashing up war memorials is totally unacceptable and beyond the pale, it shows a disrespect for the families of those who died in the two wars and it shows how little respect there seems to be in the country as a whole.

And whooosh, nobody is talking about the right (or otherwise) to free education any more... Much easier to talk about 'desecrated' war memorials and 'decline'... Thank you rioters!

rjsterry wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

IIRC the Countryside Alliance and Iraq War marches were both bigger (in terms of numbers) than the student protests, and they both managed to not smash things up - at least not to the extent that we have seen recently. Whilst such actions might be likely, they aren't inevitable.

Its no surprise that a march composed primarily of 15-21 yr olds is more likely to get out of hand than the Barbour & Tweed wearing, Archer's listening, Countryside Alliance crowd.... :P

I think you'll find they are a bit more varied than that - 400,000 of them turned up in London for a start - and not all 15-21 yr olds flee the countryside at the first opportunity. I'd guess that the Iraq War march had an even broader spectrum of participants, with plenty of properly angry people included.

Well it was a facile stereotype, but my point was that they weren't all students. They were organised better than that.

DonDaddyD wrote:

This is kinda my point, had that been a Tory Government invading Iraq all hell would have broken loose.

I don't agree with that, I don't think the ideology of the government matters as much as what they're actually doing. Labour didn't get an easy ride because they were "left wing". Those marches were more peaceful simply because it was a more diverse demographic. Also, it was a *much* larger protest. The police can't kettle hundreds of thousands of people.

Greg T

PresumingEd wrote:

It's not a coincidence that pretty much every demo and march that is kettled turns violent!

No it's not but you don't understand causality and correlation....

The first student protest wasn't kettled - given the benefit of the doubt and trusted not to create havoc. It kicked off without kettling. After that the anarchists and kids wanting a fun day of throwing stuff at coppers got into it and the potential for violence moved up to dead certain.

The anti war and countryside marches weren't kettled as they didn't need to be. There again - you'd need a LOT of coppers to kettle 400,000 people.....

You've got it 180 degrees wrong.

davmaggs

Seems to be a few people on here and on the phone-in shows getting massively over excited with over inflated outrage.

Thousands went on that march and Police are now looking for a dozen or so people. Even during the filmed fights (with rolling news trying hard) with the Police you'd be struggling to count that many people actually being involved.

Britain is not going to collapse, the Police can cope and the repairs can be done in a couple of hours. Get a grip. London has survived much more serious events without the weak livered whinning about anarchy or some idiot hanging off a flag.

PresumingEd

Greg T wrote:

PresumingEd wrote:

It's not a coincidence that pretty much every demo and march that is kettled turns violent!

No it's not but you don't understand causality and correlation....

The first student protest wasn't kettled - given the benefit of the doubt and trusted not to create havoc. It kicked off without kettling. After that the anarchists and kids wanting a fun day of throwing stuff at coppers got into it and the potential for violence moved up to dead certain.

The anti war and countryside marches weren't kettled as they didn't need to be. There again - you'd need a LOT of coppers to kettle 400,000 people.....

You've got it 180 degrees wrong.

Kettling causes peaceful protesters to become justifiably angry, which virtually guarantees some sort of violence kicking off. Therefore my point about causation is entirely valid. Just because some non-kettled protests also turn violent does not disprove my theory.


I actually think that there would have been some violence on all the demos regardless of police tactics. But I also believe that the police tactics made a bad situation worse