I predict more riots

rick_chasey

Greg T wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm suggesting that this is surprisingly similar to football issues which the police have soft, effective tactics for, where they do their upmost to stop aggrovating the situation. Anyone can see that that didn't happen this time, or at any other of the protests.

"Kettling", by its very term, aggrovates people.

Ultimately this will boil down to an ideological preference. I don't particularly feel empathy towards authority since they have a monopoly on power, and, in such an entrusted position, have the responsibilty to behave approprately. What we consider appropriate is cleraly different, since I feel they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, and alienated a lot of responsible people, as well as, in occasional specific instances, used their monopoly of power to do unjust things - humilating a disabled teenager - giving soemone else internal bleeding in the brain.

Other protests:

Countryside Alliance
Anti War
Tamil Sit in

and how many other protests have marched down Whitehall and not been kettled? Hundreds?

kettling didn't cause the aggro - teh aggro came first.

You offer no solution as to how to Police a riot / demo. Apart from rounding people up pre-emptively.

So right now - the tactics used seem to be the best available the violence was a dead certainty.

You can dislike the tactics all you like but you've got nothing better.

No, you've got it wrong. I'm refering to the two other tution fee protests.

I am entirely entitled to criticise policing methods without providing an alternative. I am not a policeman, so how can I offer one?

All I can do is look at how the police manage similar situations, like I have, and suggest perhpas that way would have been better.

The right to protest is a fundamental one, and limting one's rights, and making it difficult to exercise them under the auspice of 'public order' is dangerous.

Greg T

Rick Chasey wrote:

No, you've got it wrong. I'm refering to the two other tution fee protests.

I am entirely entitled to criticise policing methods without providing an alternative. I am not a policeman, so how can I offer one?

All I can do is look at how the police manage similar situations, like I have, and suggest perhpas that way would have been better.

The right to protest is a fundamental one, and limting one's rights, and making it difficult to exercise them under the auspice of 'public order' is dangerous.

Football crowds every weekend don't riot. They don't get kettled

First student protest did riot. Subsequent protests kettled as they were certain to cause trouble.

Your suggesting that these two protests / riots are the same as football matches just doesn't hold water.

so

I am entirely entitled to criticise policing methods without providing an alternative

Kettling is it then - and you swallow your unease.

rick_chasey

Greg T wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

No, you've got it wrong. I'm refering to the two other tution fee protests.

I am entirely entitled to criticise policing methods without providing an alternative. I am not a policeman, so how can I offer one?

All I can do is look at how the police manage similar situations, like I have, and suggest perhpas that way would have been better.

The right to protest is a fundamental one, and limting one's rights, and making it difficult to exercise them under the auspice of 'public order' is dangerous.

Football crowds every weekend don't riot. They don't get kettled

First student protest did riot. Subsequent protests kettled as they were certain to cause trouble.

Your suggesting that these two protests / riots are the same as football matches just doesn't hold water.

so

I am entirely entitled to criticise policing methods without providing an alternative

Kettling is it then - and you swallow your unease.

I disagree fudnamentally with your logic. Why not say to the police "you can't ketlte, you find an alternative, since that's your job" like the EU might, who are considering whether 'kettling' is in fact legal or not.

You're just being facetious for the sake of the argument.

Greg T

Rick Chasey wrote:

I disagree fudnamentally with your logic. Why not say to the police "you can't ketlte, you find an alternative, since that's your job" like the EU might, who are considering whether 'kettling' is in fact legal or not.

You're just being facetious for the sake of the argument.

Might

and

I'm not being facetious - just realistic. I'm pragmatically looking at how to police a demo / riot better and between us we haven't come up with anything.

If kettling is deemed illegal then a new best-worst tactic will have to be devised.

If.

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ultimately this will boil down to an ideological preference. I don't particularly feel empathy towards authority since they have a monopoly on power, and, in such an entrusted position, have the responsibilty to behave approprately. What we consider appropriate is cleraly different, since I feel they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, and alienated a lot of responsible people, as well as, in occasional specific instances, used their monopoly of power to do unjust things

This. Greg and W1 would be arguing differently if they empathised with the protesters. They don't, so the argument is about how to most effectively control the 'inevitable' rioting. Personally I think a more pressing concern is how the police can facilitate legitimate protest without humiliating the people they're meant to be protecting. Thats their job. Its hard, but they should at least try. Kettling clearly isn't helping at all.

Of course, if you think the students don't have a leg to stand on, and should head back home to watch Countdown, then you would have no sympathy with any of the above

Clever Pun

Rick Chasey wrote:

A few things.

Firstly, your maths - I'd assume a team of police can arrest more than one rioter per protest?

Secondly - like in football, can't the police identify them before they turn up? Sort it out that way?

If they are serious and frequent rioters, which many seemed to be, why can they not pick them up before?

Especially after one or two protests, it should be clear how it/they works.

isn't that a bit minority report?

with footy thugs they can remove their passport but they don't stop them going to matches from my understanding

I feel the link to football is a little stretched as the fans are after each other and stay away from the fuzz rather than confront them

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Greg and W1 would be arguing differently if they empathised with the protesters.

On my behalf, you're entirely incorrect NSB.

W1

bails87 wrote:

"Violence is a bad idea" isn't massive news. Seeing a police van getting trashed is more interesting. It's like when people talk about religious extremists and say "well where are all the so called moderate people who are against violence, you don't hear them speaking out do you?".

Except if you looked for it, you'd find it. But reporters show the interesting/shocking stuff. A hook handed maniac shouting "death to the infidels" is more interesting than a moderate religious leader saying "we don't agree with him, don't listen to what he says". It's the same with people not taking part in the violence, or telling others not to.

I can just see the headlines: "Police not attacked as students don't riot"

I'm sure you can provide some links where student bodies publically condemned the violence and vandalism last week then? Because the NUS were notably quiet compared to the first demonstration (presumably because Mr Porter received a backlash from his more "active" members have denounced the violence at the first protest).

"Student bodies" have had the opportunity to publically take a stance against the hi-jacking of their cause. They are often represented in interviews. It's expressly notable how few take that opportunity to condemn the rioters.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

...used their monopoly of power to do unjust things - humilating a disabled teenager - giving soemone else internal bleeding in the brain.

I presume that you have nothing but anecdotal evidence to support this contention too?

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Greg and W1 would be arguing differently if they empathised with the protesters.

On my behalf, you're entirely incorrect NSB.

Then I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? If you're not of the opinion that they shouldn't be protesting at all, then all you appear to be doing is arguing that a proportion of the people at the protest were there to riot, the protest wasn't organised very well and more could have been done by student representatives to condemn the rioters. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. So all that leaves is for people to go back and forth about things none of us can really know like the size of the proportions (and relevence of same) of people who turned up to riot and those that could be instigated to riot by rioters or kettling tactics.

Seems a bit pointless really :S

What would be interesting to know is what you think could be done by the protesters to minimise the unsavoury elements that wish to use their exercising of their right to protest as cover for "f*cking sh*t up". Because to me thats the real issue. People's civil rights are being damaged by people like the fella in the wheelchair who are giving the police cause to crack down.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

...used their monopoly of power to do unjust things - humilating a disabled teenager - giving soemone else internal bleeding in the brain.

I presume that you have nothing but anecdotal evidence to support this contention too?

I've given you the footage of the disabled kid.

As for the internal bleeding?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11972771

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Greg and W1 would be arguing differently if they empathised with the protesters.

On my behalf, you're entirely incorrect NSB.

Then I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? If you're not of the opinion that they shouldn't be protesting at all, then all you appear to be doing is arguing that a proportion of the people at the protest were there to riot, the protest wasn't organised very well and more could have been done by student representatives to condemn the rioters. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. So all that leaves is for people to go back and forth about things none of us can really know like the size of the proportions (and relevence of same) of people who turned up to riot and those that could be instigated to riot by rioters or kettling tactics.

Seems a bit pointless really :S

What would be interesting to know is what you think could be done by the protesters to minimise the unsavoury elements that wish to use their exercising of their right to protest as cover for "f*cking sh*t up". Because to me thats the real issue. People's civil rights are being damaged by people like the fella in the wheelchair who are giving the police cause to crack down.

Most internet arguments are pointlness! Doesn't make them uninteresting though. Most are equally uninformed, and can therefore only be opinion, which I presume you'll allow me to have and express?

I've never expressed that they shouldn't be protesting, much as you seem to have liked me to have done.

For the record, I'm making the point to Rick Chasey that there were evidently more than !a few" rioters, and to bails87 that there haven't in fact been many public condemnations of the rioters' actions by the student bodies which they purportedly represented by their attendance. Is that allowed?

I agree that it's an issue, and I don't have the solution. But - registering proposed marchers (with the organisers); increasing the number of marshalls provided by the organisers; co-operating with the police to arrest those guilty; discouraging the wearing of face-masks; discouraging the inciteful rhetoric of student bodies; and public and widespread condemnation for the actions of the rioters would be a start. But this really is the problem of the student bodies, and if they were really keen to get their message accross and minimise the violence then I think they could and should have done more. The fact that they didn't and haven't implies to me that in fact they are pleased for the publicity, which in turn shows their immaturity and inability to consider how their protests have been perceived.

If we're in for practical tips then, what do you propose?

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

...used their monopoly of power to do unjust things - humilating a disabled teenager - giving soemone else internal bleeding in the brain.

I presume that you have nothing but anecdotal evidence to support this contention too?

I've given you the footage of the disabled kid.

As for the internal bleeding?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11972771

The footage proves neither "unjust things" nor "humiliation". Ditto the BBC article. Unless you're actually privy to the as yet unwritten reports into these matters?

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

...used their monopoly of power to do unjust things - humilating a disabled teenager - giving soemone else internal bleeding in the brain.

I presume that you have nothing but anecdotal evidence to support this contention too?

I've given you the footage of the disabled kid.

As for the internal bleeding?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11972771

The footage proves neither "unjust things" nor "humiliation". Ditto the BBC article. Unless you're actually privy to the as yet unwritten reports into these matters?

I consider the footage to he humiliating. You may not - police manhandling a disabled guy out a wheelchair probably goes under 'policework' in your eyes.

The injury is widely reported to be the result of a police truncheon. The police don't investigate these so seriously without serious allegations . I can't remember a time when the police investigated something like that and it wasn't found to be true.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

I agree that it's an issue, and I don't have the solution. But - registering proposed marchers (with the organisers); increasing the number of marshalls provided by the organisers; co-operating with the police to arrest those guilty; discouraging the wearing of face-masks; discouraging the inciteful rhetoric of student bodies; and public and widespread condemnation for the actions of the rioters would be a start. But this really is the problem of the student bodies, and if they were really keen to get their message accross and minimise the violence then I think they could and should have done more. The fact that they didn't and haven't implies to me that in fact they are pleased for the publicity, which in turn shows their immaturity and inability to consider how their protests have been perceived.

If we're in for practical tips then, what do you propose?

Sounds rather closer to a police state than I would be comfortable with.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

...used their monopoly of power to do unjust things - humilating a disabled teenager - giving soemone else internal bleeding in the brain.

I presume that you have nothing but anecdotal evidence to support this contention too?

I've given you the footage of the disabled kid.

As for the internal bleeding?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11972771

The footage proves neither "unjust things" nor "humiliation". Ditto the BBC article. Unless you're actually privy to the as yet unwritten reports into these matters?

I consider the footage to he humiliating. You may not - police manhandling a disabled guy out a wheelchair probably goes under 'policework' in your eyes.

The injury is widely reported to be the result of a police truncheon. The police don't investigate these so seriously without serious allegations . I can't remember a time when the police investigated something like that and it wasn't found to be true.

You are fully aware that that is not what the footage shows.

I'm not saying the brain injury wasn't the result of a police baton. I'm saying that nothing I've seen so far proves your statement that it was "unjust". But bearing in mind you've already made your mind up, I'm not surprised that you've already fallen hook, line and sinker for these "sob" stories. You do appreciate, I hope, that it's entirely possible that the actions of the police in both cases was entirely "just"? Probably not, actually. In which case there's not much point in arguing further.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

I agree that it's an issue, and I don't have the solution. But - registering proposed marchers (with the organisers); increasing the number of marshalls provided by the organisers; co-operating with the police to arrest those guilty; discouraging the wearing of face-masks; discouraging the inciteful rhetoric of student bodies; and public and widespread condemnation for the actions of the rioters would be a start. But this really is the problem of the student bodies, and if they were really keen to get their message accross and minimise the violence then I think they could and should have done more. The fact that they didn't and haven't implies to me that in fact they are pleased for the publicity, which in turn shows their immaturity and inability to consider how their protests have been perceived.

If we're in for practical tips then, what do you propose?

Sounds rather closer to a police state than I would be comfortable with.

Well as none of the suggestions above include the police, I don't know how you reached that conclusion. It's all to do with the student bodies organising the protest, who should be more enthusiastic than anyone that theur message isn't hi-jacked and drowned out.

UpTheWall

Come in late to this interesting one, but...

While the police have to keep order they do not need new powers. There are countless proven examples of them abusing them.

I've seen first hand the unprovoked violence of police at demonstrations and it's not a pretty sight.

Both "sides" are not perfect as they're made up of people. And some people step over the line.

New rules don't change things, new attitudes do...

bails87

W1 The president of the NUS called the violence "despicable". That's condemning it isn't it?

He also said:

"I want to be clear and unequivocal in my support of student led, non-violent protest," Mr Porter wrote.

He said those carrying out occupations and planning protests should work through their students' union, ensure their actions are "aimed firmly and squarely at MPs" and carry out their activity "without violence or damage to property".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11862191

W1

bails87 wrote:

W1 The president of the NUS called the violence "despicable". That's condemning it isn't it?

He also said:

"I want to be clear and unequivocal in my support of student led, non-violent protest," Mr Porter wrote.

He said those carrying out occupations and planning protests should work through their students' union, ensure their actions are "aimed firmly and squarely at MPs" and carry out their activity "without violence or damage to property".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11862191

Yep, and his student mates are now trying to oust him for it. But have you got anything with regards to last week's riot (as mentioned in my post above)? That article is dated 29th November. My impression is that his initial stance was the right one, but that he's become less vocal (rather than more vocal) to try to save his job./skin when faced with more "active" members of the NUS.

bails87

W1 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

W1 The president of the NUS called the violence "despicable". That's condemning it isn't it?

He also said:

"I want to be clear and unequivocal in my support of student led, non-violent protest," Mr Porter wrote.

He said those carrying out occupations and planning protests should work through their students' union, ensure their actions are "aimed firmly and squarely at MPs" and carry out their activity "without violence or damage to property".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11862191

Yep, and his student mates are now trying to oust him for it. But have you got anything with regards to last week's riot (as mentioned in my post above)? That article is dated 29th November. My impression is that his initial stance was the right one, but that he's become less vocal (rather than more vocal) to try to save his job./skin when faced with more "active" members of the NUS.

The first result for "NUS condemn violence" on google is a video on the BBC site of the same guy apparently "condemning the violence". I can't watch it because the work filters block it. That link was the second, I checked the dat e for the first one, but not the second.

we condemn the violence

The words of Aaron Porter on the 13th December.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 ... ident-fees

W1

bails87 wrote:

W1 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

W1 The president of the NUS called the violence "despicable". That's condemning it isn't it?

He also said:

"I want to be clear and unequivocal in my support of student led, non-violent protest," Mr Porter wrote.

He said those carrying out occupations and planning protests should work through their students' union, ensure their actions are "aimed firmly and squarely at MPs" and carry out their activity "without violence or damage to property".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11862191

Yep, and his student mates are now trying to oust him for it. But have you got anything with regards to last week's riot (as mentioned in my post above)? That article is dated 29th November. My impression is that his initial stance was the right one, but that he's become less vocal (rather than more vocal) to try to save his job./skin when faced with more "active" members of the NUS.

The first result for "NUS condemn violence" on google is a video on the BBC site of the same guy apparently "condemning the violence". I can't watch it because the work filters block it. That link was the second, I checked the dat e for the first one, but not the second.

we condemn the violence

The words of Aaron Porter on the 13th December.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 ... ident-fees

It's interesting that reading the rest of that article, he doesn't really condemn the violence at all.....If students really did condemn the violence and understand how it has undermined their cause, he should have the courage to be much much more vocal. But instead he's using tokenistic words to attempt to keep his job. It will be a very interesting indicator as to (in reality) how many students actually supported the violence if he gets ousted for initially condemning it. The fact that he's stepped away from that is very telling as to where the balance of support in the NUS is.

I'm amazed there isn't a pro-student body which has risen to oppose the violent activists and properly condemn their behaviour. It just shows how (a) students are out of touch with the impact of the riots and 9b) that actually they aren't perhaps as peaceful as some on here think they are....

UpTheWall

Is it really Aaron's job to continually condemn the violence in every article he writes and every appearance he makes?

I mean, he's condemned it publicly plenty of times.

Seems like a diversion from the real issues to me....

W1

UpTheWall wrote:

Is it really Aaron's job to continually condemn the violence in every article he writes and every appearance he makes?

I mean, he's condemned it publicly plenty of times.

Seems like a diversion from the real issues to me....

Yes, if that's the opinion of the students that he represents. I think the hi-jacking of the issue by the rioters (and the drowning of the debate) not to mention public opinion is absolutely key.

If it's not the opinion of the student population, then no, of course not.

As I said, it will be interesting to see whether it costs him his job or not.

bails87

UpTheWall wrote:

Is it really Aaron's job to continually condemn the violence in every article he writes and every appearance he makes?

I mean, he's condemned it publicly plenty of times.

Seems like a diversion from the real issues to me....

Exactly. I don't really know what you want, W1. Should he come out every time a student does something wrong and apologise, but really mean it, not just in a tokenistic way? He's said it enough times, clearly the people who want to cause trouble aren't listening, what would saying it again and again acheive? The violence is wrong, personally I think the police tactics are wrong, but I'm not going to pretend that I'm a crowd control expert so I'm not coming up with alternatives. They are better than lot's of other country's police though, to give them praise when it's due. But then look at the ratio of injured police vs protesters in these riots vs the ones in Rome yesterday, the casualties seem to be much more skewed towards the protesters here. Maybe that's because rioters are hurting themselves rather than the police, who knows.

Oh, and I condemn the violence. I mean really condemn it.

d87heaven

Some interesting photos of the riots here ...........
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/12/london_tuition_fee_protest.html

notsoblue

d87heaven wrote:

Some interesting photos of the riots here ...........
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/12/london_tuition_fee_protest.html

Great comment:

There is absolutely a fair and balanced opposition to these tuition increases, and the cutting of humanities programs is a grave issue, especially when we consider that the current government promised not to do so. And I don't think the situation should be compared to the one in the US, as people who go to $55,000 colleges choose to do so (we have plenty of in-state and community colleges under $10,00/year).
But the Big Picture has not covered this side of the argument, because it has been unfortunately silenced by the idiocy and vanity of the people in these pictures. They are happily taking out their pent-up anger on inappropriate targets (what on Earth did Prince Charles or the Parliament buildings have to do with your tuition raises? Attacking symbols does not give your argument more validity). They are counterproductive, giving UK students a bad name throughout Parliament, the country, and the world.
Well done, you jerks--you deserve everything you get, and I'm only sorry for your calmer classmates (not pictured) who don't actually deserve tuition hikes and program cuts.

With regards to Aaron Porter apologising/not apologising/not apologising profusely enough, does it matter? Will him apologising prevent anarchists from turning up at protests?

W1

bails87 wrote:

UpTheWall wrote:

Is it really Aaron's job to continually condemn the violence in every article he writes and every appearance he makes?

I mean, he's condemned it publicly plenty of times.

Seems like a diversion from the real issues to me....

Exactly. I don't really know what you want, W1. D

I want to know what the majority of students think. I also want to know how to ensure that peaceful protests in future aren't hi-jacked by those intent on causing trouble, as it undermines any message being put forward.

To the first point, Mr Porter's stance is absolutely key to understanding whether, in fact, the majority of students actually agree with the violence and vandalism that took place. If they do, then Porter will be out - and any claims that the majority of students favour peaceful protest can be ignored. If they don't, then Porter should be doing an awful lot more to distance the "peaceful majority" from the yobs. It really is telling that there has been so little condemnation from the student community when in fact it's their cause that has been damaged and undermined....

To my second, who knows? I've put forward some suggestions.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

I want to know what the majority of students think.

What do you get the impression that they think?

W1 wrote:

I also want to know how to ensure that peaceful protests in future aren't hi-jacked by those intent on causing trouble, as it undermines any message being put forward.

*snip*

Porter should be doing an awful lot more to distance the "peaceful majority" from the yobs.

I get the impression that most people in this thread agree with you on these two important points. I'm struggling to figure out why you still keep up this campaign of arguing around the margins though...

W1 wrote:

It really is telling that there has been so little condemnation from the student community when in fact it's their cause that has been damaged and undermined....

I think you credit the "student community" with far too high a level of organisation, maturity and cohesiveness....