Viva la Revolución

MountainMonster

sheepsteeth wrote:

you're not allowed in, you thought it was good that the royal family got attacked because they are rich.

HAHAHHAHAHAHA. Dude get off your high moral horse.

"The police can do as they please"

I've never heard a load of crock bigger than that. Let's say in another situation someone who doesn't feel right about the way they have been treated, or their opinion doesn't matter and they do something about it. I'm not saying anything violent, anything offensive, or anything vulgar. The police choose to forcefully remove someone from somewhere where they have the right to be, and this causes injury to the person even though they are legally allowed to be there. Are you still for police can do as they please? What if it was you?

Now I see where you get the name sheep from. You're nothing but a little sheeple following whatever the government says or the media says.

Protest is a right of every person, whether you agree with the principles at stake. Sure you don't care about tuition hikes or anything cause you are older, but imagine the people who this does effect. If you were about to go into university, or are in university, and the government says "oh sorry we made a mistake, and now we need to triple your costs to get our money back". Would you be happy? Not at all. Protest is one of the ways to get the government to listen.

Of course none of the rich care, and none of the royal family care. No matter what happens with the economy their whole family will be guaranteed a place at Cambridge just because of who they are. It was their own fault for driving through a protest which had already shown some sign of violence. The government wants to not care about the average person, then why should the average person care about the government?

sheepsteeth

dont talk so gay.

MountainMonster

So there is nothing remotely intelligent you can say other than "don't talk so gay".

It's amazing how blinded you guys are.

MountainMonster

Ah double post somehow.

sheepsteeth

im intelligent enough not have posted twice.

from what i can gather, you're a foreign student who doesnt live in the uk?

so what the fuck has it got to do with you anyway?

montevideoguy

MountainMonster I would direct you to this quote:

"Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry is own weight, this is a frightening prospect."
Eleanor Roosevelt

That's the point I'm getting at. You have the freedom to protest but it's about doing it in the right way. if you don't then put simply you get what you deserve (and as i tried to allude to before, you can't realistically expect the police to be able to cherry pick all the buttfaces who have been causing the violence out).

I see it similar to all those protests you had with liverpool fans and man U fans about their owners. They're all for being loud and shouty but what's the point? Stop going to the games and that would inflict more damage than anything on them (anything is better than marching from the pub they were drinking in anyway to the game they were going to anyway)





(yes I listen to Football Weekly)

CraigXXL

MountainMonster wrote:

Protest is a right of every person, whether you agree with the principles at stake. Sure you don't care about tuition hikes or anything cause you are older, but imagine the people who this does effect. If you were about to go into university, or are in university, and the government says "oh sorry we made a mistake, and now we need to triple your costs to get our money back". Would you be happy? Not at all. Protest is one of the ways to get the government to listen.

Of course none of the rich care, and none of the royal family care. No matter what happens with the economy their whole family will be guaranteed a place at Cambridge just because of who they are. It was their own fault for driving through a protest which had already shown some sign of violence. The government wants to not care about the average person, then why should the average person care about the government?

Protest marches have to be given permission with the areas they want march to and when. That was a law created under the last government. The protestors can not change the route once they set off and the police must keep them to that route and within the times even if this means forcing them back as the police must think about the public safety and ensuring they can go about their daily business.
The goverment has pledged more money and resources to primary schools to ensure they can leave school able to read and write. This money has got to come from somewhere and not enough taxes are available so it has to cut from elsewhere. I would rather have more people able to do the basics instead of being written off than someone going to Uni to get a degree in the arts or something that doesn't affect the population as much. I think that is thinking more for the average man than you do.

MountainMonster

Wow, so clicking one button, a server messing up and double posting now means i'm not smart. Wow, great head on your shoulders.

As it goes, I have already completed my studies at Cambridge through Jesus college, and am only here in Austria pursuing a masters because my wife lives here. My family still lives in the U.K., the majority of my friends as well who are in University or are going to be going soon are now having to leave because they don't feel comfortable getting themselves into so much debt now.

Montevideoguy

I will counter your trying to cherry pick the buttfaces who have been causing violence point.

As with any demonstration, there will always be violence because the low lifes within the area will see it as an excuse to start it. That says nothing of the people who are there for its true cause. This happens in every country, every walk of life, irregardless of what the cause at stake is.

The point is the ones who are there for the true purpose, and not to inflict violence on anyone or destroy any property are the ones doing the right thing. The same thing can't be said for the ones who are there to do that. But that is inevitable.

cooldad

@Mountainmonster - it does effect me. I am poor, and have a son doing GCSE's. In a few years, just as the change comes in he will be going to university. I still disagree with any violence being used, and frankly as a country we are in deep financial poo and it's going to take a lot of digging to get out of it. That the coalition is working is better than a few years of petty bickering.
As for the rest of what you said, you are speaking crap. When you grow up a bit you will find that anarchism doesn't work in real life.

cooldad

ps Craig - I don't think Sheeps wrote what you quoted him as saying. You might find yourself in a ditch.

MountainMonster

cooldad wrote:

@Mountainmonster - it does effect me. I am poor, and have a son doing GCSE's. In a few years, just as the change comes in he will be going to university. I still disagree with any violence being used, and frankly as a country we are in deep financial poo and it's going to take a lot of digging to get out of it. That the coalition is working is better than a few years of petty bickering.
As for the rest of what you said, you are speaking crap. When you grow up a bit you will find that anarchism doesn't work in real life.

May I ask in what way am I promoting anarchism? By saying that the violent protesters are enevitable? How does that promote anarchism? In no way does that state I am promoting their behaviour? I'm stating that there is a given freedom to protest and that I condone the ones who are doing it properly.

While yes, the country is in a deficit, just like many countries are at the moment. This does effect many people, and i'm saying that I support the students who are protesting for the right cause, not out there just to cause violence.

Mate I have grown up, get off your high horse as well.

montevideoguy

I don't argue that point. What I do say though is that it's wrong to expect the police to be able to discriminate between who is causing the violence and who isn't when it is so easy for the troublemakers to blend back into the crowd. It's now possible to get more of these people after the fact with cameras and stuff but at the point of it happening less so. The protesters should do more to point out the ones ruining it for them. They don't though.

That stays away from my wider point though that the protests themselves are pointless and the people taking part will inevitably end up greasing the wheels of the parties at the heart of it (either by voting or joining). Where is wider alternative they propose?


Also as a quick question. All these people against the cuts... as we can't live with that level of debt imposed on us what can we do without making cuts? Short of devoting a chunk of our GDP to winning various lottos in other countries I am stumped.

sheepsteeth

MountainMonster wrote:

Wow, so clicking one button, a server messing up and double posting now means i'm not smart.

yes

MountainMonster wrote:

Wow, great head on your shoulders.

thanks, its pretty good.

CraigXXL

I don't know how that happened as it came up with a server error when I posted. 2 minutes and I'll correct it.

MountainMonster

Montevideoguy wrote:

I don't argue that point. What I do say though is that it's wrong to expect the police to be able to discriminate between who is causing the violence and who isn't when it is so easy for the troublemakers to blend back into the crowd. It's now possible to get more of these people after the fact with cameras and stuff but at the point of it happening less so. The protesters should do more to point out the ones ruining it for them. They don't though.

That stays away from my wider point though that the protests themselves are pointless and the people taking part will inevitably end up greasing the wheels of the parties at the heart of it (either by voting or joining). Where is wider alternative they propose?


Also as a quick question. All these people against the cuts... as we can't live with that level of debt imposed on us what can we do without making cuts? Short of devoting a chunk of our GDP to winning various lottos in other countries I am stumped.

Believe me, I fully understand your point, and in a way support it regarding the violent protesters. What i'm simply stating is that while it is hard, it can be done, even after the fact. Many of the violent ones show up to other protests acting in exactly the same way with the police knowing who they are without doing much. They react to the other people in the crowds not helping things much, and the ones who are doing the real harm basically walk free. The violent ones are normally the "professional protesters".

As far as you sheeps, i'm apalled by you. So far your whole argument has been "stop talking gay" or something of the like. You once had a bit of respect in my book of the forum members, but being unable to justify anything you say, or even provide anything useful has dropped that. Of course it doesn't matter because it's just the internet, but I hope your able to speak a bit better in real life than you do on here.

sheepsteeth

seriously, stop talking so gay.

MountainMonster

LOL

montevideoguy

Here's the problem though. While you can identify them after the fact it makes it pointless for the there and then. You're also correct about people being professional protesters and it would be easier to get them before they turned up. Then though we go into the iffy area of detaining people before they have committed a crime. They'd sue the shit out the government using human rights laws about that

cooldad

MountainMonster wrote:

May I ask in what way am I promoting anarchism? By saying that the violent protesters are enevitable? How does that promote anarchism? In no way does that state I am promoting their behaviour? I'm stating that there is a given freedom to protest and that I condone the ones who are doing it properly.
Mate I have grown up, get off your high horse as well.

You said this:
"The government wants to not care about the average person, then why should the average person care about the government?"

Simply because the alternative is Somalia.
And rather a high horse than a rocking horse.

montevideoguy

cooldad wrote:

MountainMonster wrote:

May I ask in what way am I promoting anarchism? By saying that the violent protesters are enevitable? How does that promote anarchism? In no way does that state I am promoting their behaviour? I'm stating that there is a given freedom to protest and that I condone the ones who are doing it properly.
Mate I have grown up, get off your high horse as well.

You said this:
"The government wants to not care about the average person, then why should the average person care about the government?"

Simply because the alternative is Somalia.
And rather a high horse than a rocking horse.

Bad example.

Somalia has lots of pirates

Pirates are fucking cool


What would you rather do? be a media studies student or go pirating?

sheepsteeth

cooldad wrote:

MountainMonster wrote:

May I ask in what way am I promoting anarchism? By saying that the violent protesters are enevitable? How does that promote anarchism? In no way does that state I am promoting their behaviour? I'm stating that there is a given freedom to protest and that I condone the ones who are doing it properly.
Mate I have grown up, get off your high horse as well.

You said this:
"The government wants to not care about the average person, then why should the average person care about the government?"

Simply because the alternative is Somalia.
And rather a high horse than a rocking horse.

mountain monster: this is why your responses have illicited retarded responses from me.

you are talking like larry large spuds about the right to protest and whatnot, no one thinks people shouldnt protest, the sensible non retarded folk just believe it should be peaceful.

you think the rich deserve to have their car smashed up because this cause doesnt affect them: this is about as retarded an opinion as i have ever read.

cooldad

MountainMonster wrote:

As far as you sheeps, i'm apalled by you. So far your whole argument has been "stop talking gay" or something of the like. You once had a bit of respect in my book of the forum members, but being unable to justify anything you say, or even provide anything useful has dropped that. Of course it doesn't matter because it's just the internet, but I hope your able to speak a bit better in real life than you do on here.

He doesn't. He's a foul mouthed knuckle dragging hairy backed neanderthal. But if you re-read what he originally said, and ignore the bit about shooting people, you will say it was actually reasonable and made sense.
This is crudcatcher - only Andy is allowed to talk gay.

MountainMonster

cooldad wrote:

MountainMonster wrote:

May I ask in what way am I promoting anarchism? By saying that the violent protesters are enevitable? How does that promote anarchism? In no way does that state I am promoting their behaviour? I'm stating that there is a given freedom to protest and that I condone the ones who are doing it properly.
Mate I have grown up, get off your high horse as well.

You said this:
"The government wants to not care about the average person, then why should the average person care about the government?"

Simply because the alternative is Somalia.
And rather a high horse than a rocking horse.

That was in relation to the rocks or whatever it was, being thrown at the car with Charles in it.

I'm saying if the government doesn't want to care about how this is going to effect the generation that is going to matter in the coming future, and then they make the mistake of driving through the protests with royal family in a Rolls Royce, why should they not have rocks thrown at them. This is not condoning the violent peoples actions, this is saying that it was their own fault for driving through the area, when they are in essence the people the students are protesting against.

Maybe read a bit into what I said before saying grow up.

MountainMonster

sheepsteeth wrote:

cooldad wrote:

MountainMonster wrote:

May I ask in what way am I promoting anarchism? By saying that the violent protesters are enevitable? How does that promote anarchism? In no way does that state I am promoting their behaviour? I'm stating that there is a given freedom to protest and that I condone the ones who are doing it properly.
Mate I have grown up, get off your high horse as well.

You said this:
"The government wants to not care about the average person, then why should the average person care about the government?"

Simply because the alternative is Somalia.
And rather a high horse than a rocking horse.

mountain monster: this is why your responses have illicited retarded responses from me.

you are talking like larry large spuds about the right to protest and whatnot, no one thinks people shouldnt protest, the sensible non retarded folk just believe it should be peaceful.

you think the rich deserve to have their car smashed up because this cause doesnt affect them: this is about as retarded an opinion as i have ever read.

I refer you to post my post above.

cooldad

MountainMonster wrote:

I'm saying if the government doesn't want to care about how this is going to effect the generation that is going to matter in the coming future, and then they make the mistake of driving through the protests with royal family in a Rolls Royce, why should they not have rocks thrown at them. This is not condoning the violent peoples actions, this is saying that it was their own fault for driving through the area, when they are in essence the people the students are protesting against.

Absolute balls. A person has every right to drive down the road without rocks being thrown at them, whether in a Rolls or my own crap car. End of.

sheepsteeth

MountainMonster wrote:

That was in relation to the rocks or whatever it was, being thrown at the car with Charles in it.

I'm saying if the government doesn't want to care about how this is going to effect the generation that is going to matter in the coming future, and then they make the mistake of driving through the protests with royal family in a Rolls Royce, why should they not have rocks thrown at them. This is not condoning the violent peoples actions, this is saying that it was their own fault for driving through the area, when they are in essence the people the students are protesting against.

Maybe read a bit into what I said before saying grow up.

and all im saying is that the people who get charged by horses and beaten by shields are deserved of such behaviour because it is their own fault for being in the area.

dont be such a fucking retard.

no one is protesting against the royal family, you retard.

sheepsteeth

by your logic these folks got what they deserved too

alexj2233

sheepsteeth wrote:

and all im saying is that the people who get charged by horses and beaten by shields are deserved of such behaviour because it is their own fault for being in the area.
.

Oh what a load of BS. So because some peaceful protesters were in the area of violent criminals they deserve to be beaten up.

By your logic those folks shouldn't have been in the area.

sheepsteeth

alexj2233 wrote:

sheepsteeth wrote:

and all im saying is that the people who get charged by horses and beaten by shields are deserved of such behaviour because it is their own fault for being in the area.
.

Oh what a load of BS. So because some peaceful protesters were in the area of violent criminals they deserve to be beaten up.

By your logic those folks shouldn't have been in the area.

you might have missed the point of my post you retard.

i was suggesting that no one is guilty and deserves the anger of a mob by their very presence. but this only suits mountains opinion when it is in favour of his argument.

he is saying its ok for the royals to get vandalised because they find themselves in the middle of a protest but its not ok for innocent peacful protesters to get injured for being in the middle of a protest.

complete nonsense.

Pudseyp

alexj2233 wrote:

Really? shoot them. Good one

But there was a bias towards the violence, when i watched the BBC news story on it, whilst they did interview peaceful protesters they still focused on the police casualties, little mention of student casualties due to police tactics.

Utter crap...just because you wear a jacket with Police on it doesn't mean you have to take abuse and have missiles thrown at you...if it wasn't for th knobheads who caused the trouble there wouldn't have been any casualities in the first place...as for student casualties there wassn't enough of them for my liking...