|
Post by blum on Dec 10, 2010 12:43:50 GMT 1
The goverment now should NOT allow anyone with a criminal recold to get any benefit towards higher education.That will sort the idiots out. do you not think it better to educate idiots? Not always IMO I know many people (and I am talking double figures) that have been to Uni and studied something pathetic at the expense of the tax payer, however, after 3 - 5 years they now do nothing like what they studied for, is that cost effective or is it just a case that they can say "I went to Uni?" Not all of these are idiots, however, the general topic of conversation regarding Uni is - What a breeze, beats work etc. etc. With regards students with criminal records, of course they should be allowed further education, however, who pays for it?
|
|
|
Post by simianus on Dec 10, 2010 13:15:10 GMT 1
Marcus if you think that is right then find me some proof.I had to have 2 CRB checks before i starte my job with surestart and now i had to have another crb check since i got the job with the Shropshire F.A. I dont belive for 1 min that people with criminal recolds would be able to work in the NHS or be teachers esp people with recolds for rioting and assult on the police. there are different levels of crb check, yours will have been an enhanced one and rightly so. but it is only in cases where vulnerable people are involved in the job(children, elderly people, adults with learning dis). maybe things have changed, but i am pretty sure that a criminal record doesn't necessarily bar you from employment within the nhs . it may make it more difficult but i dont think it stops people. p.s. you have google if you want to check
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2010 13:21:13 GMT 1
do you not think it better to educate idiots? Not always IMO I know many people (and I am talking double figures) that have been to Uni and studied something pathetic at the expense of the tax payer, however, after 3 - 5 years they now do nothing like what they studied for, is that cost effective or is it just a case that they can say "I went to Uni?" Not all of these are idiots, however, the general topic of conversation regarding Uni is - What a breeze, beats work etc. etc. With regards students with criminal records, of course they should be allowed further education, however, who pays for it? Provided a reasonable standard of the basics is achieved, any form of education right up to degree level should be there to broaden the mind. It should never be confined down a narrow tunnel to a particular career, that is with a few exceptions such as medicine. (People who study this do it by choice, anyway). Too many people today adhere to the view of "the cost rather than the value". By and large, students today work far harder than they did in mine.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Dec 10, 2010 14:43:51 GMT 1
I went to the protest yesterday with a coach load of students. I can tell you now that while there were some trouble makers in the group the media is covering the police up in all of this. I went peacefully to demonstrate but once police kettled us in people became angry and the police began hitting innocent people with batterns. This annoyed more and more students and once the horses charged all support for the police was gone. We were cold, tired and just wanted to leave however the police made this near impossible. As police tried to kettle everyone in and push us all closer together we all started to get crushed and people at the front couldn't move back anymore and just kept getting hit. While I condemn what happened with the rioting the police are as much to blame although this won't make the news, I saw one women chanting a bonfire chant and got pulled out of her wheelchair and hit by two policemen with battens. If the police want our respect and support then they should treat us with respect, I did not get involved in the direct action but anger comes from the police's actions and attitudes. Love the 'its never us its always them' attitude. Who said that? Not scarecrow, he said 'I can tell you now that while there were some trouble makers in the group...' Why are you mis-representing him?
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Dec 10, 2010 14:50:26 GMT 1
Love the 'its never us its always them' attitude. Who said that? Not scarecrow, he said 'I can tell you now that while there were some trouble makers in the group...' Why are you mis-representing him? Am I? He also said that if the Police want our respect and support then they should show us respect. From what I saw from the students there was little of either shown to the police. Thus my comment.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Dec 10, 2010 14:55:32 GMT 1
Of course it is a right for people (peacefully) to demonstrate at perceived wrongs. It is not however an excuse to assault other persons or property. I would ask the students involved before marching to come up with a detailed plan of where the money should come from should we (and lets not forget it is you and I the tax payer) not continue to fund their chosen career paths. I also disagree that further education is a God given right. I should also point out that the cost in finance alone will run into hundreds of thousands for yesterdays events. Lets see who will have to pay for that...ermm yep the good old tax payer. Those students studying economics might tell the others that this may result in even less money being available elsewhere. Finally it makes me laugh that people attack the Liberals for joining a coalition with the Conservatives. Lets not Forget that the party that came second (Labour) offered to form a coalition with the Liberals before the party that came first in the last election. Thus it would have been acceptable for some to have the 2nd and 3rd choices running the country, yet not the 1st and 3rd......hmmmm selective sour grapes methinks. Just because you oppose the coalition doesn't mean you voted for, or supported Labour. Do you think it is OK for the Lib Dems to campaign on a basis of ending tuition fees and then support the trebling of them once they get in power? Do you expect Lib Dem voters not to feel angered and betrayed by a party that has taken their vote and given it to a party whose policies are the polar opposite of what they voted for? The Lib Dems are using the 'we're in a coalition, we can't impose our programme' excuse to help push through policies that were in neither party's manifesto and that nobody voted for. Such is their hunger for power. I'm more bothered about the vandalism to the welfare state than a few broken windows and Charles and Camilla suffering an unscheduled skirmish with reality. This is no democracy, and I echo the wise words of Venceremos and nicko.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Dec 10, 2010 15:18:23 GMT 1
Who said that? Not scarecrow, he said 'I can tell you now that while there were some trouble makers in the group...' Why are you mis-representing him? Am I? He also said that if the Police want our respect and support then they should show us respect. From what I saw from the students there was little of either shown to the police. Thus my comment. I still don't see how that translates as 'it's never us, it's always them'. I don't think you can simplify it to 'the students did this' or 'the students did that'. The majority of students would have been there to protest at a trebling of tuition fees and the prospect of starting their working life with the millstone of tens of thousands of pounds of debt around their neck. Some may have retaliated or become agaitated and aggressive in the face of intimidatory tactics from police. Another category will be people intent on vandalism and violence who use the protest as a vehicle for their agenda. I don't believe you can lump everyone in the same category.
|
|
|
Post by Jonah on Dec 10, 2010 16:11:41 GMT 1
I still don't see how that translates as 'it's never us, it's always them'. I don't think you can simplify it to 'the students did this' or 'the students did that'. The majority of students would have been there to protest at a trebling of tuition fees and the prospect of starting their working life with the millstone of tens of thousands of pounds of debt around their neck. Some may have retaliated or become agaitated and aggressive in the face of intimidatory tactics from police. Another category will be people intent on vandalism and violence who use the protest as a vehicle for their agenda. I don't believe you can lump everyone in the same category. Well I havent got a problem with you not being able to see it but I do have an issue with those that support the students but turn a blind eye to the antics of more than 'a handfull'.
|
|
oranjemob
Midland League Division One
Posts: 486
|
Post by oranjemob on Dec 10, 2010 16:12:06 GMT 1
The goverment now should NOT allow anyone with a criminal recold to get any benefit towards higher education.That will sort the idiots out. Good idea Heavenly. Would your opposition to violence include condemnation of: In January 1986, when Nick Griffin was Deputy Chair of the NF, he advised his audience at a rally to use the "traditional British methods of the brick, the boot and the fist".I assume that you would also accept that such people should be prevented from being officials of a Political Party and/or stand for election to any public office. Including this small selection? • In 1998, Nick Griffin was convicted of violating section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986, relating to incitement to racial hatred. He received a nine-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, and was fined £2,300. • Kevin Scott, who in 2001 was the BNP's North East regional organiser, has two convictions for assault and using threatening words and behaviour. • Joe Owens, now expelled but previously a BNP candidate in Merseyside and former bodyguard to Nick Griffin, had served eight months in prison for sending razor blades in the post to Jewish people and another term for carrying CS gas and knuckledusters. • Tony Wentworth, former BNP student organiser, was convicted alongside Owens for assaulting demonstrators at an anti-BNP event in 2003. • Colin Smith, who in 2004 was the BNP's South East London organiser, has 17 convictions for burglary, theft, stealing cars, possession of drugs and assaulting a police officer. • Richard Edmonds (at the time BNP National Organiser, currently a member of the BNP's Advisory Council was sentenced to three months in prison in 1994 for violent disorder for his part in a racist attack on a black man in Bethnal Green, London (although he was released after sentencing as he had already served this period on remand). Edmonds hurled a glass at the man as he was walking past the Ship pub in Bethnal Green Road, East London, where a group of BNP supporters were drinking. Others then 'glassed' the man in the face and punched and kicked him as he laid on the ground, including BNP supporter Stephen O'Shea of Purfleet, Essex, who was jailed for 12 months. Another BNP supporter, Simon Biggs from Penge (who smashed a beer glass into the man's face causing deep wounds), was jailed for four and a half years for his part in the attack.
|
|
|
Post by heavenlyshrew on Dec 10, 2010 16:18:16 GMT 1
This has nothing to do with the BNP unless i missed something.Now stick to the subject or do 1
|
|
|
Post by Shrewed on Dec 10, 2010 16:27:36 GMT 1
Bad day? Not at all. For the first time in ages I actually feel encouraged. Encouraged that large numbers of young people feel moved to protest, rather than meekly accepting what's dished out to them, as most of us do. Encouraged by the actions of Anonymous and Operation Payback, targeting those craven commercial organisations doing the US government's bidding in attempting to close down Wikileaks. Today has not been a bad day for our democracy at all, quite the opposite. Violence is regrettable but let's be honest about it, instead of trotting out Daily Mail- type cliches. The truth is it commands attention, where a peaceful protest would be given 10 seconds on the news and the subject dropped. And violence is rarely, if ever, one sided. Mounted police charges into crowds of people - isn't that a form of violence? Kettling groups of people for hours on end - isn't that likely to provoke a reaction? I'm not trying to apportion blame because I wasn't there and I've no way of knowing. But simply to trot out the usual "tiny minority" and "anarchists" lines is pretty feeble analysis. As for Charles and Camilla, frankly that's just a distraction. What were their minders doing driving through the "riot"? The surprise is that more damage wasn't done. Hope2010 - I'm surprised you see it that way. History surely teaches us that progress isn't always peaceful and orderly. Sometimes it gets uglier than we'd like. From the chartists to the poll tax riots there's a tradition of public disorder. This isn't new. Did you think the violence during the miners' strikes was solely the responsibility of the miners? I'm surprised that you seem to be taking such a simplistic view of today's events. These are interesting images of the coalition government's early days - government buildings attacked, riot police against students - and schoolchildren, and a vandalised royal car. Interesting times. Of course progress has been made in the past due to violence, but what we are seeing now is people who do not believe or accept society highjacking many justiable causes. Yesterday did no good for the students cause. They have a very strong case but this is ignored as a result of the violence. Will the world be a better place as the result of a jumped up idiot who believes nothing in the world should be secret regardless of the consequences. I doubt it!!! There is a need for confidential discussions to be kept secret. Posting a list of American sensitive site is a godsend to terrorists. Windsor, Government is all about choices, the ConDems decided to cut the University budgets by 80% there are other ways of finding £4.5bn, extra stamp duty on short term financial transactions a higher rate of capital gains tax on short term profits, including houses in capital gains just a few options.
|
|
oranjemob
Midland League Division One
Posts: 486
|
Post by oranjemob on Dec 10, 2010 16:48:35 GMT 1
This has nothing to do with the BNP unless i missed something.Now stick to the subject or do 1 Surely the subject is sanctions against those convicted of and/or inciting violence. Not hard to understand - is it?
|
|
|
Post by simianus on Dec 10, 2010 16:51:33 GMT 1
This has nothing to do with the BNP unless i missed something.Now stick to the subject or do 1 Not hard to understand - is it? i think the answer is so regularly evident
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 10, 2010 17:42:46 GMT 1
Some may have retaliated or become agaitated and aggressive in the face of intimidatory tactics from police. What exactly are the intimidatory tactics you cite? Is it right that people resort to violence and criminal damage in the face of this 'intimidation'? Is it right that police officers be unlawfully assaulted (yes there is lawful assault) whilst fulfilling their duty?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2010 18:48:52 GMT 1
[Matron. I find your post contradictory; I take it that if the Government fell then you'd be happy that the riots help facilitate their downfall? absolutely not nick. i have said a few times before about this and the previous administration, that there is only one way to replace a goverment, and thats at the ballot box. you may have miss understood cos its not clear, when i say "i hope this", im refering to the student fees issue, not the rioting and disorder. However, this I take serious offence to. The Lib Dems joined in coalition to get some of their policy points through. The £10k lower tax band will go through, the referendum on AVP is likely to happen. Remember that the libdems did not win the election, they came third. Remember that Labour went back on their promise to charge students tuition fees in the first place. Labour's "grubby" members (probabaly ex now) picked a good day to be prosecuted: Link------> Hoon, Byers and Caborn rebuked over lobbying breaches The thing is, Labour are sitting high and mighty over the rise in tuition fees, taking the moral highground. Yet Miliband is suggesting a graduate tax. Surely both policies are more or less the same thing? ahhh. maybe grubby was a bit strong, does sordid feel a little better? can i imagine a coalition between Labour and the Lib Dems? well yes, both centre left parties that share much common ground. what about the right wing tories and centre left lib dems? not at all, it was a coalition of convenience that means one thing to the lib dems, its not principles, its not policies, its power. why has there been such little internal rebelion in the lib dems over this issue despite tumbling in the polls? cos they like being in government, they like office. first time in how long? they are not going to jeopardise there cosey cabinet positions over a little thing like election pledges. i personally hope every lib dem member and voter feels sick to the stomach right now. im sure developments on the 10p tax rate and AVP will soon heal the wounds. as for Hoon, Byers and Caborn, i wish they had thrown the book at them, kicked out of parliament and party. disgracefull behavious that needs to be stamped out. no protest from me. and yes, Labour are riding high and mighty at the moment, they are in opposition. remember, when you are in opposition you can say anything, promise anything, back anything without any kind of come back......................oh hang on. Are you a Lib Dem supporter LS, i suspect you are, i detect a raw nerve. Not turned out the way you expected it?
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Dec 10, 2010 19:03:58 GMT 1
Some may have retaliated or become agaitated and aggressive in the face of intimidatory tactics from police. What exactly are the intimidatory tactics you cite? Is it right that people resort to violence and criminal damage in the face of this 'intimidation'? Is it right that police officers be unlawfully assaulted (yes there is lawful assault) whilst fulfilling their duty? Depends what you mean by "fulfilling their duty". If you have unbending faith that our police always act appropriately and only ever use force when attacked themselves, good for you. I wish I could share your faith. However, there have been far too many examples of this not being the case for me to share that belief. What am I thinking of? How about the death of Blair Peach, the miners' strike, the death of Ian Tomlinson, the deaths of, or assaults on, numerous people being "restrained" or in custody - for starters. I think it's telling that, on this thread, there seems to be only one eye witness to yesterday's events (scarecrow) but so many on here completely ignore his testimony and are all too willing to absolve the police of any responsibility whatsoever. Are you saying he's lying? Are you saying he couldn't have seen and experienced what he's reported? On what evidence are you basing those claims? I know the police have a difficult job and I'm not anti-police as such (my grandad and uncle were in the force). But I have no faith in their methods and I believe too many individual officers are thugs with a badge. I remain very pleased that a lot of our young people have woken up and become politicised by these events. That makes me more optimistic for our future. Perhaps we might not be a bunch of compliant, self-indulgent, X-factored morons after all.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Dec 10, 2010 19:19:03 GMT 1
Some may have retaliated or become agaitated and aggressive in the face of intimidatory tactics from police. What exactly are the intimidatory tactics you cite? Is it right that people resort to violence and criminal damage in the face of this 'intimidation'? Is it right that police officers be unlawfully assaulted (yes there is lawful assault) whilst fulfilling their duty? Erm, do you think you'd feel intimidated, whether the actions are 'lawful' or not if your were a protestor on the ground in this situation: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11962905Or kettled for six hours without access to food, water etc Accounts like this suggest it was rather intimidating for a legitimate, non-violent protestor on the ground: Mike, London "I was struck repeatedly in the face with a shield" I was one of hundreds of protesters who were kettled on Whitehall. I was forced up against a van by police - and struck repeatedly in the face with a shield. What happened to me was completely ridiculous.
I graduated in July from Durham University and now I work in sales. I joined the protest on the main march from the University of London Union to Parliament Square in London. I didn't know that was our destination, but it's where police seemed to guide us.
There were barriers cutting off all the side streets, so we just kept walking straight on - and that us to Westminster.
After being in the square for while, I went away and came back. When I did, there was a line of police blocking us from entering the square.
I turned and headed back up Whitehall because that's what we were told to do.
“The police were screaming 'get back!' and we were shouting 'where are we supposed to go?'” End Quote But as we tried to walk away from the square, we met a line of police advancing - both on horses and with batons.
We were penned back against the other line of police who were blocking us from the square. They crushed us into a tiny space, hundreds of us, tighter and tighter. It was painful.
I was forced up against a van, and yet the police were still screaming "get back".
It was impossible to move any further back. We were shouting "where are we supposed to go?" and an officer was shoving a shield in my face. It felt like pure violence against us.
It was in that chaos that I heard the result of the vote. A guy with a bike-powered soundsystem got on the mic and announced it, and obviously we were angry. There was booing and shouting. But I don't think it changed the atmosphere of the protest. I think everyone was expecting the bill to go through.
I was eventually dragged out of the crush by a riot officer. I'm bruised and I'm aching a lot - but I'm alright.
I plan to carry on campaigning. This isn't a single issue. We all know this is bigger than just student fees - this is ideological. The government is attacking the working classes.
And it affects me personally. I was hoping to return to university to do a masters degree. I probably won't now.As for "Is it right that people resort to violence and criminal damage in the face of this 'intimidation'? Is it right that police officers be unlawfully assaulted (yes there is lawful assault) whilst fulfilling their duty?" I certainly see things in a different light depending on the context of the situation. Some people will have infiltrated the protest with the intention of committing violence and criminal damage from the outset. I certainly don't condone that. When the perpetrator has been subject to kettling, batoning and charging horses I find it difficult to condemn them if they act aggressively or even 'violently'. It all depends on the specific situation. There are of course, two sides to every story and I doubt it was much fun being a police officer on duty that day, or that there was provocation from some elements within the protest. If it is established that a police officer did cause the injuries that led to a student protestor having a three hour operation to treat bleeding on the brain by use of his baton, will you condemn the act? www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/10/student-operation-tuition-fees-protestWill all those for whom the throwing of a fire extinguisher was the defining moment of the first protest be jumping down with the same level of indignation?
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Dec 10, 2010 19:20:37 GMT 1
Yesterday was a terrible day for democracy. MPs voted for legislation that involved a three fold increase in tuition fees having committed - at their own freewill - during the election campaign to abolish them.
The wholesale marketisation of university education has taken place without the publication of a White Paper and 5 hours of parliamentary debate. People without an income are going to speculatively enter into large amounts of personal debts.
Markets. Speculation. Debt. Are "our" leaders actually learning anything? Additionally police turned back coaches of students on route to London despite the HoL decision in the Fairford case.
Of course £9,000 p.a. looks a pinch when you've been paying the fees for Eton for little Archie.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Dec 10, 2010 19:48:45 GMT 1
Bad day? Not at all. For the first time in ages I actually feel encouraged. Encouraged that large numbers of young people feel moved to protest, rather than meekly accepting what's dished out to them, as most of us do. Encouraged by the actions of Anonymous and Operation Payback, targeting those craven commercial organisations doing the US government's bidding in attempting to close down Wikileaks. Today has not been a bad day for our democracy at all, quite the opposite. Violence is regrettable but let's be honest about it, instead of trotting out Daily Mail- type cliches. The truth is it commands attention, where a peaceful protest would be given 10 seconds on the news and the subject dropped. And violence is rarely, if ever, one sided. Mounted police charges into crowds of people - isn't that a form of violence? Kettling groups of people for hours on end - isn't that likely to provoke a reaction? I'm not trying to apportion blame because I wasn't there and I've no way of knowing. But simply to trot out the usual "tiny minority" and "anarchists" lines is pretty feeble analysis. As for Charles and Camilla, frankly that's just a distraction. What were their minders doing driving through the "riot"? The surprise is that more damage wasn't done. Hope2010 - I'm surprised you see it that way. History surely teaches us that progress isn't always peaceful and orderly. Sometimes it gets uglier than we'd like. From the chartists to the poll tax riots there's a tradition of public disorder. This isn't new. Did you think the violence during the miners' strikes was solely the responsibility of the miners? I'm surprised that you seem to be taking such a simplistic view of today's events. These are interesting images of the coalition government's early days - government buildings attacked, riot police against students - and schoolchildren, and a vandalised royal car. Interesting times. Of course progress has been made in the past due to violence, but what we are seeing now is people who do not believe or accept society highjacking many justiable causes. Yesterday did no good for the students cause. They have a very strong case but this is ignored as a result of the violence. Will the world be a better place as the result of a jumped up idiot who believes nothing in the world should be secret regardless of the consequences. I doubt it!!! There is a need for confidential discussions to be kept secret. Posting a list of American sensitive site is a godsend to terrorists. And if there had been one big peaceful demonstration yesterday (and therefore far less coverage of the protests), where would we be now? Vote won by the government, job done, that's where. As it is, the debate goes on and it's not just a debate about the actions of a minority. In fact it's not just a debate about tuition fees. It's become a much wider debate about our politics and democracy, as well as those detailed matters. Your illiberal views on Wikileaks are surprising to me. Have you read what's been released? Have you listened to the comments of the more thoughtful members of the US administration, who say there's no evidence of any lives being put at risk by the US embassy cable leaks, or by the earlier Afghanistan war logs, or by the Iraq war logs? Are you just listening to the irresponsible idiots who say Julian Assange's actions are treasonable and he should be assassinated or kidnapped? Wikileaks has committed no crime (and I would love to see those idiots prosecuted for incitement). It receives information from whistleblowers and, in the case of the US embassy cables, it works with responsible outlets (The Guardian, the New York Times) to vet and release them. None of that is criminal. So if it's not criminal and no-one's at risk, why would we want Wikileaks to be shut down? The US administration is embarrassed and reacts like a bully to its embarrassment. Wikileaks was fine when it was exposing corruption and wrongdoing in and by other countries (check its history if you think it's just an organisation of "jumped up idiots". It has exposed a lot that needed exposing). As soon as it releases anything detrimental to the US government, it's criminalised, hounded, shut down. How very democratic. Free speech, freedom of the press - they're only worth having if that freedom is genuine. If it's turned off the moment anything vaguely against the interests of western governments is said (and I emphasise governments, not people), then it's no freedom at all. Next time Obama or (God help us) Palin or whoever gets all teary eyed about the virtues of freedom and the evils of state censorship and oppression, I'll be thinking "yeah, right and I believe Nick Clegg's pledge to abolish tuition fees as well". That's why I applaud the actions of Wikileaks (which will survive with or without Julian Assange) and why I applaud the actions of Anonymous in standing up to those organisations still not satisfied they've got quite enough control of our lives. Free speech means free press and free internet - as in not controlled.
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Dec 10, 2010 20:18:09 GMT 1
I would ask the students involved before marching to come up with a detailed plan of where the money should come from should we (and lets not forget it is you and I the tax payer) not continue to fund their chosen career paths. I also disagree that further education is a God given right. Times are tough for us all, yet some squeal much louder than others. The NUS did suggest an alternative. www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8190379/National-Union-of-Students-secretly-urged-Government-to-make-deep-cuts-in-student-grants.htmlI assume you mean the right to Higher Education is not a "God given right" because if we start excluding people from Further Education then we're truly F@7ked. Those who tend to squeal louder are the ones already being squeezed tight. Interested to read a quote in the Indy today from a solicitor who was on the march to show solidarity with the protesters as he's worried about the loss of Legal Aid. Again some people on here are missing the point about these demos. A good trawl around the interent will provide people with plenty of stories like the one posted by Shrewsace and Scarecrow. I thought the story about the bloke getting pulled from his wheelchair was particularly charming. "I spoke to his brother, Finlay, who says Jody was actually pulled from the chair twice. The first time was near Parliament Square when police insisted he move from close to the front of their lines. Three officers, he said, picked Jody up and dragged him away. The second was nearer the river, when officers insisted he and Finlay were in danger near police horses. This time, Finlays says, his brother was pulled bodily on the ground across the street." www.guardian.co.uk/education/blog/2010/dec/09/student-protests-live-coverage
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Dec 10, 2010 20:38:07 GMT 1
If that was aimed at me Nick, please don't think I am missing the point of these " demos" simply because I do not agree with your thinking or you with mine.
For what its worth I am funding two through Uni, I speak to them and their friends on the issue to try and understand their thoughts and the factors effecting them whilst also studying a (HE) course myself.
As has been said there are two sides to each equation, I am torn as a father of those effected and a tax payer who is trying to come to terms with the mess we are in and the best way out of it at the same time.
The point about being squeezed applies to me as equally as the majority of others, no pay rise for two years, increase in taxes, job uncertainty blah, blah. I try not to run around hurting people or damaging property to express my frustration about this issue.
As for Higher Ed I really don't believe it is a God given right, just because you don't agree with that doesn't mean it's wrong.
I think we can agree that a positive outcome will be youngsters who give a damn and will hold future generations of Politicians to theiir word.
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Dec 10, 2010 20:38:11 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 10, 2010 20:44:47 GMT 1
Vence, I don’t dispute what Scarecrow saw, but we can all ‘see’ completely different things to what actually ‘happened’ – all to do with stress, and subconscious suggestion, preconceptions etc. The incident of the woman being pulled from a wheelchair and beaten sounds so appalling I have to question it; if it did happen I’d be interested to know the rationale. I’m not saying disabled people cannot be violent, but there is no need at all to ‘beat’ people once they are restrained (distraction blows can be administered if the subject is still resisting however, and the common law rule of self defence always applies). In public order situations such as the student protests, the crowd can and often do act as individuals and make strong attempts to hide their identity in order to indiscriminately launch missiles at the police lines. However the police broadly have to act as one – so if this means a shield wall to push back protestors, there is no time to stop for every individual who wants to have a high-brow political debate about this issue, or the perceived abuse of their human rights. Of course I do not subscribe that all police officers conduct themselves in exemplary fashion all the time. I am also well aware of the quite well publicised incidents involving police miss-use of force and deaths in custody – the very subject I’ve been researching recently. The high-profile incidents you cite traverse more than 30 years of policing and, as the Guardian recently reported: “Out of the total of 333 deaths, 87 people had been restrained...The majority were from natural causes, with nearly three-quarters relating to drug or alcohol abuse. The number of deaths each year had fallen from 49 in 1998-99 to 15 in 2008-09, slightly increasing to 17 last year.” Just as you believe there are too many ‘thugs’ in the police, I do not see the police in England and Wales as a thuggish institution. There will always be mistakes made, and there will always be exceptions to the rule. However, with one of the most tightly monitored and scrutinised police forces in the world, those individuals are often found out. I still maintain that too many people are ‘ignorant’ of the powers and duties of police officers and judge their actions on hearsay and poorly interpreted general knowledge. I find it amazing how many ‘innocent’ people stagger away from protests with some form of injury who state that the police indiscriminately attacked them for no good reason. As I have stated on other threads, I do believe protest such as these achieve great change, but they have to come at cost to the protestors also. So let’s cut the bull. Just for once I would welcome (but not condone or support) someone who openly states to a BBC news crew “I bricked a copper because I believe in what I am doing and felt it was necessary.” Sounds perverse, but these people need to firmly commit themselves if they want wholesale change. Indeed, perhaps we will now see voter turn-out at future general elections leap as a result of the whole student dissatisfaction issue. You’re right, there are always two sides to a story, but the ones we hear the loudest are those from the students – why? Because police officers are not allowed to talk to the press about such experiences unless cleared by senior officers. Kettling tactics are used to prevent uncontrolled mass-disorder, and is a very successful tool. Regarding the lad who was hit on the head by the baton, of course if it was a deliberate strike to the head, there will need to be serious questions asked. However, could it have been accidental? Could it have actually been something thrown from further back in the crowd? No one knows. Gandhi did achieve his aims without hitting, bricking or firebombing the police... Another useful link for the B&A forum to digest on this issue...: www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Yourrightsandresponsibilities/DG_176761“Police have a duty to provide protection and assistance for peaceful protests, but they must balance that with an obligation to preserve the peace, uphold the law and prevent crime. Individual chief police officers decide how to handle each protest in their area.”
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Dec 10, 2010 21:16:32 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 10, 2010 21:18:37 GMT 1
There's no requirement for students to come up with a detailed plan as a prerequisite to demonstrating. sean, clearly, detailed is subjective however, from my link above: "Organising a protest The key message from police and local authorities to protesters is always ‘let us know’. Protests are most likely to avoid confrontation with local residents or workers, or the involvement of police, if organisers: * notify the police in advance of their plans for the protest * advise them of expected numbers * apply for a permit if one is required or requested If you are organising a march, you are legally required to notify the police six days in advance, or as soon as it is reasonably practical to do so. If you are organising a protest rally that will not involve a march, you are not obliged to notify the police, but you may still want to let them know. This courtesy allows local authorities to prepare for the gathering, to divert traffic if necessary to ensure the safety of the protesters, and to alert local residents to the disruption they’re likely to face."
|
|
|
Post by Amsterdammer on Dec 10, 2010 21:24:26 GMT 1
Of the live footage I saw, I felt the police showed incredible restraint. Having a metal fence thrust towards my face would certainly make me flip my lid.
I think it's impossible to see the full picture. The met said that they only 'kettled' once it was clear that part of the group was intent on criminal actions. They also said that they announced they would be doing the containment, so people had the opportunity to leave. The above accounts seem to contradict that.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Dec 10, 2010 21:25:23 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Dec 10, 2010 21:33:49 GMT 1
Sean I try not to. As for 43 of the little darlings injured do you believe all were "non combatent". Having a friend on the front line with the Police last night I have her account of what went on. Opinions vary.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Dec 10, 2010 21:36:11 GMT 1
Combatants Non-combatants?
It's a bit like saying a girl in a short skirt on a Saturday night is asking for it.
The police aren't there to deal out punishment. But they had a hard night so a bit of afters (clearly seen on the video I've linked to) is OK?
You charge people in a confined space then it's a case of if you're there then it's luck if you don't get hurt - by the impact of horses or by the reaction of the crowd to get away.
I recall the attack by police on the miners at Cotgrave in the 80s, at least there people had a chance to get out of the way in good order when the attack happened because of the open fields in which it happened.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Dec 10, 2010 21:36:22 GMT 1
Apologies mate ... To be fair, I think any budget review by either Labour, Tory or Lib Dem would be one big sh*t sandwich...and we all have to take our fair bite into it. There were also 12 officers injured, I suspect in full 'riot' gear too...I'd be cautious about attributing all injuries, on either side, to direct confrontation - there were a lot of missiles thrown by the protesters ...
|
|