Student protests - the students are awful arn't they?

[petercook7]

Most of the swearing after the police charged.

It's funny how those defending the actions of the police don't take into account the pregnant woman that was forced against a wall by a female officer on a horse or the young lad that was clearly injured, then when protesters asked for help for injured they were pushed back said police with seeminly no medical treatment/ aid being given.

People say there was no charge, but you can clearly see people running out of the path of the horses, the police used an unnecessary amount of force when using the horses, the protesters weren't rioting or causing any trouble, yeah they were shouting or whatever but they weren't attack people or property in this instance.

The problem they should have never used the horses on a non violent protest, when you start to push and box in a large crowd you'll always get violence or abusive shouting. the houses should have been on standby not used for front line support when theres not violence,seems like the police know how to provoke a riot. how can there be any respect for the police in this country.

[TooNice]

Not what I'd call a charge, personally. If it were, I'd expect the cameraman to be ran over and trampled at 1:25 before he had the chance to turn his camera around let alone run backward (and that would've been insufficient to get away). From the video, horses were used, but with restraint.

[samcross]

It's funny how those defending the actions of the police don't take into account the pregnant woman that was forced against a wall by a female officer on a horse or the young lad that was clearly injured

What were they doing there anyway? After the events at tory HQ a couple of weeks ago and in other protests earlier this week (click), I'd say there was clearly a good chance of it getting violent again.

To say that the crowd weren't being aggressive is BS anyway, it even mentions in the article:

The incident occurred when about 1,000 protesters had gathered outside the kettle to call for those inside to be released. Some began hurling missiles and surging forward.

Considering what happened in other protests, if I was a cop outnumbered by a bunch of monkeys and they started getting agitated I probably would have wanted something done about it. In sending in the horses the police split the crowd and eased their situation. As far as I can tell no one was seriously injured, so I don't really see what the problem is.

I should think a sizeable number of the protesters aren't even going to university, just ***** that want some fun. If they knew what a student loan was they would realise that the fee rise isn't such a catastrophe anyway.

[kalniel]

Oh go on, no-one's said it yet?

The students are revolting.

[Saracen]

...

She was being pushed forwards by the crowd. If you've ever been in a crowd that like that (I'm sure you have) then you'll know it's difficult to stand still when there's a large body of people pushing you forwards.

Oh, and just because she had her wallet in her hands, that doesn't mean she was 'waving it about'. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for her to have had it out.

Indeed I have, for instance, at a massive concert. And if the crowd goes forward, so do you. You have zero option in the matter. One difference is that I was at the front of a crowd listening to a band, and I still didn't have my wallet in my hand. She was at a protest, in a charged atmosphere, and the "waving it about" is based on her own actions on that video.

I'm having trouble thinking of decent reasons why, in the front of a crown like that as she herself said she was, and bearing in mind she also said she was there to protest, not just a passer-by trying to get to the tube station of queueing for a hot-dog at a concert, she would have had here wallet out. But even if there is perhaps such a reason, who's speculating now?

[petercook7]

Indeed I have, for instance, at a massive concert. And if the crowd goes forward, so do you. You have zero option in the matter. One difference is that I was at the front of a crowd listening to a band, and I still didn't have my wallet in my hand. She was at a protest, in a charged atmosphere, and the "waving it about" is based on her own actions on that video.

I'm having trouble thinking of decent reasons why, in the front of a crown like that as she herself said she was, and bearing in mind she also said she was there to protest, not just a passer-by trying to get to the tube station of queueing for a hot-dog at a concert, she would have had here wallet out. But even if there is perhaps such a reason, who's speculating now?

Maybe she didnt want her pocket to be picked.

[format]

Indeed I have, for instance, at a massive concert. And if the crowd goes forward, so do you. You have zero option in the matter. One difference is that I was at the front of a crowd listening to a band, and I still didn't have my wallet in my hand. She was at a protest, in a charged atmosphere, and the "waving it about" is based on her own actions on that video.

I'm having trouble thinking of decent reasons why, in the front of a crown like that as she herself said she was, and bearing in mind she also said she was there to protest, not just a passer-by trying to get to the tube station of queueing for a hot-dog at a concert, she would have had here wallet out. But even if there is perhaps such a reason, who's speculating now?

There's a clear difference between my speculation and yours though. Your speculation ran contrary to what the person had said. Mine was seeking an explanation for an action she had taken. You know it's not the same.

[Saracen]

There's a clear difference between my speculation and yours though. Your speculation ran contrary to what the person had said. Mine was seeking an explanation for an action she had taken. You know it's not the same.

There's a difference, all right.

My speculation is that we don't know what happened, and by her own account, neither does she. For instance, she doesn't know what he did with her wallet. One of my points, and you can call it speculation, but in fact it's just pointing out the fact that we don't know if that cop even knew if it was a wallet.

You asserted that the police refused to give it back. Now even that woman on the tape asserted that. She said she didn't know what happened to it, maybe it was thrown to the ground, and that the police refused to allow her to go look for it. Well, it's a public order environment and the police have a job to do and a balance to keep.

But my objection to your comment, and the reason I "specual5ed", is that we simply don't know what happened. We have the allegations of one individual, who may or may not have an axe to grind. We have no hard evidence at all beyond the account of one clearly angry individual.

Now look at what you said about that ....

The police stole her wallet. She had done nothing wrong and the police took her personal property from her and refused to give it back. Are you seriously saying that if someone stole your money, credit cards etc you'd just 'stfu' about it?

Item 1 - a categoric accusation of criminality by the police, that they "stole" her wallet. And unless significant further evidence comes to light, which I acknowledged it might it's is simply untrue.

Item 2. Then you alleged they refused to give it back. Not according to the sole account we have. They simply refused to allow her access to where she thinks, it might have been dropped. But saying they refused to give it back directly implies they still had it to give back, and not only do we not know that, but the woman herself didn't think that was the case.


If we were talking about someone stopped in the average high street by police who demanded her wallet, and then refused to give it back (with the intention of keeping it permanently) then I'd agree it would have been outrageous, and indeed, even merely demanding her wallet without good legal reason (and it's hard to think what that reason could be) would be outrageous.

But we aren't are we? We're talking about a protest, where there were obviously some public order issues serious enough for the police to feel the need to deploy horses, and where there'd been some nasty incidents at the previous such protest.

We seem to live in a society where a lot of people seem to think they bear no responsibility for their own personal actions. This woman chose to go on a protest. Fine, it's legal. She chose to go, even knowing there'd been trouble last time, so it must at least be a decent chance there'd be more this time, yet she chose to go. And she chose to be at the front of the protest. And finally, she chose to be holding her wallet in her hand.

So, in a confusing and obviously volatile situation like that, she ought to take responsibility for the consequences of her own actions, and not accuse a police officer, about whom there's no actual evidence was doing anything other than his duty, of theft.

If he's later caught using her credit cards, or in possession of her property which, after ample opportunity, he hadn't turned in, then fine, he's a thief. But until some actual evidence arrives, your speculation and accusation of criminality by a police officer is such that, had that officer been identified by name or identifiable by any other means, your post would have been removed as potentially libellous.

[Barrichello]

I don't call surging forward/throwing missiles at the police peaceful, (which protests are meant to be to be lawful) so fully support the police response. Also notice the article is reported by the Guardian, so no bias there then!

[Disturbedguy]

I don't call surging forward/throwing missiles at the police peaceful, (which protests are meant to be to be lawful) so fully support the police response. Also notice the article is reported by the Guardian, so no bias there then!

You cant really argue against video evidence though can you?

In that particular video you dont see any missiles being thrown or hear any surging forward, yet the police clearly charged on horse back.

[Saracen]

.... yet the police clearly charged on horse back.

On the contrary, it is not clear at all that they charged. You see police horses moving forward at a bit of speed, but it's not at all clear from that camera angle where protesters were, quite where the police lines were, and whether the space where they were moving at speed was empty because police lines had just moved out of the way to allow them access. We simply can't see what was happening from from that angle. Moving from their reserve positions into the deployed position at speed is a very different thing from charging into protesters.

[format]

Item 1 - a categoric accusation of criminality by the police, that they "stole" her wallet. And unless significant further evidence comes to light, which I acknowledged it might it's is simply untrue.

Item 2. Then you alleged they refused to give it back. Not according to the sole account we have. They simply refused to allow her access to where she thinks, it might have been dropped. But saying they refused to give it back directly implies they still had it to give back, and not only do we not know that, but the woman herself didn't think that was the case.

The woman quite clearly tells us that 'he took my f*cking wallet. Dunno where he put it, probably threw it on the floor'.

From that statement, ie the only evidence we have, the wallet was last seen in the possession of the police officer.

We don't know for sure what the officer did with it after, as she only speculates that he might have thrown it on the ground. What we do know is that the officer removed the wallet from her possession.

According to you, that's not theft, fair enough. Is it legal to deprive someone of their personal property if you have no criminal intent?

If we were talking about someone stopped in the average high street by police who demanded her wallet, and then refused to give it back (with the intention of keeping it permanently) then I'd agree it would have been outrageous, and indeed, even merely demanding her wallet without good legal reason (and it's hard to think what that reason could be) would be outrageous.

But we aren't are we? We're talking about a protest, where there were obviously some public order issues serious enough for the police to feel the need to deploy horses, and where there'd been some nasty incidents at the previous such protest.

That's false logic. The response of the police is not always proportionate to the levels (whether low or high) of disorder. You can't judge the mood of the protest by the amount of force deployed by the authorities.
The same applies to 'some nasty incidents at the previous such protest'. Just because a small minority had turned ugly in a separate incident, you can't assume that every protest afterwards will be the same. I could make all sorts of spurious false assumptions about the potential behaviour of the police based on their actions at previous protests.

We seem to live in a society where a lot of people seem to think they bear no responsibility for their own personal actions. This woman chose to go on a protest. Fine, it's legal. She chose to go, even knowing there'd been trouble last time, so it must at least be a decent chance there'd be more this time, yet she chose to go. And she chose to be at the front of the protest. And finally, she chose to be holding her wallet in her hand.

No. That's innaccurate and unfair. A person is suddenly deprived of their property by an officer of the law and that's her fault because she should have known better? If I walk down an alleyway in a dangerous area late at night and get stabbed - is that my fault?
One could reasonably argue that it was a bit irresponsible of me yes; but ultimately the blame lies with the perpetrator, not the victim.

[oolon]

The reason why we cannot fully fund student places any more is there are many more people in tertiary than there used to be. Perhaps as an alternative we should cut the number of places back to historical levels by reducing them to a quarter of the amount currently available. Anyone not getting a place would line up with all the foreign students and fully fund their education. Somehow I am not thinking that would make for a fair system than an educate now and pay later if you can one.

[Blitzen]

Well hopefully the police will use tanks instead of horses next time.

If these bloody students think this will aid their cause for a 'free life' then they are wrong.

[format]

Well hopefully the police will use tanks instead of horses next time.

If these bloody students think this will aid their cause for a 'free life' then they are wrong.

Hey maybe we should just go the whole hog and massacre the students with guns - Tienanmen style!

[TheAnimus]

The woman quite clearly tells us that 'he took my f*cking wallet. Dunno where he put it, probably threw it on the floor'.

From that statement, ie the only evidence we have, the wallet was last seen in the possession of the police officer.

We don't know for sure what the officer did with it after, as she only speculates that he might have thrown it on the ground. What we do know is that the officer removed the wallet from her possession.

According to you, that's not theft, fair enough. Is it legal to deprive someone of their personal property if you have no criminal intent?

Read her quote. She doesn't know what happened to her wallet. 'Probably threw it on the floor' is intresting supposition, as it simply means she doesn't know what had happened, its also an unlikely act from a police officer in the middle of a riot. I would accept that it was nocked out of her hand, by someone who had a million other things on their mind rather than mugging a girl.

Its like (as already pointed out) the students been told to 'get back' ignoring the order then the police using horses (which certainly werent charging in my definition).

There is a right to protest, but not to do it just anywhere, its a fine line to balance, we should allow people to be 'in your face', but not say breaking into private offices and smashing the lobby which is home to mostly completely different people.

As such the police need to be able to move protestors.

You would have to ask what she was doing with her wallet out in her hand aswell, the reason for this is she could just be lieing, it could have more plausably fallen off her person in the croud or been nicked by some pikey theaving student (because we all know what students will do for a drink).