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

[format]

Format you seem to have missed the point as I was not chiding you about the fact that you were pulling up Blitzen about slaughtering innocents, moreover the way you went about doing so. Using emotive words like troll or facist and responding in an agressive manner won't win you any arguments and generally just makes the more "measured" of us think that you are being just a big an idiot as he was. Admittedly you may not have argued him round even with more balanced and logical posts, however you would probably have garnered more support for your position from other members.

In regards to latin word play being pontificating then let me ask you a question... would you have found it funny if I had directed it against Blitzen? If so then think about why you didn't find it funny when it was directed at you.

I genuinely did find it amusing that you used latin to criticise me for using 'pompous' language. I'd have found it just as amusing if you'd said that to Blitzen. Don't you think the irony is rather funny?


As for words like 'troll' or 'facsist', I still think they were justified. I already explained why I thought fascist was appropriate, and troll should be obvious - if he was being disingenuous and didn't really believe that that level of force should be taken in response to the protests, then he was only posting as such to elicit a negative reaction from myself and possible other members of the community. That's a clear cut definition of trolling. It does seem however that he was entirely serious, and as such I'm more inclined to stick with 'fascist' judgement.
That said, in light of Peterb's intervention, perhaps something less politically emotive might suffice.

In terms of mass protests I realise that I didn't explain my point that well so I'll try to elucidate further. Protesting can work, you just have to be clever about how you go about it because the political landscape has changed radically since the days of the great marches. In this post 9/11 world governments cannot be seen to back down against threats because it makes them look weak, and with the ongoing terrorist situation that's something that they cannot do. So hitting them head on with marches that descend into "rioting" only entrenches their position. It also puts public opinion firmly on their side which does nothing for your cause either.

It should also be noted that this is one of the first of many changes and if the government backs down now it will only make their job harder in the future and they realise this. If however you enter into dialogue and use less "head on" tactics then you can create room to allow them to both make concessions and save face such that in effect both sides win to some extent.

I disagree. Using the language of international relations and anti terrorism in relation to how a government deals with it's citizens is simply wrong. Huge difference between terrorism/conflict and the protests of students (or anyone else for that matter)

I notice you put the word rioting in parenthesis. Is that because you don't believe what we have seen are riots? As far as I'm aware, barely any of the protests have been violent, or anything close to a riot. I think that's pretty unfair to term that as a 'threat' to the government.

[Blitzen]

^ Reading comprehension does not not usually cover the use of smilies

TBH, it's not the best smilie to use to indicate that one is joking*. IF he is on that point that is. It might be the sensible thing to assume so, but I've found Blitzen to have strong, controversial views on many things so I am only partly sure he is pulling format's leg with that statement.

In keep in mind that I am not exactly on the same page as format in this discussion. If I was, my perception of Blitzen at that moment would've been lower, and I may even want to believe / find it more plausible that he is a nutter who advocate the mass murder of protesting students.

IMHO, it wasn't the right moment (middle of a heated debate) to throw something remotely ambiguous/misinterpretable and as controversial as that. And if it was done solely to stir format, then it fall into my definition of flamebait.

*I have a bit of an issue with that smilie in this forum. It should only be a smilie face in the first place, but here, it is a nod, as if in agreement.

Thanks for understanding my post
My post certainly wasn't 'flamebait' though. It was my opinion that the students are not acting in the way Format is imagining they are, and they should be treated with the same contempt which they are demonstrating.
Format
If you think i am serious about gunning people down in the street, then you have MAJOR problems, and maybe a psychiatrist would be a good thing to ask for on the 25th ...........

[Saracen]

....

I notice you put the word rioting in parenthesis. Is that because you don't believe what we have seen are riots? As far as I'm aware, barely any of the protests have been violent, or anything close to a riot. I think that's pretty unfair to term that as a 'threat' to the government.

Any protest has the potential to turn to civil disobedience, and that can turn to riot, or even murder. There've been a number of such incidents over the years, including the poll tax riots, trouble in Bristol and the 2001 "race riots" in Bradford, and all sorts of violent confrontations in the miner's strikes, including the dropping on concrete blocks on a taxi driver, killing him. That last, incidentally, had an eerie echo in the first supposedly non-violent student protest where they stormed and trashed a building, and dropped a fire extinguisher off the roof, nearly braining a policeman standing below.

Now, that student "protest" wasn't a riot, and the element involved in that incident appeared to have been very small. But we know from experience when emotions are raised, that relatively small things can flare up into much larger things and whenever you have a protest that turns into a confrontation, shoving and name-calling can escalate .... especially if a radical handful have come prepared for it and looking to cause an incident.

And it is certainly the case that riots and protests can threaten governments, such as the stand-off between Scargill and Thatcher. Or even bring down governments. We're not there, or anything even close, with the students, either in scale or extent, but it could be a trigger to unrest over other things. Right now, any such threat is very much limited to a potential.

[Blitzen]

Gotta say, Format is doing a great job against a surprising amount of anti-student sentiment in this thread. I haven't read the whole thread (edit, I have now), but Blitzen is coming across as a classic Daily Mail reader, frankly, and I certainly don't mean that as a compliment.


Also, @peterb, "Can't tell if you're a brilliant troll or an enthusiastic fascist" - that constitutes name calling?! Obviously you're the mod, and I'm not, but I thought that was quite a polite response based on the things that Blitzen was suggesting. Frankly I think it's Blitzen who needs a slap on the wrist, not Format.

Yes i was a student btw.
Another well formed argument resulting in the 'Daily Mail' jibe when there is little else left..
As for the slap on the wrist....did you ACTUALLY read any of this thread, or just jump on the bandwagon. The latter i suspect, as i have not been personal at all.

As i stated before, i don't care if i'm called a fascist or a troll (as i am neither).......call me Pol Pot or Saddam Hussein if it makes you feel better or gives you a false sense of superiority.

[Fraz]

I've gotta say Saracen, you're very logical, but you appear to have a mindblowing lack of emotional intelligence sometimes. And crowds are all about the emotion.

Are you aware that eye-witness accounts, even of demonstrably impartial bystanders, are notoriously unreliable?

Yes, I'm completely aware of this. There are are eye-witness accounts, and there is getting trampled by a horse. You don't really have to be too accurate on the details about the latter, even if the witnesses are exaggerating and indeed biased. Admittedly, I'd have liked the article to include pictures of the hoof-shaped bruises one witness mentioned.

And then there's that video of the "charging". There's two problems with that. First is the definition of a"charge"...

The definition of charging is moot - and frankly a tedious, diversionary and somewhat irrelevant point. The effect on the crowd was huge. Can you not imagine this situation as a flesh and blood human, rather than an armchair lawyer? Fear is generally a result of not knowing what is about to happen next. Clearly the crowd did not know what was about to happen next, regardless of whether or not the video shows you if the horses were in amongst the protesters. The action was completely unnecessary, and considering it was a legally organised (as far as I can tell) static demonstration, probably a very wrong thing for the police to be doing. Based on the attitude of the crowd after it happened, I'm surprised it didn't spark a full-blown riot.

[format]

Thanks for understanding my post
My post certainly wasn't 'flamebait' though. It was my opinion that the students are not acting in the way Format is imagining they are, and they should be treated with the same contempt which they are demonstrating.
Format
If you think i am serious about gunning people down in the street, then you have MAJOR problems, and maybe a psychiatrist would be a good thing to ask for on the 25th ...........

Thanks for clearing that up for me Blitzen.

Also, I'm not 'imagining' anything. I've been to several protests and extensively read news reports. Which makes me wonder... where are you getting your information from?

Yes i was a student btw.
Another well formed argument resulting in the 'Daily Mail' jibe when there is little else left..
As for the slap on the wrist....did you ACTUALLY read any of this thread, or just jump on the bandwagon. The latter i suspect, as i have not been personal at all.

As i stated before, i don't care if i'm called a fascist or a troll (as i am neither).......call me Pol Pot or Saddam Hussein if it makes you feel better or gives you a false sense of superiority.

Should I just ignore the psychiatrist jibe then?

[format]

Any protest has the potential to turn to civil disobedience, and that can turn to riot, or even murder. There've been a number of such incidents over the years, including the poll tax riots, trouble in Bristol and the 2001 "race riots" in Bradford, and all sorts of violent confrontations in the miner's strikes, including the dropping on concrete blocks on a taxi driver, killing him. That last, incidentally, had an eerie echo in the first supposedly non-violent student protest where they stormed and trashed a building, and dropped a fire extinguisher off the roof, nearly braining a policeman standing below.

Now, that student "protest" wasn't a riot, and the element involved in that incident appeared to have been very small. But we know from experience when emotions are raised, that relatively small things can flare up into much larger things and whenever you have a protest that turns into a confrontation, shoving and name-calling can escalate .... especially if a radical handful have come prepared for it and looking to cause an incident.

And it is certainly the case that riots and protests can threaten governments, such as the stand-off between Scargill and Thatcher. Or even bring down governments. We're not there, or anything even close, with the students, either in scale or extent, but it could be a trigger to unrest over other things. Right now, any such threat is very much limited to a potential.

Unfair generalisations. It's a tiny percentage of protests that get out of hand.


SeriousSam and anyone else who doubts the effectiveness of protest - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Employment_Contract

[Blitzen]

Should I just ignore the psychiatrist jibe then?

Yes. (it wasn't for you anyway........ it was for Fritzel or Frazzle......i forget the name now)
It is very hard to be 'tongue in cheek' when typing.

We have different opinions on what is right and wrong.........and that is good as there would be lots of opening posts and no replies if people just agreed all the time

[TheAnimus]

I can't help but think, "The mediator between head and hands must be the heart!".

But at the same time how and the only term I can think, is childishly idealistic it is to try and lead with it.

Yes, I'm completely aware of this. There are are eye-witness accounts, and there is getting trampled by a horse. You don't really have to be too accurate on the details about the latter, even if the witnesses are exaggerating and indeed biased. Admittedly, I'd have liked the article to include pictures of the hoof-shaped bruises one witness mentioned.

There is a right to protest, but there is also a right to go about ones daily business, ultimately sometimes the protestors will have to be moved.

Look at all the trouble that happened at milbank because the police did not disperse them sooner, someone threw a fire extingquisher of the roof, graffiti and breaking private property is one thing, that is just luck it didn't kill someone.

So when the people don't want to move, what do you do?

The definition of charging is moot - and frankly a tedious, diversionary and somewhat irrelevant point. The effect on the crowd was huge. Can you not imagine this situation as a flesh and blood human, rather than an armchair lawyer?

No it is entirely the point. Anything else is emotive exageration. "That officer raped me!" or "he put his hand on me in appropriately" or "he touched my shoulder without my concent". Going from left to right, the middle is still quite a violation, but the story of the boy who cried wolf spring to mind. The correct terminology were used should be used, otherwise you mearly heart the argument.

What really saddens me, is this is actually about the greed, as I said in my last post, the thing that worries me is that we are seeing a creep towards the better institutes charging more. Labour decided that each uni can rebate different amounts, this means that whilst they all "cost" the same in the New Labour PR rulebook, they obviously don't.

To me this is more serious, because with the increase in the fees we will no doubt, see an increase in the rebates that they are allowed to give.

As for the police handling, they did a much better job than I did, when you look at how a small minority from the safety of the croud were behaving, given the events at millbank too, I certainly wouldn't have been able to manage it so softly (think water cannon and tear gas, if your scared of horses when you've not dispersed after been ordered too, then wait till your unable to breath!)

[Fraz]

No it is entirely the point. Anything else is emotive exageration.

I'm beginning to think that I'm talking about something different from you guys. The definition of the word "charging" is irrelevant to the effect the police had on the crowd, which to me is what this is all about. I'm not talking about a court case here, I'm talking about the best way to contain/move on a crowd of peaceful protesters. The police did something very scary that to me seemed extremely unnecessary, be that with flamethrowers, trained ninja tortoises or otherwise.

From what I could see, it put a peaceful, legal crowd of protesters into a state of fear and panic. Great combo that. Just the sort of thing the police should be doing at a demonstration.

Obviously you guys don't agree *shrug*. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Personally, I've very grateful none of you are in the police force.

[TheAnimus]

No i think its because you and I have different ideas about the right to protest.

Sure voice your thoughts, we have an area of a loverly part which is given over to cranks to speak their minds.

It is not OK to bring part of London to a standstill, because ulitmately every crank would do it and we would rapidly run out of days in the calander.

Once you've had your time, and your told to disperse, you do so. If the crowd, even if its just a few wrong dooers hiding under the others start acting up and the protest has to be dispersed, then you disperse, simple.

It doesn't matter that the protest is 99% peaceful when your to dispurse do it damnit.

Part of a protest like these ones is disobediance to get attention you can't take it too far.

Been told to dispurse WILL involve you been seperated from your friends, this will involve you perhaps finding it hard to get home. End off, that is a common occurance at any large event.

[Saracen]

Fraz, watch your tone, or you will be suspended. Comments like

I've gotta say Saracen, you're very logical, but you appear to have a mindblowing lack of emotional intelligence sometimes. And crowds are all about the emotion.

are not acceptable, and if you can't debate this without that kind of personal remark, don't debate it.

This point has been made several times on this board recently about the personal nature of some remarks, with snide and snippy remarks, and it STOPS HERE. You will not get another warning on this from me.

[Fraz]

No i think its because you and I have different ideas about the right to protest.

No we don't have different ideas. The rules are quite simple. And regardless, I don't see what this has to do with sending panic through the crowd. It's perfectly possible to move a crowd on without sending panic through them.

Once you've had your time...

Indeed, but they hadn't had their time, had they. The police were moving them away earlier than agreed.

I am stunned that you think these students are cranks, btw. What a sad way of looking at things. I've had enough of this thread - it's depressing me massively.

[Saracen]

Unfair generalisations. It's a tiny percentage of protests that get out of hand.


SeriousSam and anyone else who doubts the effectiveness of protest - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Employment_Contract

They're not generalisations of any type - they're examples of how one thing can turn into another, and no doubt, without any intention on the part of most of the protesters, let alone any planning on the part of most of them. But when you get a large crowd, there is always a potential for what appears to be a perfectly peaceful, legal protest to turn to something else in a hurry. That first student protest would be a good example. Most, I'm sure, were there for a legitimate, peaceful protest, but either by design or otherwise, a small part of it turned into something else. Police always have to be alert of the potential for that something else, and were unprepared and under-manned for it the first time.

As I said,

We're not there, or anything even close, with the students, either in scale or extent, but it could be a trigger to unrest over other things. Right now, any such threat is very much limited to a potential.

Are these students protests going to bring down the government? Doubtful. And if they do, it'll be in a legitimate way, by causing a split in the coalition. that is an entirely legitimate way to protest, and if LibDems MPs have got themselves in a bit of a pickle over this, it'll teach them to be a bit more guarded in what they promise or pontificate and sign declarations on.

Personally, I don't agree with the case the students are standing for, or as has been made out by NUS leaders on several TV programs I've seen, but I totally agree they have a perfect right to get the hump with apparently duplicitous MPs that say one thing to get elected and another when they are.

And, for the record, the LibDems "we're in a coalition now so promises don't count" doesn't wash, either. They stood for election, made promises and ANY mandate they have is based on those promises. If they're arguing that the promises don't count because we don't have the government we voted for, then the mandate doesn't count either and they have no business being in government. If that's their argument, resign and either force a general election or let the Tories try to lead a minority government, in which case, the LDs would then be free to vote their conscience on issues like student fees.


But, back on topic, any large street protest is, pretty much by definition, on an issue that people feel strongly about or they wouldn't be out on the street protesting about it, and it's not unknown either for that emotion to get out of hand, or even for it to get used and abused by agitators. Police have to be aware of, and hopefully ready for, that possibility. They have a duty to protect property and other people, and a lawful protest can turn unlawful in a hurry. even then, when it does, it's a balance between minor infringements that aren't worth pursuing, and major ones that are, and somewhere in the middle is reading the situation and trying to prevent things getting out of hand. It's also a balance between a lawful right to protest, and what to do when that lawful protest starts to get beyond the bounds of lawful protest ... and elements of the last student protest most emphatically got beyond those bounds. Seriously beyond.

[Saracen]

No we don't have different ideas. The rules are quite simple. And regardless, I don't see what this has to do with sending panic through the crowd. It's perfectly possible to move a crowd on without sending panic through them.

Is it?

Unless you were there, and you know what was happening, and what resources the police had, how do you know?

Were you there, and are your comments based on first-hand observations? That's a straight question, by the way. If you were, then any opinions on what the crowd were up to and what options police had carry more weight.

I've see reports (and they are only reports) that police had already made several requests, and attempts to, disperse the crowd, and been ignored, and been on the receiving end of the throwing of some missiles. What opinions do police have? We don't use tear gas, rubber bullets or water cannon, and I'm sure most of us are glad of that. If the police move in physically, on foot, they'll probably get resisted, and that's largely what happened at the G20, and it ends up with battens being wielded and that always runs the risk of the wrong people getting clobbered and something like Ian Tomlinson happening again. So ... depending on exactly the situation on the ground, breaking up a crowd by intimidation with horses may be seen as the best way to avoid physical confrontation with the risks attached to that. The police owe a duty of care not just to bystanders, but also to the protesters, and to the police officers.

Officers do have certain duties they're obliged to perform (like protecting bystanders), and they have certain statutory powers to control citizens in the process, and they are permitted to use reasonable force to compel compliance. The question is what's reasonable and what isn't, and that will depend entirely on the situation on the ground, at any given time.

Whether using horses is reasonable or not therefore depends entirely on what they assess the situation to be, at the time, and as I wasn't there, and as far as I know, nor were any of the rest of us, we simply can't know. And for that matter, most of the protesters won't know either, because they will only be aware of what was going on immediately around them and not the wider situation.

I am not saying the use of horses was justified. I'm saying we don't know enough to know if it was or wasn't, so slamming them for doing it is reaching to conclusions without sufficient actual information to do it. If it's perceived as excessive, it needs an independent investigation that can actually look at all the evidence, and arguments from both protesters and police.

[mcmiller]

Is it?

Unless you were there, and you know what was happening, and what resources the police had, how do you know?

Were you there, and are your comments based on first-hand observations? That's a straight question, by the way. If you were, then any opinions on what the crowd were up to and what options police had carry more weight.

I've see reports (and they are only reports) that police had already made several requests, and attempts to, disperse the crowd, and been ignored, and been on the receiving end of the throwing of some missiles. What opinions do police have? We don't use tear gas, rubber bullets or water cannon, and I'm sure most of us are glad of that. If the police move in physically, on foot, they'll probably get resisted, and that's largely what happened at the G20, and it ends up with battens being wielded and that always runs the risk of the wrong people getting clobbered and something like Ian Tomlinson happening again. So ... depending on exactly the situation on the ground, breaking up a crowd by intimidation with horses may be seen as the best way to avoid physical confrontation with the risks attached to that. The police owe a duty of care not just to bystanders, but also to the protesters, and to the police officers.

Officers do have certain duties they're obliged to perform (like protecting bystanders), and they have certain statutory powers to control citizens in the process, and they are permitted to use reasonable force to compel compliance. The question is what's reasonable and what isn't, and that will depend entirely on the situation on the ground, at any given time.

Whether using horses is reasonable or not therefore depends entirely on what they assess the situation to be, at the time, and as I wasn't there, and as far as I know, nor were any of the rest of us, we simply can't know. And for that matter, most of the protesters won't know either, because they will only be aware of what was going on immediately around them and not the wider situation.

I am not saying the use of horses was justified. I'm saying we don't know enough to know if it was or wasn't, so slamming them for doing it is reaching to conclusions without sufficient actual information to do it. If it's perceived as excessive, it needs an independent investigation that can actually look at all the evidence, and arguments from both protesters and police.

hang on.. I'm not fully up with all the facts but did the police have a real reason to make the crowd disperse? such as the protest was supposed to have finished.