[Closed] So how close were we to guns pulled yesterday?

Junkyard - Member
what you call maximum effect I call [often]subsidising multi million/billion pound multinational companies to train the staff to have the skills they require - they would need to do this anyway so why are we paying??
McD do this for catering as well for example a great benefit to us all clearly.
You would susidise business rather than people even very wealth foreign based ones
what about an additional tax on the comanies or employees here who have benfited fromtaxes paying the training?
Moat are not manufacturing FWIW

and nearly £7.7 Billion goes on "international aid"

you dont have to quote my entire text when you reply you know
No idea what International aid has to do with a discussion on educational funding but helping peole eat is a noble cause

What you want us to subsidise business ,let people pay for their own university education and LET poor foreign people starve as well 😯 and 😉

What you want us to subsidise business

,let people pay for their own university education

and LET poor foreign people starve as well

where did I say that?

helping peole eat is a noble cause

where did I say that?

This is very true....... you threw in [i]"and nearly £7.7 Billion goes on international aid" [/i] without any explanation whatsoever. You didn't even give the vaguest clue of how it was in anyway relevant to the student protests.

I assumed by mentioning Internatuonal aid you were suggesting it was a waste of tax payers money . I apologise clearly you are aghast at just how little we spend on helping these people compared to the money we spend helping multi million pound generating multi nationals train their staff - which you support. Who despite the financial benefit to both the individual and the employer should NOT pay for this we should via taxes.
Sorry
FWIW debate works much better if you explain what you mean rather than leaving us to guess the relevance of a random fact.

the proposed scheme is a deferred tax system in effect and you don't have to pay any of it back if you don't earn above threshold

Labour former Cabinet minister Jack Straw to cable “The central issue is the fact that the teaching grant is to be cut by 80% and the burden of that is to be transferred to students, and it’s justified by the Government’s assessment of the scale of the deficit.”

Mr Cable said Mr Straw had struck to the “heart of the debate” - which was “how to fund universities”.

Amusingly of course those who have degrees already benefit as much as those who will never have them - or in other words a Mr D Cameron whose degree was paid for by the state I believe (a bit like some other MPs) will not have to pay the tax increase he would if current students enjoyed the same universal privileges he did. Of course he went into public service so that's OK.

The Mods are armed? OMG!

Maybe the powers that be catalyse these peaceful protests so that the general public lose support for them?

Undoubtedly.

As usual the reasonable well thought out and well informed opinion gets lost in the STW appendage waving contest. There is some staggeringly Ill informed comments about police tactics on the day however. I still fail to see how violence towards the police, many of whom probably support the legitimate and peaceful protesters views, can be justified? Any violence or injury to anyone is regrettable. Most of the violence originated from groups who's only aim was to injure police officers and destroy property. Thats not legitimate protest however you dress it up or however worthy you think the cause is. The police contained the crowd AFTER they had deviated from the agreed route in sight and sound of the houses of parliament and AFTER the numbers involved in acts of violence had reached levels that couldn't be dealt with any other way. I think certain individuals are blinded by their own perceived intellectual brilliance, you could almost call it ideological extremism. And yes I was there.

Most of the violence originated from [b]groups[/b] who's only aim was to injure police officers and destroy property.

I don't think anyone's disputing this. However, the police acted in an inappropriate manner with unreasonable force, indiscriminately, towards far too many protestors who weren't being violent, certainly not until they were unnecessarily provoked. The consensus of just about everyone I spoke to was that most of the violence came [i]after[/i] police started kettling the demonstrators. More violence followed after the police told demonstrators that they could leave via certain routes. When people tried to do so, they were then prevented by police who used shields and truncheons to push them back into the kettle.

Which conflicts with your views somewhat.

I think certain individuals are blinded by their own perceived intellectual brilliance, you could almost call it ideological extremism.

This accusation could just as easily be levelled at yourself. Can you not see that? You have your view, others have theirs. Somewhere in all that, is the Truth.

Based on what I witnessed, the accounts of many others, and my own experience of other violent confrontations of this type, my view is that the police acted with excessive force.

The police cannot be seen as an innocent part in all this; they were complicit in provoking and carrying out violent acts. They must face the same scrutiny as anyone else. Their uniforms do not exempt them from being accountable for their actions.

No it can't. I know I'm thick. I also never mentioned anyone being exempt from accountability. If any officer acted inappropriately they should get what's coming.

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/sheffield/hi/people_and_places/newsid_9276000/9276699.stm ]Defenceless schoolgirls beaten by cops[/url]

I found this quite upsetting to read.

That's appalling. It puts the Duchess of Cornwall's poke in the ribs into perspective.

I can't imagine why I was so annoyed, and stand corrected.

Couple of questions:

1. Why did the vast majority of the Police feel the need to remove their numbers and hide their faces?
I'm sure this is illegal - didn't the Met promise this would never happen again after the Ian Tomlinson G20 fiasco?

2. The origin of the phrase 'kettling' is very disturbing.
I believe the word itself was introduced into the media by the Met themselves. Does anyone else think this process is a tactic designed to deliberately encourage violent behaviour on the part of the protesters, thus justifying a disproportionate response?
Kettles are designed to boil over, aren't they?

Personally, as someone who has been on a few demo's I think we all know that there will always be a violent minority on both sides.
Sadly, the current Police and Government tactic appears to be to focus on the minority as a means of distracting attention from the real issues.
We've seen this before. It never ends well:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

...a word of explanation for the montage would be a good idea...

...a word of explanation for the montage would be a good idea...

Good point!

For those who are too young to remember, the photographs above refer to:

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Orgreave ]The Battle of Orgreave[/url]

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Beanfield ]The Battle of the Beanfield. [/url]

pictures from the Battle of the Beanfield
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Beanfield

I still fail to see how violence towards the police, many of whom probably support the legitimate and peaceful protesters views, can be justified?

Imagine being held in an area for a period of time[6 hours +] against your will with no access to food, water or toilets, being policed by people in riot gear who will not let you leave or excercise your other democratic rights. If you complain to much about thsi they see you as an agitator and target you for arrest.
You really cannot se why this policy agitates people and why trapped people behave like animals? What a poor imagination you have. Any example of "kettling" not reuslting in violence towards those who have imprisoned the citizens?
It is almost like the state wants us to debate how ther eis no need for violence rather than the issue thay are protesting about.
edit:sorry for double reference was typing whilst RS posted

[img] [/img]

Imagine being held in an area for a period of time[6 hours +] against your will with no access to food, water or toilets, being policed by people in riot gear who will not let you leave or excercise your other democratic rights. If you complain to much about thsi they see you as an agitator and target you for arrest.

[b]Been done to football fans for years, didn't hear you complaining about their human rights! [/b]

football fans

actually no, football crowd are: not generally unaccompanied minors, not held back for more than (say) two hours, not left without access to facilities and not held back in order to stop them exercising their democratic right to protest. Silly comparison?

The violence started before any protesters were contained! As for officers hiding their numbers at the recent fees protest, that's an utter fallacy. They have them on the back of their helmets in neon yellow letters for a start!

You can't suggest that violence towards the police is justified because they are being detained, then in the same breath condemn officers for using violence after having breeze blocks and fencing thrown at their heads. Try for at least a trace of balanced argument? Go on, see if you can? It's not a star wars script. It just isn't as black and white as you seem to suggest, no matter how worthy the cause.

as a point of order the numbers on the backs of the helmets are not badge numbers. and have you ever tried to throw a breeze block? they weigh around 22kg. you can't throw one. this hyperbole dos not help people understand what's going on here.

i don't think a debate about who started the violence is very worthwhile to be honest. does it matter? can it be established? by engaging with that debate, which is being given to you by the largely right of centre media, you are doing their work for them - downgrading the protest to a 'they got what they deserved' thing. This detracts from the central issue, which is that thousands of young people were sufficiently angry about government betrayal to take to the streets and protest, and were assaulted by the forces of law and order for their trouble.

the message is clear. you can protest where, when and indeed how we will let you, or you will be hurt.

what you have got in the end is armoured men beating up un-armoured defenceless people including variously: able bodied men but notably mums and their daughters - under the age of 18 also. hardly a credible threat. and this itself is an issue. who started it? no. citizens including police personel hospitalised? yes. excessive use of force by armoured men against literally defenceless people including young women of all things? very much so.

not very nice? actually quite sociopathic behaviour from the riot cops. but then you don't become a riot policeman because you are a gentle person, you do it because you like getting in a ruck, especially with no possibility of comeback....?

Trailertrash - you've clearly never seen a derby match in which I've watched the fans "kettled" from arrival at the train station, all the way to the match, kept in the stadium afterward and all the way back again until the train left, with police on board the train as well, a good four hours with no consideration of their "human rights" to go and do anything else, all because they wanted to exercise their democratic right to watch a football match! and all without anyone kicking off!

Quite frankly if you were close enough to get hit by a copper, then you were near the frontlines and therefore entering into a violent confrontation by your own free will. If you didn’t want a scrap with the Police there was plenty of space to go protest normally, peacefully and avoid it.

Hear that - if you stay well away from the front lines where the violence is taking place, then you [i]cannot[/i] be hurt!

Have a watch of this and tell me that everyone there was an innocent peaceful protester, forced into it by the nasty police men:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ead_1292023263

C'mon Fred, which group were you in? the ones trying to stop the violence, or the ones perpetuating it?

You can't suggest that violence towards the police is justified because they are being detained,

Bollocks Junky - the violence began [b]before[/b] the kettling!

People were free to leave the area and go home when it turned violent, the cordon was not imposed for a further hour and a half - the only people spoiling it and denying anyone the right to peaceful protest were the people who went there intent on violence!

I'll ask you plainly - [b]do you accept that some of the people who went to that protest, were pre-armed and intent on violence from the outset?[/b]

Z-11 stadiums and trains have toilets, food facilities, roofs, they were not horse-charged on their way to the ground, we're down from 6 hours+ to 4 already. the difference is between being escorted and being detained. you're not making a credible argument.

I have never said everyone there was a peaceful protester so while I appreciate it's hard to keep track of who said what here, please do not mis-quote me in an attempt to make your argument.

I don't condone violence, but I can understand why it happened.

I'll ask you plainly - do you accept that some of the people who went to that protest, were pre-armed and intent on violence from the outset?

on both the police side defo [list]and[/list] the demonstrators side, [edit] most likely

do you accept that some of the people who went to that protest, were pre-armed and intent on violence from the outset?

Of course we do. No-one is disputing that.

But overall, the majority of police officers are nice and kind and do a good job. 🙂

As for officers hiding their numbers at the recent fees protest, that's an utter fallacy. They have them on the back of their helmets in neon yellow letters for a start!

You say you were there, but you failed to notice that loads of coppers would've had the same numbers on their helmets. I think they're division numbers, not individual identification numbers.

OK, Trailertrash

i) I can guarantee that if football fans displayed the level of violence seen in London the other day, they would have been kettled for longer and treated far more harshly than those protesters were - you're forgetting that the kettle was only imposed [b]after[/b] violence had broken out, the football incidents we've discussed involve kettling prior to any violence as a preventative measure!

Regardless, I dont see you telling us that kettling of football fans is either illegal, or unreasonable, or an excuse for them to react violently!

(Edit - this question for Fred or anyone to answer:)

ii) taken that you accept that [b]some[/b] of the people there were intent on violence, then once it had started, how would you prevent that violence spreading and intensifying, or would you just let them carry on?

I used to have a mate in the police. we have drifted apart now, but not for any particular reason. you get the inside story over the years and the beers, some guys in the police just like a ruck, and that's it.

Dude i'm not forgetting anything, I'm not even arguing against kettling for heaven's sake - read back - I've not even mentioned it - frankly if my kid was there I'd be 50/50 on whether they were safer in a kettle than in the melee out of it. and I really really don't give a flying fig about the hardships of football fans, sorry.

do you still want to talk about crowd control strategies?

Love to Trailertrash - If you look back a couple of pages, you'll see I put a pragmatic suggestion:

If the police had chosen to proactively police and search all the entry points before the protest crowd developed - ie tube stations, coach parks etc, and arrest anyone equipped accordingly, under the perfectly lawful "to prevent a breach of the peace" then they could have nipped this in the bud, and I wouldn't see that their actions as unreasonable, as the only people detained would be those going *equipped* to cause trouble.

Anyone carrying items which are clearly destined to be used to cause unrest should have been detained and prevented from joining the protest, then prosecuted accordingly

Anyone any problems with that idea?

how would you prevent that violence spreading and intensifying, or would you just let them carry on?

By not antagonising the crowd any further, by using kettling tactics. Allowing those who wanted to leave, to leave, instead of pushing them from pillar to post and angering them. Identifying culprits, and using surveillance to apprehend them at a later stage. Using undercover officers to track those seen committing offences. Not steaming in with horses. Y'know; generally try not to pee people off any further than they already are. You talk of football matches; dunno how many you've bin too, but the one's I've seen, police are no way anywhere near as provocative (they know they'd have a [i]proper[/i] fight on their hands!).

And not bashing schoolgirls with truncheons would be a good move too, I'd say...

Z-11 those ideas are completely impractical on the scale required and would not stop people re-equipping themselves inside whatever cordon was established. Stop and search takes two officers five minutes per person minimum. Work it out. Not enough resources.

And that's not a crowd control strategy, it's a weapons search strategy.

I recently, accidentally, travelled to Istanbul and back by plane with a large Swiss Army knife, an array of screwdrivers, soldering equipment and electrical cabling in my hand luggage, went through 6 checkpoints including two x-rays - not a peep. Security doesn't work.

Any more ideas?

Allowing those who wanted to leave, to leave, instead of pushing them from pillar to post and angering them.

What if some of those who want to leave, are troublemakers, and their plan is to spread the violence to other locations, like smashing up shops in Regent Street... Again, violence broke out [b]before[/b] the kettle was put in!

Identifying culprits, and using surveillance to apprehend them at a later stage.

Wearing masks & balaclava's? intent on causing trouble, armed with paint, snooker balls etc - you're suggesting that they should be left to it, and possibly arrested afterwards?

Using undercover officers to track those seen committing offences.

You'd accuse them of using agent provocateurs!

Not steaming in with horses. Y'know; generally try not to pee people off any further than they already are.

If people were not trying to break police lines, they'd not get the horses used to disperse them would they? chicken and egg!

You talk of football matches; dunno how many you've bin too, but the one's I've seen, police are no way anywhere near as provocative

Plenty, and several mates over the years have been convicted hooligans too - however even they wouldn't dream of turning up to a match with helmets, shields, paint and snooker balls, as their feet wouldn't touch the ground!

Trailertrash:

Any more ideas?

How about we unfurl a banner giving them one hour to disperse, get a Magistrate to read a bit of paper, and anyone still there in an hour accepts full responsibility for whats about to happen to them 😉

close to guns pulled? i doubt it.
should students pay for their education? yes
who should pay for the costs incurred by a 'peaceful' protest? those who take part maybe.

tried to throw a breeze block? they weigh around 22kg

was probably a thermalite block, they can be lifted in one hand

Zzzz you are very hung up on the timing of this kettle thing. Let it go. It doesn't matter. it's the treatment of the kettle that is the issue, not it's timing or who started the trouble. You seem to have this idea that it's ok to hurt people who are near people who have done something wrong. That's not ok, not at all.

If people were not trying to break police lines, they'd not get the horses used to disperse them would they? chicken and egg!

er....? "You are trying to go home so we are going to attack you with horses". Ladies and gentlemen, logic has left the thread. Tell me you are better than this Z, please. or just being a bit of an agent provocateur yourself perhaps....

should students pay for their education? yes

I think the point is that we should all, as a society, pay for all our children's education together and re-distribute the opportunities fairly, so that everyone get a more or less fair crack of the whip, instead of making individuals pay for their own education so giving rise to a system where fewer poorer people go to university and most graduate with massive debts. mary mother of jesus this is hard work.

part of the problem here is the casual attitude to debt here in the uk and generally in the uk/us that has developed over the last 20 years. now wasn't that a good idea. massive benefits all round. not.

debt is not normal, is not frikkin' healthy or 'standard' in any way. sometimes necessary, but not 'good' or 'unimportant'. my parents and their parents would be horrified at the level of debt i would be expected to carry to get a degree under the new system. debt leaves you severely restricted freedom of choice in your life and in how you work in it. it is a psychological burden that so many people carry without even knowing what it would be like to not have it. an absolute tragedy. and it means, deny it all you like, that the banks own your ass. they can put the rates up down sideways all they like, they can change the repayment terms, call the loan in, sell the loan....this is not a good thing.

and what happens when people default on the loans they took out for their education? or never earn enough to pay the money back? where does that lost money get replaced from? you can't make it out of thin air? we ALL have to pay for it anyway somewhere, sometime. this is just anther smoke and mirrors performance, economic slight of hand, put the problems off until tomorrow but dress it up as economic prudence today.

here's an idea - why not put a penny or ten on income tax for those earning twice the average uk income of £24k, and spend 1% of that money changing the tax laws for corporations to stop them witholding billions in tax from the exchequer, then cancel trident, then have free education and health care. nice.

this is a major ideological issue of society vs individualism poorer vs richer this is about cops beating up schoolchildren, but also about a cabinet containing 18 millionaires dictating who can and can't go to university to learn more about themselves and the world they live in, to improve themselves and ultimately perhaps, improve the very society that enabled them to go there in the first place.

you want a cure for cancer - it will come from a university education
you want a fix for global warming - it will come from a university education
you want roads bridges tunnels - they come from a university education
etc etc etc

changing access to this to those that have money or a casual attitude to debt is morally wrong and socially shortsighted. I am not surprised that people are willing to literally fight for it.

you want a cure for cancer - it will come from a university education
you want a fix for global warming - it will come from a university education
you want roads bridges tunnels - they come from a university education

I have no problem with that. Let's just fund useful degrees and not bother with rubbish like media studies, art etc..

or keep the new system and those that have degrees that are commercially beneficial will earn lots of money and pay back their investment.

Those that are dosser and just want to waste 3 years doing a cack degree will earn naff all, stay under the 21k and never have to pay the debt back

simples 😉

I know that was tongue in cheek but...

the trouble is that one person's useless degree is another person's valuable education.

arguably - no media studies = we go back to 1970s standard TV and radio - you want that?
no art degrees = no public art = no much loved Angel of the North or Big Bang & no British film industry for example.

not a simple set of choices.

I have no problem with that. Let's just fund useful degrees and not bother with rubbish like media studies, art etc..

lets go the whole hog and go for a communist state.
whats the problem with the media? it's a big part of this countries GDP my 'useless' degree has enabled me to help U.K. companies promote, export and sell their products.

whatever university you went to must have been a poor one as you are unable to see the bigger picture or think beyond your own little world.