Proto Marxist Troublemakers or Righteous Indignation?

[Mike Selig]

Re: Varsity Match

You try standing for hours on end on the receiving end of endles mindless taunts and provocation and then - when the sh*t hits the fan - keep your cool at all times.

There is a huge difference between provocation and using force.

I didn't see anyone provoking the ****** that tore the flag down from the Cenotaph , nor the educated idiot urinating on the statue of Winston Churchill.

Neither of these actions harmed anybody. Hitting people with batons does and charging people who are attempting to get away on horseback could.

The point I am trying to make is that as the law the police are expected to act reactively and propotionately. Yesterday they did neither.

However this is not the thread to discuss this. Perhaps we should move it to the non-rugby board.

 

[SimonSmith]

Re: Varsity Match

Tearing a flag off the Cenotaph?
Here's what it represents:
]quote] It commemorates specifically the victims of the First World War, but is used to commemorate all of the dead in all wars in which British servicemen have fought. [/quote]

Desecrate that? You deserve a smacking. Blunt and reactionary? Possibly. But c'mon....what can possibly justify that?

 

[Phil E]

Re: Varsity Match

There is a huge difference between provocation and using force.

Neither of these actions harmed anybody.

Maybe not, but what about throwing bricks, fireworks, firing paintballs, attacking Police with metal barriers, smashing windows and doors; not to mention attacking the heir to the throne.

I think the Police showed far too much restraint. In any other country apart from ours the little fu**ers would have been tear gassed and water cannoned.

And what really pisses me off is that this is more work than most students have done all bloody year. I just wish they would be as passionate about attending lessons as they are about attacking the Police.

/rant

 

[OB..]

Re: Varsity Match

However this is not the thread to discuss this. Perhaps we should move it to the non-rugby board.

I agree.

 

[Taff]

Re: Varsity Match

Tearing a flag off the Cenotaph? Here's what it represents:

It commemorates specifically the victims of the First World War, but is used to commemorate all of the dead in all wars in which British servicemen have fought.

Desecrate that? You deserve a smacking. Blunt and reactionary? Possibly. But c'mon....what can possibly justify that?

I don't know if he actually tore the flag off the Cenotaph, or swung on the flag. Either way it's bad enough to deserve a good kicking. He claimed he didn't realise it was the Cenotaph, but personally I find that hard to believe.

It turns out he's the son of a multi millionaire, went to a private school and to make matters even worse is studing History at Cambridge. If he genuinely didn't realise what he was swinging on, I think I'd be having a word with his school headmaster about what the hell they teach kids at school, and to ask why this wasn't covered in history classes.

Hell, I went to a local village primary school and the local comprehensive (and not a £6,000 a term private school) but even so I knew the Cenotaph was important even if at the age of 11 I didn't understand quite what it represented. BBC news report HERE.

 

[didds]

I missed any previous debate.

What was done was beyond the pale.

It should not (though understandably it tends to) muddy the waters of the central debate.

knee jerk reactions such as "punish the students by upping the fees cos of the vandalism" are somewhat peurile. It punishes those students also that

* had no part in any vandalism on the day, and otherwise protested peaceably within the confines of the law.
* were not even present on the day.
* those that will be students in (say) a decade's time that at the time were learning ABC in their reception class and probably don't even know this debate is going on

and

* were all the trouble makers students - were some of them just those who join in looking for a scrap with the police?

If criminal activities occurred then they should be punished naturally.
But the two areas need to be kept distinct and apart.

I don't recall anyone claiming that winter fuel allowances should be cut, or pensions frozen or whatever because pensioners were involved in the poll tax riots. I neither recall anyone suggesting every miner in the country should be locked up or sacked because some miners threw a concrete block off of a bridge.

Purely IMO, clearl;y it has become ridiculous that 50% of school leavers are "expected" top have a degree, copmpared to 1 in 7 thirty years ago (or whatever the ratio was). Such an approach is only there to massage otherwise poor unemployment figures, and has had unforseen repercussions where many jobs, even those not needing education to a degree level, now require a degree as a starting point just to apply... so its a vicious circle. 17 year olds now HAVE to go and get a degree in order to apply form jobs that don't REALLY need them. So we end up with degrees in hairdressing or whatever to make this "system" work. Cycles such of these need to be broken and some sense of normality returned.



didds

 

[didds]

Re: Varsity Match

Out of curiosity, what was the attendance?

I seem to remember it being a sell out at the two games I went to back in the mid 80s, but the crowd looked pretty sparse on the telly. Ok I know Twickers has a bigger capacity now, but on the highlites it didn't look like the number attending was anything like what it was.

there was a time in the 80s when one could just turn up at at the fgate and pay at the turnstile. Then it beacasme all ticket and a sell out.

No idea what attendance is now, and whether it is st Strikes me that if there is 30K attendance then o the gate payment may be more appropriate, unless it is deliberately kept to the lowest tier with reduced capacity 9such as with England A internationals).

didds

 

[Mike Selig]

Re: Varsity Match

Maybe not, but what about throwing bricks, fireworks, firing paintballs, attacking Police with metal barriers

That was wrong, stupid and counterproductive. However if you condemn this (as I do) then you have to also condemn some of the gratuitous violence by the police and the attitude at the end of the demo which amounted to nothing else then "getting our own back". There is a system in place for this, it is called justice, and it is not meted out by the executive.

smashing windows and doors;

Doesn't harm anyone. Note that this doesn't mean I condone it, but there are levels of unacceptability. Smashing windows and doors is a lot lower then bashing people with truncheons and charging at them on horseback when they have nowhere to run to.

not to mention attacking the heir to the throne.

I would point out they didn't attack him but his car, but that would miss the point. This attack was stupid, irresponsible, dangerous and irrelevant. I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.

I think the Police showed far too much restraint. In any other country apart from ours the little fu**ers would have been tear gassed and water cannoned.

They were all little "fu**ers" were they? An example of the rhetoric coming from all parts and from people who have no experience of what went on other than the pictures they saw which just drives me mad.

The right to protest is fundamental, there was an attitude on Thursday that the protesters "deserved what they got" and that the police were there to "teach them a lesson" presumably in an effort to make sure they didn't protest in the future. At least this is the impression a lot of my friends (who I don't believe would go around throwing things or breaking windows) had. There was a form of collective punishment arbitrarily meted out (such as the final kettle on the bridge) which I believe is a direct challenge to the right to protest. This is wrong.

And what really pisses me off is that this is more work than most students have done all bloody year. I just wish they would be as passionate about attending lessons as they are about attacking the Police.

Nonsense. Many students work hard all year round, and despite what David Cameron says the vast majority weren't there to attack the police, they were there to voice their disagreement, as is their right.

 

[Mike Selig]

Re: Varsity Match

Tearing a flag off the Cenotaph?
Here's what it represents:
]quote] It commemorates specifically the victims of the First World War, but is used to commemorate all of the dead in all wars in which British servicemen have fought.

Desecrate that? You deserve a smacking. Blunt and reactionary? Possibly. But c'mon....what can possibly justify that?[/QUOTE]

I agree it was stupid. However deservant of a (collective) smacking? That is not your, my, or more importantly the police's decision to make. WE have a system in place, if we don't believe in it then we should change it. Not arbitrarily decide when it suits us and when it doesn't.

 

[Adam]

As an aside, I know of someone who's got to university with four C grades at GCSE, didn't get into Sixth Form as you needed five. They're now at university studying Sport Event Management.

Why you need a degree to do that I have no idea! Although some rugby tournaments may be in need of it!

 

[Phil E]

Re: Varsity Match

The right to protest is fundamental,

As referee's we give the Captain permission to speak to us, but when he abuses that right we are able to remove it.

The same should apply to the right to protest. I am all in favour of peaceful protest and free speech, but there are limits and if you cross them you should lose the right to protest. As a taxpayer, in a time of huge national debt it's criminal that my taxes should have to be used to pay for the damage that these student are causing, as well as the extra Police time to manage it.

Your statements that (and I am paraphrasing) "no one was hurt, so it's all OK" is ludicrous. Maybe you would like to offer to pay for all the damage if you think like that?

I have every sympathy with the Police who can never win in these cirsumstances. They stand there all day being kicked, punched, swore at, spat on, etc, etc and when they try to defend themselves or act like any normal human beings would they are castigated for it. The Police didn't start the trouble. You are right when you say there are judicial procedures for dealing with the Police over stepping the mark, so let that process take place and stop judging the Police by media.

 

[Mike Selig]

Re: Varsity Match

Your statements that (and I am paraphrasing) "no one was hurt, so it's all OK" is ludicrous. Maybe you would like to offer to pay for all the damage if you think like that?

You are not paraphrasing you are ignoring the bits where I say that it is unacceptable but there are levels of unacceptability.

The Police didn't start the trouble.

That remains to be seen.

You are right when you say there are judicial procedures for dealing with the Police over stepping the mark, so let that process take place and stop judging the Police by media.

Unfortunately there is very much a history of cover-ups where police brutality is involved.

I am not judging the police by the media but by first hand accounts from people I like and trust who were there. Perhaps you ought to stop judging the protesters by the media.

 

[SimonSmith]

Re: Varsity Match

That was wrong, stupid and counterproductive. However if you condemn this (as I do) then you have to also condemn some of the gratuitous violence by the police and the attitude at the end of the demo which amounted to nothing else then "getting our own back". There is a system in place for this, it is called justice, and it is not meted out by the executive.

Fair point

Doesn't harm anyone. Note that this doesn't mean I condone it, but there are levels of unacceptability. Smashing windows and doors is a lot lower then bashing people with truncheons and charging at them on horseback when they have nowhere to run to.

There's a valid argument that unacceptable is unacceptable, and that there are no varying degrees. And that once you do something unacceptable, you may lose your normally expected rights.
You know what? The windows and locks and property belong to SOMEONE. They cost money to repair,. Until someone comes up with a formula that can show "strength of outrage multiplied by wrongness of policy equals the right to destroy this kind of property" [*formula clearly unnecessary if Tories are involved and protestors are students] can I respectfully suggest that people stop effing destroying things

I would point out they didn't attack him but his car, but that would miss the point. This attack was stupid, irresponsible, dangerous and irrelevant. I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.

Thanks. Genuinely

The right to protest is fundamental, there was an attitude on Thursday that the protesters "deserved what they got" and that the police were there to "teach them a lesson" presumably in an effort to make sure they didn't protest in the future. At least this is the impression a lot of my friends (who I don't believe would go around throwing things or breaking windows) had. There was a form of collective punishment arbitrarily meted out (such as the final kettle on the bridge) which I believe is a direct challenge to the right to protest. This is wrong.

Yes, everyone should have the right to protest - but not to break the law with impunity.
The difficulty with your friends is that there is a form of collectivism going on.
Protests generally work through the power of numbers in this case.
If you want to get the benefit of protesting in numbers, then you have to be prepared to take the downside of being in a large crowd. That means, I would guess, that you're only as good as your weakest link. A smaller group start rioting? That's the whole group tarred with that brush. Crap, isn't it? Tough. That's how it works, and it has done since time immemorial.

And Mike - "a direct challenge to the right to protest"? You're living in one of the countries where you can still protest. You may have noticed a small ceremony that took place earlier this week. A dude doing 11 years for writing something. Now, THAT'S a challenge to the right to protest. Kettling is a tactic, maybe badly deployed, but a legit tactic nonetheless. And after the last set of protests, I'm not particularly upset by it. At least they're not doing 11 years now.

 

[Mike Selig]

Agree 100% with didds post.

SimonS:

There's a valid argument that unacceptable is unacceptable, and that there are no varying degrees. And that once you do something unacceptable, you may lose your normally expected rights.

I accept that there is an argument. I respectfully disagree with it. To make a rather stupid point I think we all agree that murder is worse than tax evasion. Also, allowing degrees of unnacceptability allows a world in shades of grey. Black and white is dangerous.

I don't believe in removing rights arbitrarily. Again there is a process for such things. If you believe that rioters who smash windows deserve to be beaten then I will respectfully disagree. Certainly they should be charged with criminal damage etc.

There is also a valid argument that says that the law must be held to higher standards than the common Man.

can I respectfully suggest that people stop effing destroying things

WEll yes, it's not big clever or particularly useful. However it's not the same as beating people or charging at them on horseback.

Yes, everyone should have the right to protest - but not to break the law with impunity.
The difficulty with your friends is that there is a form of collectivism going on.
Protests generally work through the power of numbers in this case.
If you want to get the benefit of protesting in numbers, then you have to be prepared to take the downside of being in a large crowd. That means, I would guess, that you're only as good as your weakest link. A smaller group start rioting? That's the whole group tarred with that brush. Crap, isn't it? Tough. That's how it works, and it has done since time immemorial.

Yes life stinks sometimes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to make it better. Trust me, I know how lucky I am to be living in the UK (and before that in France). Had I been born in China I would love to think that by now I would be in jail or worse, but am not sure I would have been that brave.

The fact remains though that from the accounts I've heard there is a perception that the forces of law acted proactively (that is before any violence) and towards the end basically were "getting their own back", in an apparent attempt to discourage future protests. IMO this is very wrong.

 

[chopper15]

Mike S and Didds ...... :clap: :clap: :clap:

But with regard to D of Cwll and the Prince . . . . A taste of the real world, warts 'n all ?

 

[4eyesbetter]

Some thoughts.

The argument that appears to be being advanced a lot is that "the protestors" deserved what they got from "the police". Was every protestor swarming over every monument they could find? Did they hold a mass piss-in at Churchill's base? No. Was every protestor throwing things? No. So why is it okay to hold the entire lot of them in a kettle for many hours at a time, with no access to food, water or toilet facilities, and by some accounts in dangerously crushed conditions? Why are they not arresting and hauling off the people who have actually committed crimes? It's not like in this day and age they don't have enough video cameras or photographers at demos to collect evidence and track and identify people through a crowd.

When a crime is committed, you identify and punish the person who committed the crime. You don't punish 100 random people who happened to be standing within 50 yards of where a missile appeared from.

Point two; clearly, just as all protestors are not missile-throwing sparts, neither are all coppers stick-wielding nutters. What I want to know is, who's responsible for these tactics? Who is it that gives the order to form kettles? Who decides when to get out the full riot gear? Who authorises a horse charge? Is it a decision for sergeants on the ground? Inspectors on the ground? Inspectors somewhere else? Do they use the Gold/Silver/Bronze structure for demos? If so, at what level do these tactics get authorised? Whoever it is, they should be aware that students talk to a lot of people who they consider friends these days, and if friends (especially young and impressionable ones) hear from friends that "the police" are a bunch of heavy-handed buffoons who like hitting people, they may well start to believe it.

On kettling; leaving aside the human rights implications for a moment, it really is a stupid and self-defeating tactic, because it encourages uncontrolled protest. If you know or fear that you're going to get kettled at some point during the day, what incentive have you to stick to the route of an organised protest? Absolutely none.

One more thing, on the presence of lefty agitators; if you don't like the protests you should be quietly pleased at their presence, because any movement or cause that a group like the SWP touches will inevitably turn into a newspaper-selling operation before collapsing in on itself like a cheap deckchair and then splitting seven different ways (because the only thing they hate more than the Romans is the Judean People's Front).

 

[Toby Warren]

If there has been any criminal acts they should be investigated and dealt with this includes police as well as protesters.

Furthermore, in a riot the level of force that the police can use has to be increased from what is normally accepted.

The police are charged with protecting property as well as people. Therefore they will us force when property is attacked.

 

[Dixie]

A heated debate! Great stuff, and some cogent views on both sides.

Without wading into the substance (I was out of the country, and only saw brief "highlights"), no-one seems to have mentioned civil actions against those people who have destroyed things. While destruction of property can most certainly be a criminal offence, on the night that's unlikely to have been a police priority. However, in the political zone of the capital of one of the most heavily videoed societies in the world, it's inconceivable that there's insufficient evidence to at least treble the perpetrator's future elevated student debt.

 

[Skids]

It's always easy to criticise in hindsight, but at the time, did the authorities know how bad the hijacking of a lawful protest might get? You forget that we do not know how much intelligence the police had regarding the violence that was planned, and after watching the dropping of objects from the roof of a building onto the police last time (attempted murder?), how can you second-guess police actions when you know nothing of their viewpoint?

The authories were heavily criticised last time for not being well enough prepared or reacting strongly enough, so it's hardly surprising they were tougher this time. Mind you, I do not condone bully tactics from anyone, especially the police, but I do get tired of the oh-so-easy to blame the police brigade who have the benefit of 100% hindsight and no responsibility. Armchair critics do no-one any favours.

I utterly sympathise with those peaceful protesters who saw their rightful demonstrations hijacked into a left-wing, anti-authority media-grab, but they were either culpable because they knew it was going to happen or naive in that they didn't expect it and plan well enough for it.

As for the reason they were protesting, who exactly do they expect to pay for their higher education? Someone else, that's who.

 

[Mike Selig]

It's always easy to criticise in hindsight, but at the time, did the authorities know how bad the hijacking of a lawful protest might get? You forget that we do not know how much intelligence the police had regarding the violence that was planned, and after watching the dropping of objects from the roof of a building onto the police last time (attempted murder?), how can you second-guess police actions when you know nothing of their viewpoint?

My point is the police cannot act under the assumption that the demo will turn violent as this contradicts "innocent until proven guilty". Certainly the police are welcome to contigency plans etc. but if they act preventively (don't you just love the "preventive strike" justification?) then that makes them no better than the rioters. And importantly they cannot as the law be held to the same regard as others, but above.

The authories were heavily criticised last time for not being well enough prepared or reacting strongly enough, so it's hardly surprising they were tougher this time. Mind you, I do not condone bully tactics from anyone, especially the police, but I do get tired of the oh-so-easy to blame the police brigade who have the benefit of 100% hindsight and no responsibility. Armchair critics do no-one any favours.

I raised with several people including my local MP my worry at police prevention after the last 2 peaceful demos where there was plenty of evidence showing that the police had planned kettles, despite there being no need. I'm afraid my criticisms aren't only hindsight.

I utterly sympathise with those peaceful protesters who saw their rightful demonstrations hijacked into a left-wing, anti-authority media-grab, but they were either culpable because they knew it was going to happen or naive in that they didn't expect it and plan well enough for it.

I was enjoying this debate so can we please keep it free of sweeping generalisations which assume all trouble makers to be left-wing.

As for the reason they were protesting, who exactly do they expect to pay for their higher education? Someone else, that's who.

Yes like someone else pays for the NHS, Schools, defence etc. Anyway that is a separate issue from police tactics etc. Personally I back the proposals through gritted teeth (I would have preferred a graduate tax and been happy to pay one), but this is another issue.