# NUS national protest against the cuts 10.11.10 [London]



## where to (Oct 24, 2010)

> NUS and UCU are jointly organising a national demonstration – 'Fund Our Future: Stop Education Cuts' - to take place on Wednesday 10 November 2010.
> 
> Meet at Horse Guards Avenue - 11.30am.



more info:
http://www.demo2010.org/


----------



## mrothe (Nov 8, 2010)

I'm going to be down there shooting for University Radio Nottingham. It's my first protest so I'm looking forward to it!


----------



## treelover (Nov 8, 2010)

good on you..


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2010)

i thought it was traditional to have these on a wednesday afternoon to maximise turnout rather than in the morning which rather works against many from eg newcastle attending.


----------



## madzone (Nov 8, 2010)

Or Cornwall.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 8, 2010)

mrothe said:


> I'm going to be down there shooting for University Radio Nottingham. It's my first protest so I'm looking forward to it!


 
Oh my word, is this going to be an armed demonstration? Things are getting really serious. 

I am glad you are looking forward to it. After 25 years of demonstrating it gets quite depressing.


----------



## where to (Nov 8, 2010)

Call for a national walkout and localised protests on Wednesday 24th November to follow up the national demonstration in London on the 10th.

http://anticuts.org.uk/?p=505

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=134751449911080

http://anticuts.com/2010/11/01/northernmeetin/


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 9, 2010)

Im cant go to this unfortunately  a lot of my mates who've never ever been on anything like that before will be going to it though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Im cant go to this unfortunately  a lot of my mates who've never ever been on anything like that before will be going to it though.


 
but, to use a famous anl slogan, 'never again'


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 9, 2010)

every bloody year for as long as i can remember there's been the obligatory student march and much bloody good it's done.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 9, 2010)

bloody students


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 9, 2010)

This one's going to the start of the revolution, grumpy-guts.


----------



## grogwilton (Nov 9, 2010)

Actually there wasn't one for the last 3 years of my 4 year uni course, which I started in 2003. The NUS was run by either Labour Students then or Broad left. Labour Students only wanted to offer token opposition to fees increases for obvious reasons, and Broad left seemed intent on cuting back on union democracy to plug a funding shortfall created by Labour Students bizarrely. This is the first big national student demo properly backed by NUS since that demo in 2003 if my memory serves me correctly.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 9, 2010)

there's a black bloc and everything

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=147155068663088&index=1


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 9, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> every bloody year for as long as i can remember there's been the obligatory student march and much bloody good it's done.


 
Don't be such a pessimist 

Good luck to everyone attending tomorrow!


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Nov 9, 2010)

grogwilton said:


> Actually there wasn't one for the last 3 years of my 4 year uni course, which I started in 2003. The NUS was run by either Labour Students then or Broad left. Labour Students only wanted to offer token opposition to fees increases for obvious reasons, and Broad left seemed intent on cuting back on union democracy to plug a funding shortfall created by Labour Students bizarrely. This is the first big national student demo properly backed by NUS since that demo in 2003 if my memory serves me correctly.


 
Its also backed by the UCU


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 9, 2010)

i never went to any student themed marches the whole time i was at uni, they never really did ayn good tho adn was sort of dominated by lib dems lol


----------



## Dovydaitis (Nov 9, 2010)

I'm going! There are over 100 of us traipsing down from Oxford Brookes. The union are even paying for our travel


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 9, 2010)

good luck , i really hope this time will be different


----------



## Ungrateful (Nov 10, 2010)

Yup good luck to all students and university employees involved in the protests. I travelled down to the protests in the late 80s and early 90s when grants were stopped and loans were brought in. As these were peacefuul, disciplined and respctful they did nothing to stop the introduction of loans and the move towards fees - though it did help build the careers of politicos who organised the safe, disciplined demonstrations (people like Baroness Sherlock, Steven twigg - and oh yes, disgraced racist liar Phil Woolas). 

Sadly, history suggests the students and university workers are only likely to be successful if they are so disruptive that the costs of their rebellion is likely to be higher than the 'savings' to the teasury of placing more debt on students.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

good luck studes, hope you make a nuisance of yourselves


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2010)

check pm's streathamite x


----------



## Santino (Nov 10, 2010)

Just waved at them from my office


----------



## Santino (Nov 10, 2010)

Some students from (I think) Edinburgh, carrying placards stating 'Gonnae no do that' on the front, and 'Just gonnae no' on the back.


----------



## treelover (Nov 10, 2010)

The thread title should be the same as the Irish students one and have massive in the title, it is looking like that...


----------



## Santino (Nov 10, 2010)

Another, much larger, lot just went by. Some had a giant carrot with them. One had a placard bearing the legend 'We're not Sam Cameron, you can't fuck us.'


----------



## treelover (Nov 10, 2010)

blimey......


----------



## Santino (Nov 10, 2010)

"It's over 9000"


----------



## treelover (Nov 10, 2010)

'David Cameron admits tuition fees increase will keep cost to foreign students down
The Coalition’s decision to increase tuition fees by thousands of pounds will help keep down the cost to foreign students of studying in Britain, David Cameron has admitted.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...-will-keep-cost-to-foreign-students-down.html

So UK students are going to subsidise students from rich backgrounds around the world, so 'Uk can be a market leader in education'


----------



## treelover (Nov 10, 2010)

regular updates

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2010/nov/10/demo-2010-student-protests-live


----------



## creak (Nov 10, 2010)

paul__lewis: Just walked the length of the crowd at #demo2010 real crush...feels like biggest march since stopthewar
about 24 minutes ago

Really?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> check pm's streathamite x


did so, replied m8 x - ta for info on strike


----------



## treelover (Nov 10, 2010)

http://london.indymedia.org/articles/5938

bloody hell it is big!

 NUS are saying 52'000, surely not?

http://www.demo2010.org/


----------



## creak (Nov 10, 2010)

I wish I could have gone


----------



## the button (Nov 10, 2010)

> Students smashing windows at tory party HQ



According to Faisal Islam's (C4 news) twitter feed.

Go, studes.


----------



## the button (Nov 10, 2010)

> Someone has started a fire in forecourt of Millbank Tory HQ



from Paul Lewis of The Guardian.


----------



## treelover (Nov 10, 2010)

Blimey again!


----------



## creak (Nov 10, 2010)

Occupation of Tory HQ! 200 inside.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/twitter/list/demo2010protests


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

YES! toby and jemima, I take it all back


----------



## ska invita (Nov 10, 2010)

creak said:


> Occupation of Tory HQ! 200 inside.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/twitter/list/demo2010protests


 
and more to come... lots of DA breakaways planned i gather


----------



## ska invita (Nov 10, 2010)

Someone has started a fire in forecourt of Millbank Tory HQ  smoke em out!"


----------



## machine cat (Nov 10, 2010)

hahahahahahaha!


----------



## the button (Nov 10, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> YES! toby and jemima, I take it all back



Nothing angrier than a thwarted sense of middle class entitlement.


----------



## Flanflinger (Nov 10, 2010)

Can't wait for those twats currently being shown on Sky news to start applying for jobs.

And since when has access to higher education been a right ? It's a choice, not a right.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Nov 10, 2010)

creak said:


> Occupation of Tory HQ! 200 inside.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/twitter/list/demo2010protests


 
wouldn't it be funny if they burned it down he he


----------



## the button (Nov 10, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Can't wait for those twats currently being shown on Sky news start applying for jobs.
> 
> And since when has access to higher education been a right ? It's a choice, not a right.



Fuck off.

On a more positive note....



> Police have just stormed the building with batons in what looks like an attempt to clear the area, however the attempt failed. Some batons were used to strike out at protesters inside, but police have left the protesters inside and instead formed a line in front of the entrance to the building.
> 
> We have a stand off.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2010/nov/10/demo-2010-student-protests-live


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 10, 2010)

what a pleasent surprise!


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

the button said:


> Nothing angrier than a thwarted sense of middle class entitlement.


yes, indeed.
I always thought that it was when the m/c's seriously started to take hits from the cuts, that's when everything would really erupt


----------



## Flanflinger (Nov 10, 2010)

the button said:


> Fuck off.
> 
> On a more positive note....
> 
> ...



You've lost your argument just like the marchers.


----------



## the button (Nov 10, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> You've lost your argument just like the marchers.



I'll live.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 10, 2010)

_"We now have a line of territorial support group officers who have been drafted in to form a as speak their putting on riot gear helmets and missiles are being thrown towards the entrance."_

Students about to get bum rapped now though.


----------



## Santino (Nov 10, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> You've lost your argument just like the marchers.


 
As Oscar Wilde (I think) said - 'Better to passionately lose an argument with right on your side, than to be a Tory cockwit.'


----------



## Santino (Nov 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Students about to get bum rapped now though.



That's the Lib Dem spirit!


----------



## moon23 (Nov 10, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> You've lost your argument just like the marchers.



It will be easy to portray these protestors as immature yobs now they have started smashing stuff.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 10, 2010)

They're not just immature yobs. Once the ringleaders are waterboarded we should get some definitive admissions that they are acting on instructions from Al-Quaeda.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 10, 2010)

Santino said:


> That's the Lib Dem spirit!



Under the Coalition proposals if you graduate and don't get graduate-level job with above-average salary, you don't have to pay anything. Even if you never make a payment, the debt gets cancelled eventually. Also, the poorest third of students will pay *less* under the Browne proposals than they do now, making the proposals more progressive than the status quo. 

Personally I think it was stupid to sign a coalition agreement that didn't allow Lib Dem MPs to vote against a proposal to raise fees.


----------



## gabi (Nov 10, 2010)

at the moment one of them is mooning the building  priceless. oh he just flipped the bird too..

http://news.sky.com/skynews/LivePlus


----------



## moon23 (Nov 10, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> They're not just immature yobs. Once the ringleaders are waterboarded we should get some definitive admissions that they are acting on instructions from Al-Quaeda.



No not Al-Quaeda, probably the usual agitators are along for a bit of a chance to cause trouble though.


----------



## plurker (Nov 10, 2010)

Following paul_lewis on twitter, latest:

_Fights breaking out between police #demo2010 and protesters as another group force their way into Millbank building. *TSG officers drafted* _


----------



## gabi (Nov 10, 2010)

theres a lot of palestinian scarves (£19.99 at topshop) and iPhones being waved about now. this looks like the aftermath of a full moon party at the mo


----------



## the button (Nov 10, 2010)

plurker said:


> Following paul_lewis on twitter, latest:
> 
> _Fights breaking out between police #demo2010 and protesters as another group force their way into Millbank building. *TSG officers drafted* _



Hope any studes armed with drink cartons are careful. Our friend Delroy Smellie might be there.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 10, 2010)

gabi said:


> at the moment one of them is mooning the building  priceless. oh he just flipped the bird too..
> 
> http://news.sky.com/skynews/LivePlus


 
Oh dear lot's of unmasked middle-class kids whipped up into a fury, will now be facing criminal damages charges


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 10, 2010)

where is this all going on?


----------



## Santino (Nov 10, 2010)

Do you support the demo, moon23?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Oh dear lot's of unmasked middle-class kids whipped up into a fury, will now be facing criminal damages charges


 
Not all of them are middle class by any definition.


----------



## Santino (Nov 10, 2010)

rutabowa said:


> where is this all going on?


 
Mostly around Parliament, a small minority around Millbank where all the media attention is now.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 10, 2010)

gabi said:


> theres a lot of palestinian scarves (£19.99 at topshop) and iPhones being waved about now. this looks like the aftermath of a full moon party at the mo


 
If students have to pay for their education they won't be able to afford to replace their palestinian scarves or Iphones when they lose them pissed up on lager.


----------



## Santino (Nov 10, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Not all of them are middle class by any definition.


 
To be fair, I bet loads of them come from households earning £23,000 a year, which they use to buy ponies, go skiiing and pay private school fees.


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 10, 2010)

Santino said:


> Mostly around Parliament, a small minority around Millbank where all the media attention is now.


 
awesome.


----------



## Santino (Nov 10, 2010)

Do you support the increase in fees and the slashing of teaching budgets, moon23?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It will be easy to portray these protestors as immature yobs now they have started smashing stuff.


spoken just like a Tory_ Daily Mail_ reader!


----------



## Dan U (Nov 10, 2010)

Some lad is on the phone now on sky news saying he is in an alternate group looking to occupy buildings elsewhere.

Reckons they got battoned out of dept of business and lib dem hq


----------



## the button (Nov 10, 2010)

Live coverage on BBC news channel: -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10318089


----------



## rekil (Nov 10, 2010)

Awful Kay Burley woman on Sky: Do you think it's appropriate to commit illegal acts to get your points across? 
Student: I think it's definitely appropriate. 


Well said sir.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 10, 2010)

CCHQ is a pretty slender operation. There would be more bona fide Tories in Westminster, or freshly installed in sinecures at Admiralty Arch.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Under the Coalition proposals if you graduate and don't get graduate-level job with above-average salary, you don't have to pay anything. Even if you never make a payment, the debt gets cancelled eventually. .


jesus, stop this rubbish spinning! That was ALWAYS the case with loans, now you're just keeping them on the breadline for far longer!


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2010)

Santino said:


> To be fair, I bet loads of them come from households earning £23,000 a year, which they use to buy ponies, go skiiing and pay private school fees.


 
Much of the middle class is becoming proletarianised anyway IMO ... anyway, a lot of these are also school and college students who will be shut out of higher education by the tories' proposals.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 10, 2010)

Santino said:


> Do you support the demo, moon23?


 
I think everyone has a right to demonstrate, I don't support the direct action or criminal damages.  I think that any coalition is going to have compromises, but that it was stupid to sign an agreement that means having to break an election promise.   It was daft negotiating such an agreement in only a few days.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 10, 2010)

The Sky footage made me cheer in the pub much to some suits disapproval


----------



## rekil (Nov 10, 2010)

Copper's helmet on a stick.


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2010)

this is excellent. 

cunt off moon23. arsehole.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

well this has put a big smile on my face, let's just hope anyone doing anything naughty remembers to cover theirs.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 10, 2010)

They're going to have to move in quickly - the police will reinforce pretty soon.

ETA: oh, there they go - streaming in.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2010)

i'm not impressed by these students. all they've done is start a tiny fire, steal a sofa, jostle some cops a little break a couple of windows. step it up a bit!


----------



## the button (Nov 10, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> i'm not impressed by these students. all they've done is start a tiny fire, steal a sofa, jostle some cops a little break a couple of windows. step it up a bit!



The Bullingdon used to do more damage than that before opening time. C'mon, studes.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> i'm not impressed by these students. all they've done is start a tiny fire, steal a sofa, jostle some cops a little break a couple of windows. step it up a bit!


 
Now if only some of the unions had the balls to call a general strike against the cuts.


----------



## DRINK? (Nov 10, 2010)

They are buring effigies.....now we're talking....brilliant


----------



## Santino (Nov 10, 2010)

Some on the roof


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Now if only some of the unions had the balls to call a general strike against the cuts.


yeah - on the first day of the winter olympics in hell


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2010)

c'mon!


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> i'm not impressed by these students. all they've done is start a tiny fire, steal a sofa, jostle some cops a little break a couple of windows. step it up a bit!


I know, "In YOUR day, they caused REAL trouble...."


----------



## Santino (Nov 10, 2010)

The giant carrot's on telly!


----------



## Garek (Nov 10, 2010)

Santino said:


> The giant carrot's on telly!


 
Which channel?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2010)

Santino said:


> The giant carrot's on telly!


 he's dead! 
fucking pigs! 
RIP blair carrot


----------



## Dan U (Nov 10, 2010)

lot of police round tory hq on the TV now, looking suited up


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 10, 2010)

Burn it to the ground


----------



## OneStrike (Nov 10, 2010)

NUS tweet that "they are disappointed in the actions of a few", hopefully tweeted with a smile


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> yeah - on the first day of the winter olympics in hell


 
oh I know, still one can have the absurd dream that a union might actual go on strike and not one of those counter productive one day ones every other month.


----------



## agricola (Nov 10, 2010)

Smurker said:


> NUS tweet that "they are disappointed in the actions of a few", hopefully tweeted with a smile


 
Perhaps, though the President of the NUS is on BBC News now, desperately trying to condemn utterly what has gone on.  His future job in wonkery is being smashed as thoroughly as the glass in Millbank Tower.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 10, 2010)

FIT getting ready according to Sky and Mi5 shut to all visitors as a precaution


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 10, 2010)

anyone see the copper catch a vuvzela (sp?) to the face on the BBC webstream?


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2010)

Lol at the lisping twat from the NUS on the BBC. Have some fucking backbone.


----------



## Zabo (Nov 10, 2010)

*Can anybody tell me if this is your actual real policeman or somebody from Community Support?  Cheers*


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 10, 2010)

If it walks like a duck....


----------



## Dan U (Nov 10, 2010)

red and white is City Police isn't it?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 10, 2010)

Having been watching live on the news, I just thought I'd mention that if anyone wanted to see the police allowing protest (including criminal damage and minor assaults, and the "invasion" of a private building) without batoning anyone into the ground (let alone randomly batoning protestors just for being protestors without any grounds whatsoever) they could watch now ... so that if it does all get a bit more violent later when the protestors ramp it up to the stage where the police need to intervene (like they've now started throwing things off the roof) it will be apparent how it all started ...


----------



## moon23 (Nov 10, 2010)

Sky news showing a procession of riot cop vans moving in


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 10, 2010)

Zabo said:


> *Can anybody tell me if this is your actual real policeman or somebody from Community Support?  Cheers*


It's a City Police officer.

If anyone wants to know how this picture does NOT tell the whole story, turn on News 24 now.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2010)

bravo! think they've stormed the building proper now. they'll be hard to get out.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 10, 2010)

These are not just any protestors. They could be the sons and daughters of journalists, lawyers and who knows what.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 10, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's a City Police officer.
> 
> If anyone wants to know how this picture does NOT tell the whole story, turn on News 24 now.


 
News 24 never tells the whole story


----------



## rekil (Nov 10, 2010)

Db getting his excuses in early for when we see his gang of cowards battering women sitting on the ground etc.


----------



## Flanflinger (Nov 10, 2010)

TSG said to be moving in.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Having been watching live on the news, I just thought I'd mention that if anyone wanted to see the police allowing protest (including criminal damage and minor assaults, and the "invasion" of a private building) without batoning anyone into the ground (let alone randomly batoning protestors just for being protestors without any grounds whatsoever) they could watch now ... so that if it does all get a bit more violent later when the protestors ramp it up to the stage where the police need to intervene (like they've now started throwing things off the roof) it will be apparent how it all started ...


 
cunt off pig.

we know who started this, the government, the cops are their armed wing and not neutral.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 10, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> These are not just any protestors. They could be the sons and daughters of journalists, lawyers and who knows what.


 
Er, couldn't any protesters though?  I don't get that comment?


----------



## Dan U (Nov 10, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Having been watching live on the news, I just thought I'd mention that if anyone wanted to see the police allowing protest (including criminal damage and minor assaults, and the "invasion" of a private building) without batoning anyone into the ground (let alone randomly batoning protestors just for being protestors without any grounds whatsoever) they could watch now ... so that if it does all get a bit more violent later when the protestors ramp it up to the stage where the police need to intervene (like they've now started throwing things off the roof) it will be apparent how it all started ...



they only 'allowed' it because they utterly got caught with their pants down and had no choice. the building wasnt even defended according to Sky news etc

see also the big rave in central london the other weekend.

are you seriously suggesting the Met let the protesters in to Tory HQ as an altruistic gesture


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 10, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> These are not just any protestors. They could be the sons and daughters of journalists, lawyers and who knows what.


 
so could any group of protestors.


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 10, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> Er, couldn't any protesters though?  I don't get that comment?


 
ohh my reply button wasn't working and you beat me to it.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> cunt off pig.
> 
> we know who started this, the government, the cops are their armed wing and not neutral.


 
oh ffs that's enough.  I'm all in favour of these crazy students doing this, but from the footage I've been watching I've been INCREDIBLY IMPRESSED with the amount of restraint from the police so far.


----------



## Zabo (Nov 10, 2010)

Cheers Dan and detective-boy. I've never see the red chequered hat before.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Nov 10, 2010)

Managed to get caught up in it myself as I had to go to my bank on Horseferry Road.

It all looked rather good natured to my untrained eye and looked like a bunch of well spoken Students (and they were all tiny) being 'wadicals' for the day.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> cunt off pig..


This is not acceptable language. Please desist.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 10, 2010)

BBC live feed has been cut, which probably means that TSG are moving in, so I'd put a hold on your comments about police 'restraint' ...


----------



## Flanflinger (Nov 10, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> bravo! think they've stormed the building proper now. they'll be hard to get out.




Some good footage of faces being shown.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 10, 2010)

Dan U said:


> they only 'allowed' it because they utterly got caught with their pants down and had no choice. the building wasnt even defended according to Sky news etc
> 
> see also the big rave in central london the other weekend.
> 
> are you seriously suggesting the Met let the protesters in to Tory HQ as an altruistic gesture


 
Perhaps suggesting that the reaction from the police so far, whatever the cause of that, has been pretty proportional to the level of threat.  TBF, that's not what most people expect from the police during a riot.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

Here was me thinking British students were an apathetic lot. Still, not a lot to get excited about. Tianamen Square this ain't.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 10, 2010)

rutabowa said:


> so could any group of protestors.


 
It's a question of demographics and probability. Also it would be harder to portray someone as a 'hardcore protestor' if like most of the bods there they have probably never been on a protest before.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> oh ffs that's enough.  I'm all in favour of these crazy students doing this, but from the footage I've been watching I've been INCREDIBLY IMPRESSED with the amount of restraint from the police so far.


 
I couldn't give a fuck how restrained or not the cops are they are still cunts and will some be getting these protesters locked up.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 10, 2010)

Any other channels showing live footage? BBC has been running earlier footage for ages.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

What a turn out! A sign of things to come I hope as people react angrily to the fucking ConDem lies and bullshit.

Here's what they're protesting about:



> Higher education funding is being cut by 40% - with teaching grants being all but wiped out except for science and maths.
> 
> The government expects the costs of teaching other courses to be funded by tuition fees.
> 
> ...


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> will some be getting these protesters locked up.


 
Well, yes. Criminal damage is illegal, even if it does make entertaining viewing.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> I couldn't give a fuck how restrained or not the cops are they are still cunts and will some be getting these protesters locked up.


 
I don't get how you can just say that every person in the police is a cunt.  I don't agree with war and would personally never join the armed forces but it doesn't mean that underqualified young men and women who are pushed by economic circumstances to join up are all 'cunts'.  I'm sure plenty of them are, but most are not - I think the same applies here.  I might just decide that every person on that riot is a cunt because I personally wouldn't get involved with smashing up other people's stuff.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Nov 10, 2010)

Seems a bit strange that its all kicking off now as from what I experienced the majority of people seemed to be going back to their coaches and heading home.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> What a turn out! A sign of things to come I hope as people react angrily to the fucking ConDem lies and bullshit.


 
Will it make a difference, though? The acolytes in the press will just demonise the protesters and it will all be forgotten by next week...


----------



## Dan U (Nov 10, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Any other channels showing live footage? BBC has been running earlier footage for ages.



sky news if you have it.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 10, 2010)

Yeah, funny how the BBC cameras have stopped now the riot police have turned up.  Just showing the same clips over and over again.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 10, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Yeah, funny how the BBC cameras have stopped now the riot police have turned up.  Just showing the same clips over and over again.


 
Innit. What a coincidence!


----------



## Dan U (Nov 10, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> Perhaps suggesting that the reaction from the police so far, whatever the cause of that, has been pretty proportional to the level of threat.  TBF, that's not what most people expect from the police during a riot.


 
maybe i misread DB's post in which case i'll apologise. i read him as suggesting the police allowed this when in fact they abandoned the building.

they have been completely caught out so it is not in their own interests to try and break this up, thus getting the batons out etc.

anyway TSG are in attendance now so plenty of time for blood to be spilt if people dont leave quietly.

ffs at the idiots allegedly throwing stuff off the roof as well


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Yeah, funny how the BBC cameras have stopped now the riot police have turned up.  Just showing the same clips over and over again.


 
Because of health & safety concerns, they are being moved back to avoid missiles


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Will it make a difference, though? The acolytes in the press will just demonise the protesters and it will all be forgotten by next week...


It's doing a pretty good job of letting the government - and the general public - know that people are very angry at the government's cuts and they're not going to take it lying down. 

The size of the turn out is massive compared to what they were expecting and that suggests other protests against the cuts are going to lively affairs too - and that's sending a very loud message to the politicians.


----------



## jiggajagga (Nov 10, 2010)

Good luck guys. Protest changed the poll tax after all!


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 10, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> It's a question of demographics and probability. Also it would be harder to portray someone as a 'hardcore protestor' if like most of the bods there they have probably never been on a protest before.


 
students are always a big part of protests though, they are the protesting demographic.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Because of health & safety concerns, they are being moved back to avoid missiles



They were in a helicopter. What did the swoppies have, rocket launchers?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> It's doing a pretty good job of letting the government - and the general public - know that people are very angry at the government's cuts and they're not going to take it lying down.
> 
> The size of the turn out is massive compared to what they were expecting and that suggests other protests against the cuts are going to lively affairs too - and that's sending a very loud message to the politicians.


 
It is a big turnout, I was surprised. It will be interesting to hear political reaction. Will it be anything other than "hooligans", I hope...


----------



## rekil (Nov 10, 2010)

Dan U said:


> ffs at the idiots allegedly throwing stuff off the roof as well


Sky news lies. The 'concrete' looks suspiciously floaty. Oh it's bits of paper.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

Some of those students aren't being too smart by showing off their faces for the cameras as they're smashing things up.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 10, 2010)

I love the way the BBC and everyone they interview keep downplaying the number of people involved


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 10, 2010)

statement from those on the roof

"We stand against the cuts, in solidarity with all the poor, elderly, disabled and working people affected. We are against all cuts and the marketisation of education. We are occupying the rood of Tory HQ to show we are against the Tory system of attacking the poor and helping the rich. This is only the beginning."

hopefully not their typos! ha


----------



## Dan U (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> Some of those students aren't being too smart by showing off their faces for the cameras as they're smashing things up.



innit

copliker - yeah quite possibly


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> It is a big turnout, I was surprised. It will be interesting to hear political reaction. Will it be anything other than "hooligans", I hope...


They expected around 20,000 and have got something like 45,000 (NUS estimate 52,000). That's a fucking big protest by anyone's standard,.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> I don't get how you can just say that every person in the police is a cunt.  I don't agree with war and would personally never join the armed forces but it doesn't mean that underqualified young men and women who are pushed by economic circumstances to join up are all 'cunts'.  I'm sure plenty of them are, but most are not - I think the same applies here.  I might just decide that every person on that riot is a cunt because I personally wouldn't get involved with smashing up other people's stuff.


 
you do understand the difference between the cop as a social role and a cop as a person? 

The cops are cunts does not exclude the possibility of a cop being a lovely father, or being personally sound.


----------



## agricola (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> It's doing a pretty good job of letting the government - and the general public - know that people are very angry at the government's cuts and they're not going to take it lying down.
> 
> The size of the turn out is massive compared to what they were expecting and that suggests other protests against the cuts are going to lively affairs too - and that's sending a very loud message to the politicians.



IIRC the last major anti-fees NUS demo in London was as big as this, and its a terrible shame that all this anger is taking place under the banner of the NUS (which of course is led by people intent on representing the party that introduced tuition fees and which would inevitably have put them up if they had won the election).


----------



## magneze (Nov 10, 2010)

Wow, a huge protest. This is the way things need to go.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

I just spotted an Anarchy graffiti. Old school!


----------



## SF-02 (Nov 10, 2010)

Are the protesters still mostly at Millbank or are groups elsewhere? Some should be getting a move on elsewhere to start somewhere else before they are all kettled for hours on end.


----------



## vauxhallmum (Nov 10, 2010)

Hope I did that right. Just wanted to point out that this didn't tell the whole story either, but she did time for it anyway.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Because of health & safety concerns, they are being moved back to avoid missiles


 
uh huh


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> you do understand the difference between the cop as a social role and a cop as a person?
> 
> The cops are cunts does not exclude the possibility of a cop being a lovely father, or being personally sound.


 
If you're not talking about the individuals, I don't get how you can be calling a 'social role' i.e. not a person, a cunt   I agree the system is fucked, absolutely - does that make the people working within it, without questions, cunts?  I doubt it....


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 10, 2010)

vauxhallmum said:


> Hope I did that right. Just wanted to point out that this didn't tell the whole story either, but she did time for it anyway.


 
if you were posting a link nothing has shown up, vauxhallmum


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 10, 2010)

accoding to a twitter feed on the guardian, the 'concrete' from the roof is in fact copies of teh Socialist Worker haha


----------



## ska invita (Nov 10, 2010)

rutabowa said:


> students are always a big part of protests though, they are the protesting demographic.


 
you say that, but look at when labour brought in the fees - that was the moment to stop the rot - thin end of the wedge and all that - there was a demo, but thats about it. student apathy has been grumbled about for years now...

*report of a dnb sound system turning up at millbank has tickled me! wish i wasnt on a shitty 12hr shift here...


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> If you're not talking about the individuals, I don't get how you can be calling a 'social role' i.e. not a person, a cunt   I agree the system is fucked, absolutely - does that make the people working within it, without questions, cunts?  I doubt it....


 
It makes the cops as an institution and social role a cuntish one though.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

FFS: how idiotic is the SkyNews interviewer?


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 10, 2010)

I think they have finally woken up and seen what the fuck is going on.  Being this betrayed by the lib dems has fired em up imo.


----------



## agricola (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> FFS: how idiotic is the SkyNews interviewer?


 
If its Kay Burley then *very*.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2010)

murderers about to move in


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 10, 2010)

@BristleKRS Sign at #demo2010: 'KAY BURLEY IS WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU DON'T INVEST IN EDUCATION'.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> I just spotted an Anarchy graffiti. Old school!


 
graffito


----------



## sir.clip (Nov 10, 2010)

Not a large Scottish contingent apparantley.
But one bloke came for the craic.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

yeah there's definitely a wider sense of discontent that has been growing for some time.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 10, 2010)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/asifkhan/5163666447/


----------



## belboid (Nov 10, 2010)

ExtraRefined said:


> graffito


 
graffit*i*.   We are not Italian, it is a 'mass noun'


----------



## Chairman Meow (Nov 10, 2010)

Ohhh I used to work in Millbank, I hope they burn the place to the ground!


----------



## ska invita (Nov 10, 2010)

Dan U said:


> sky news if you have it.


 one thing about sky news is they do tend be more graphic on this kind of thing than the bbc. at the last City thing i nipped in for a pint and the footage on the telly was the same as what was outside the window. <last time i'll ever say anything near nice about sky.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

Slippery LibDem politician getting short thrift from the same crowd he claimed were applauding him earlier.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> - does that make the people working within it, without questions, cunts?  I doubt it....


if they understand that central to their jobs is playing a part in social control and oppression, and they happily embrace that then, yes, professionally, they are very much 'cunts'. outside of work, possibly a different matter


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

Those evil students are throwing concrete cunningly disguised as sheets of paper  off the roof.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> Those evil students are throwing concrete cunningly disguised as sheets of paper  off the roof.


 
Art students, i'll wager


----------



## Stoat Boy (Nov 10, 2010)

Makes me wonder if the Old Bill are perhaps being more 'lenient' by way of reminding the Government who protects them. Mates of mine in the Police force are worried about their pensions (which is why the majority of them seem to stay in the job for so long) will come under 'review'.

Could be a way of letting the Conservatives know how much they might be needing them.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 10, 2010)

Live again now the foyer's been cleared


----------



## grit (Nov 10, 2010)

Stoat Boy said:


> Seems a bit strange that its all kicking off now as from what I experienced the majority of people seemed to be going back to their coaches and heading home.


 
Yeah, I was down there and fucked off at about 3pm as it seemed to be wrapping up. Very disappointed now to be getting texts when I got off the tube that it was kicking off


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

They've found some posh protesters on Sky now.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 10, 2010)

fucking students!!! 

(fucking well done this time )


----------



## Stoat Boy (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> They've found some posh protesters on Sky now.


 
The ones I had to work my way through all sounded very well spoken.


----------



## TAE (Nov 10, 2010)

copliker said:


> Sky news lies. The 'concrete' looks suspiciously floaty. Oh it's bits of paper.


 
Sounded very much like deliberate misinformation to me.


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> Those evil students are throwing concrete cunningly disguised as sheets of paper  off the roof.


 
as I posted on teh last page, according to one of the Granuaid's journos it's actually copies of Socialist Worker haha


----------



## rekil (Nov 10, 2010)

Coppers waiting for the cover of darkness or what.


----------



## agricola (Nov 10, 2010)

Stoat Boy said:


> Makes me wonder if the Old Bill are perhaps being more 'lenient' by way of reminding the Government who protects them. Mates of mine in the Police force are worried about their pensions (which is why the majority of them seem to stay in the job for so long) will come under 'review'.
> 
> Could be a way of letting the Conservatives know how much they might be needing them.


 
Good Lord, lets hope so.  Though they actually want you working as long as possible, the last thing they want is people leaving when their pension comes due (which can be as early as 48) because they get far more from it than if, say, they work to 60 and then die a couple of years later.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 10, 2010)

Why did the BBC segregate the Welsh off in this report: "Students from Wales join fees rise protest in London" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11724278  ??


----------



## Gerry1time (Nov 10, 2010)

I was walking down whitehall at the start of the rally a couple of hours ago and it all seemed good natured to me, if massive. Lots of NUS stewards out trying to keep the pavements free for people and so on. 

Guess there was an excitable atmosphere to it all, someone letting off fireworks in whitehall and so on, but didn't seem much different to other student rallies, just larger. 

Lots of socialist worker signs out though, but then they always produce the most placards to people to carry anyway, to make their numbers look bigger. 

Wish I'd walked down whitehall after my meeting too now, rather than deciding to take the back way to charing cross for a change.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

Mind you, it's great to see students getting arsey and uppity about politics again.


----------



## agricola (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> They've found some posh protesters on Sky now.


 
What a group of absolute bellends.  Especially that lad in the leather coat.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 10, 2010)

agricola said:


> Good Lord, lets hope so.  Though they actually want you working as long as possible, the last thing they want is people leaving when their pension comes due (which can be as early as 48) because they get far more from it than if, say, they work to 60 and then die a couple of years later.



I thought lots of forces were gloing to enforce 30-year retirement in order to get headcount down.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 10, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Yeah, funny how the BBC cameras have stopped now the riot police have turned up.  Just showing the same clips over and over again.


 
indeed - hope folk are OK


----------



## RaverDrew (Nov 10, 2010)

These posh twit students are hilariously cringeworthy 

A career in the Lib-Dems beckons...


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 10, 2010)

copliker said:


> Coppers waiting for the cover of darkness or what.


 
Yup!!!
Edit: Can anyone see on the footage whether they're wearing their numbers?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

rutabowa said:


> students are always a big part of protests though, they are the protesting demographic.


they've been bloody hopeless for the past 20 years tho'


----------



## Dan U (Nov 10, 2010)

footage of a fire extinguisher being thrown on sky off the roof 

 but the sky bod at the scene now saying its just been paper


----------



## agricola (Nov 10, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> I thought lots of forces were gloing to enforce 30-year retirement in order to get headcount down.


 
Thats more because they can get rid of those people a lot easier and cheaper than they can get rid of officers with less than 30 years service, or even civil staff.  All they have to do is state that keeping them on isnt in the interests of efficiency and they go - which is a bit daft, given that lots of forces have kept people on after 30 years service, because its cheaper than hiring and training new staff (North Wales, for instance, will lose 25% of its officers in the next 4 years if they get rid of people at 30, and they have not been recruiting for ages, even transferees).  So in a couple of years they will no doubt panic-recruit like they did at the end of the 1990s (which is not that bad, thats how I got in  )


----------



## Chairman Meow (Nov 10, 2010)

Just hear they have set two fires on the fourth floor! I used to work on the fourth floor! Unless they've moved that's where the soon to be abolished Audit Commission reside, I reckon they're taking advantage and burning a few dodgy files!


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 10, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> they've been bloody hopeless for the past 20 years tho'


 there have been lots of big protests in the last 20 years, including the biggest one ever.
people are only students for 3 years anyway, it's not like they are some seperate class.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> Mind you, it's great to see students getting arsey and uppity about politics again.


 
This.


----------



## vauxhallmum (Nov 10, 2010)

Did they say there were problems round M15 or M16?


----------



## agricola (Nov 10, 2010)

vauxhallmum said:


> Did they say there were problems round M15 or M16?


 
No, they (MI5) have just panicked because its about 50 metres away back towards Lambeth Bridge.


----------



## Zabo (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> Mind you, it's great to see students getting arsey and uppity about politics again.



Seconded. Anything to enliven this moribund shit hole of a society.

I was one of the group that threw out the Chancellor from his office at Man' Uni' in ye good olde days. We had a ball. We soon finished off his entertainment budget. 

I hope this isn't a passing phase.

Enjoy yourselves kids.


----------



## sir.clip (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> They expected around 20,000 and have got something like 45,000 (NUS estimate 52,000). That's a fucking big protest by anyone's standard,.




Ticket master missed a trick with this one i tell ya.


----------



## TAE (Nov 10, 2010)

Do you reccon that many people will try to join in after work?


----------



## Chairman Meow (Nov 10, 2010)

I'm actually a bit jealous because I never got to go on the roof as there were two lifts, one for floor 1-15 IIRC, and the other for 15+, and the security guard wouldn't let me go in the other lift.


----------



## Santino (Nov 10, 2010)

ska invita said:


> Why did the BBC segregate the Welsh off in this report: "Students from Wales join fees rise protest in London" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11724278  ??


 
Because that's BBC Wales news.


----------



## *Miss Daisy* (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> Mind you, it's great to see students getting arsey and uppity about politics again.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

Decent press release from the ones on the roof read out on Sky News, saying they stand against all cuts and in solidarity with public sector workers, the disabled, poor and all those who are being targeted in an attack on working people by the rich.


----------



## Santino (Nov 10, 2010)

A BBC reporter has the uncanny ability to identify whether protestors are or aren't students by sight alone.


----------



## Gerry1time (Nov 10, 2010)

Chairman Meow said:


> Just hear they have set two fires on the fourth floor! I used to work on the fourth floor! Unless they've moved that's where the soon to be abolished Audit Commission reside, I reckon they're taking advantage and burning a few dodgy files!



Hah, brilliant!

"Yeah boss, bunch of students came through here, couldn't see their faces mind. Afraid they burned all those motivational posters you put up on the walls too. They've done one with the petty cash as well. Fancy a pint?"


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2010)

are the protestors in the building (who aren't smashing anything up) doing anything illegal?


----------



## TAE (Nov 10, 2010)

Protester being interviewed on BBC News wight now


----------



## the button (Nov 10, 2010)

One of the protesters in a red knitted balaclava with a bobble on top. Awr.


----------



## Chairman Meow (Nov 10, 2010)

In my day the Labour Party was on the second floor.


----------



## TAE (Nov 10, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> are the protestors in the building (who aren't smashing anything up) doing anything illegal?


 
Tresspassing?


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 10, 2010)

not illegal


----------



## belboid (Nov 10, 2010)

TAE said:


> Tresspassing?


 
unlawful not illegal.

(behaviour likely to cause a) breach of the peace


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 10, 2010)

the button said:


> One of the protesters in a red knitted balaclava with a bobble on top. Awr.


his mum probably told him to keep warm.


----------



## dylans (Nov 10, 2010)

> In a statement released via Twitter the NUS said that it was "disappointed to see a few people at Millbank undermine the actions of 50000 others", having pushed up their estimate of turnout repeatedly throughout the day. President Aaron Porter said that he "absolutely condemed the actions of violence" seen from some of the students at the protest.







With leadership like that we can't fail.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2010)

is it true that they're actually in the wrong building?


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

TAE said:


> Tresspassing?


Trespassing is a civil act, not a criminal one*.

*with some exceptions
*http://www.desktoplawyer.co.uk/dtl/index.cfm?event=base:article&node=A76076BD34460


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> With leadership like that we can't fail.


don't be daft, an organisation like that couldn't be seen to publically appluad something like this.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> is it true that they're actually in the wrong building?


No, they're in the right building but according to the Tory-sounding commentator on Sky, they've attacked some of the wrong offices.


----------



## belboid (Nov 10, 2010)

bloke on bbcnews24 being pretty reasonable (despite having a rather _nice_ voice)


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

I like the idea of being a "rogue protester".


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> No, they're in the right building but according to the Tory-sounding commentator on Sky, they've attacked some of the wrong offices.


 isn't the tory office next door at number 30?


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> isn't the tory office next door at number 30?





> Since 2006, the Conservative Party have based their campaign headquarters at 30 Millbank, in the same complex as Millbank Tower.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millbank_Tower


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> the Tory-sounding commentator on Sky



Tory-sounding? How does that work, then? How would that differ from a UKIP accent? Is it possible to have a slight SDP lilt?


----------



## Flavour (Nov 10, 2010)

GO ON STUDENTS!

This is a fantastic day. I'm so happy they've stood up and let this scum government know that their programme is unacceptable. But you know who else can fuck right off, the aspirant careerist NUS leadership, who may as well be Tories themselves. Fuck off Aaron Porter!

Vive le protest!


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

Which sounds most dramatic: "flaming torches" or "little placard sticks on fire"?

Sky like the former.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 10, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> is it true that they're actually in the wrong building?



thats what Adam Bolton seemed to be saying, i think it was the wrong bit of the building complex, same reception though.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Tory-sounding? How does that work, then? How would that differ from a UKIP accent? Is it possible to have a slight SDP lilt?


From the way he is describing the protest.


----------



## sir.clip (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> I like the idea of being a "rogue protester".




 Its a very poor attempt at regaining your youth..


----------



## Santino (Nov 10, 2010)

Are there any other occupations going on elsewhere?


----------



## Chairman Meow (Nov 10, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> Hah, brilliant!
> 
> "Yeah boss, bunch of students came through here, couldn't see their faces mind. Afraid they burned all those motivational posters you put up on the walls too. They've done one with the petty cash as well. Fancy a pint?"


 
Exactly!


----------



## agricola (Nov 10, 2010)

Szare said:


> GO ON STUDENTS!
> 
> This is a fantastic day. I'm so happy they've stood up and let this scum government know that their programme is unacceptable. But you know who else can fuck right off, the aspirant careerist NUS leadership, who may as well be Tories themselves. Fuck off Aaron Porter!
> 
> Vive le protest!


 
Shame its about 12 years too late though.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 10, 2010)

beeb are blaiming _anarchists_ who have _latched_ onto the demonstration!!??


----------



## Flavour (Nov 10, 2010)

Students of Sheffield, I urge you to burn down Nick Clegg's constituency offices. Students of UEA, I urge you to do the same to the offices of the member for Norwich South, who also voted for the tuition fee rise. FUCK OFF LIB DEMS YOU LYING CUNT WANKERS


----------



## Garek (Nov 10, 2010)

I'm looking forward to YouTube footage later


----------



## Dan U (Nov 10, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> beeb are blaiming _anarchists_ who have _latched_ onto the demonstration!!??


 
i blamed anarchists when my milk was off this morning


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

Curiously, the police statement seems to be going to some lengths to describe the trouble as coming from a "small minority" - a very different tactic to their usual blanket condemnation of protesters...


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 10, 2010)

Dan U said:


> i blamed anarchists when my milk was off this morning


 
Anarchists ate my hamster 

Nearly dark btw, and some pushing and shoving has started on the live BBC feed (up and running again).


----------



## Flavour (Nov 10, 2010)

agricola said:


> Shame its about 12 years too late though.


 
i completely agree and wish there had been demos like this when they trebled the fess from 1k to 3k a year when i was a student. and indeed, when fees were introduced at all. but the stiff lipped british need to be really insulted before they'll take a stand. this is that insult.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

sir.clip said:


> Its a very poor attempt at regaining your youth..


Is there an uper age limit for protesting then?


----------



## Gerry1time (Nov 10, 2010)

THis did make me lol a bit - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...en-who-want-the-moon-on-a-stick-201011103243/


----------



## sir.clip (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> Is there an uper age limit for protesting then?


 
Ask the con-dems its likely there will be soon.


----------



## plurker (Nov 10, 2010)

CO11MetPolice on Twitter writes

_Extra police are now on the ground and are dealing with the situation
Anyone who engages in crime will be arrested._

apart fomr them in uniforms obv


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> Is there an uper age limit for protesting then?


 
Only a matter of time before the ConDem push for legistlation on that...


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 10, 2010)

Kettling manouvre about 1/3 completed. 
Edit: Now's the time for anyone with half a brain to slip out while they still can.


----------



## Stoat Boy (Nov 10, 2010)

It needs to be put into perspective. All I can see is a bit of argy-bargy going on at the plaza just at the entrance of Millbank. I must admit to being totally perplexed at how different things can be because I had to cross Lambeth Bridge and it was all pretty harmless high jinx and a load of kids having a good time. 

And those people at Millbank dont look like the students I saw on the march. 

I am all in favour of a bit of civil disobedience as its part of our political tradition but those kicking off dont seem like 'students' to me.


----------



## dylans (Nov 10, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> don't be daft, an organisation like that couldn't be seen to publically appluad something like this.


 


> NUS president Aaron Porter said a small minority of protesters had "hijacked" the march, describing the violence as "despicable". He said the violence was not part of the organisers' plans, blaming the trouble on a "small minority" he believed had arranged it beforehand. "We talked about the need to prevent anything like this and how important it was to act in a responsible way. Unfortunately a minority have undermined us." An NUS spokesman said: "The trouble makers have let down students."



Nah. I think he's just a treacherous cunt who deserves hanging from a lamppost.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

rutabowa said:


> there have been lots of big protests in the last 20 years, including the biggest one ever.
> people are only students for 3 years anyway, it's not like they are some seperate class.


no, agreed, but the sheer size of those demoes means students were v much in a minority on them, and i was referring to the fact that student-specific protests (i.e. ones on student issues, just like this one) were absolutely hopeless for most of the past 20 years, by general consensus


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

It's a thin blue line. Made up of cops in yellow reflective jackets!


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> Is there an uper age limit for protesting then?


 
Well according to the save EMA guy on bbc earlier 'an _old_ woman, who was 60 was there'.  Bit of a shame as he could have made his point without calling her 'an old woman'.  He was a dick anyway but at least not quite as spineless as the NUS bloke.


----------



## SF-02 (Nov 10, 2010)

Kettling will happen. 

Surely people must be moving away to occupy another site to avoid kettling? Staying in one location is stupid.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

temper_tantrum said:


> Kettling manouvre about 1/3 completed.
> Edit: Now's the time for anyone with half a brain to slip out while they still can.


It's going to be one hell of a kettle too. I hope the students have mapped an escape route.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

> NUS president Aaron Porter said a small minority of protesters had "hijacked" the march, describing the violence as "despicable". He said the violence was not part of the organisers' plans, blaming the trouble on a "small minority" he believed had arranged it beforehand. "We talked about the need to prevent anything like this and how important it was to act in a responsible way. Unfortunately a minority have undermined us." An NUS spokesman said: "The trouble makers have let down students."


oh jesus. folks, I give you the next trainee phil woolas!


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 10, 2010)

Could have been a lecturer of couse. And not all students are between 18 and 21.


----------



## machine cat (Nov 10, 2010)

An email from our London office:



> We have evacuated staff working at Millbank Tower this afternoon due to protesters disrupting the security of the building.
> 
> Managers who have team members working at Millbank today should contact them to check they are safe.
> 
> We expect Millbank to be open tomorrow.  However staff working at Millbank tomorrow should check the Business Continuity Line on <> before travelling to the office.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 10, 2010)

Porter is an absolute disgrace. What a cock-end.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

If G20 hadn't have happened, those students would be getting a right battering now.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> Nah. I think he's just a treacherous cunt who deserves hanging from a lamppost.


 
Why?


----------



## chilango (Nov 10, 2010)

Szare said:


> i completely agree and wish there had been demos like this when they trebled the fess from 1k to 3k a year when i was a student. and indeed, when fees were introduced at all. but the stiff lipped british need to be really insulted before they'll take a stand. this is that insult.


 
I have vague memories of big (50k plus) and quite up for it demos (against loans) in the early 90s. 

One with fighting on a London Bridge (1990? 1991?) and another the following year that included hijacking a double decker and a large breakway heading for parliament (and rumour at the time had it forcing them to suspend procedings for fear that we were actually gonna storm the place...


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> It's going to be one hell of a kettle too. I hope the students have mapped an escape route.


 
Looks to me as though the only escape route is out past where the BBC camera is, and they're rapidly blocking it off. I don't think (from memory) there's a way out by that cafe which they're up against, at the back.


----------



## agricola (Nov 10, 2010)

temper_tantrum said:


> Looks to me as though the only escape route is out past where the BBC camera is, and they're rapidly blocking it off. I don't think (from memory) there's a way out by that cafe which they're up against, at the back.


 
Thorney St and the little path to John Islip St would be the only way out, but one imagines Thorney St is where the TSG will have been hiding prior to this.


----------



## Chairman Meow (Nov 10, 2010)

temper_tantrum said:


> Looks to me as though the only escape route is out past where the BBC camera is, and they're rapidly blocking it off. I don't think (from memory) there's a way out by that cafe which they're up against, at the back.


 
IIRC the only way out is through reception.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 10, 2010)

agricola said:


> Thorney St and the little path to John Islip St would be the only way out, but one imagines Thorney St is where the TSG will have been hiding prior to this.


 
Is that the sidestreet to the right of the building (if you're looking at the entrance from Millbank)? If so, I saw loads of cop vans on it earlier in the helicopter coverage.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 10, 2010)

the button said:


> One of the protesters in a red knitted balaclava with a bobble on top. Awr.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 10, 2010)

Run, Luke, Run!


----------



## agricola (Nov 10, 2010)

temper_tantrum said:


> Is that the sidestreet to the right of the building (if you're looking at the entrance from Millbank)? If so, I saw loads of cop vans on it earlier in the helicopter coverage.


 
Its the bit that runs around the back of Thames House, between Millbank and Horseferry Road.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 10, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> Porter is an absolute disgrace. What a cock-end.


 
Possibly, but he knows what's counter-productive.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 10, 2010)

agricola said:


> Its the bit that runs around the back of Thames House, between Millbank and Horseferry Road.


 
Yeah that's the one. Cop HQ for the day.

Edit: Looks like the kettle is in place.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 10, 2010)

And a student protest in Dublin today @6pm re: Police brutality at their mass march last week... Could be an interesting day all round!


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

I'm not sure that Sky News have run the footage of the solitary fire extinguisher being thrown off the roof enough times yet.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 10, 2010)

Actually I think this might be the exception to the rule, but we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## dylans (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Why?


 
Because leadership like this crave ineffectual protest as an outlet and diversion for real anger, safe in the knowledge that such protests will achieve nothing and allow them to scale the career ladder in politics that every national NUS bureaucrat dreams of building on the backs of their members. 

This is real treachery and his reaction to the minor civil disobedience shown today tells us everything we need to know about him and the entire NUS leadership. He, like all union leaders are active obstacles to a real fight. Steam valves whose entire purpose is to control and dampen real struggles. As soon as the slightest attempt to launch anything but  impotent symbolic protest is made his true colours come out and he condemns it.  He's a traitor and every NUS member should treat him with the contempt he deserves and spit in his cowardly face.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 10, 2010)

Just reported on the BBC live link that members of the Socialist Workers Party were seen on the demo selling papers. Good god!


----------



## fogbat (Nov 10, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Just reported on the BBC live link that members of the Socialist Workers Party were seen on the demo selling papers. Good god!


 
In the End Days, when the dead rise, the armies of heaven and hell gather, and Death, Famine, War and Pestilence circle the earth on their bony steeds, the SWP will be out selling papers


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 10, 2010)

Well said dylans.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> Because leadership like this crave ineffectual protest as an outlet and diversion for real anger, safe in the knowledge that such protests will achieve nothing and allow them to scale the career ladder in politics that every national NUS bureaucrat dreams of building on the backs of their members.
> 
> This is real treachery and his reaction to the minor civil disobedience shown today tells us everything we need to know about him and the entire NUS leadership. He, like all union leaders are active obstacles to a real fight. Steam valves whose entire purpose is to control and dampen real struggles. As soon as the slightest attempt to launch anything but  impotent symbolic protest is made his true colours come out and he condemns it.  He's a traitor and every NUS member should treat him with the contempt he deserves and spit in his cowardly face.


 
So, just pure conjecture on your part, then? And for that he should hang?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 10, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Just reported on the BBC live link that members of the Socialist Workers Party were seen on the demo selling papers. Good god!




being as useful as ever....


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Possibly, but he knows what's counter-productive.


so do I - having these lickspittle bureaucrats in charge of *any* union, let alone the NUS


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> So, just pure conjecture on your part, then? And for that he should hang?


 
You got it Sherlock!


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> Because leadership like this crave ineffectual protest as an outlet and diversion for real anger, safe in the knowledge that such protests will achieve nothing and allow them to scale the career ladder in politics that every national NUS bureaucrat dreams of building on the backs of their members.
> 
> This is real treachery and his reaction to the minor civil disobedience shown today tells us everything we need to know about him and the entire NUS leadership. He, like all union leaders are active obstacles to a real fight. Steam valves whose entire purpose is to control and dampen real struggles. As soon as the slightest attempt to launch anything but  impotent symbolic protest is made his true colours come out and he condemns it.  He's a traitor and every NUS member should treat him with the contempt he deserves and spit in his cowardly face.


beat yer to it, #260!


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 10, 2010)

fogbat said:


> In the End Days, when the dead rise, the armies of heaven and hell gather, and Death, Famine, War and Pestilence circle the earth on their bony steeds, the SWP will be out selling papers


----------



## dylans (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> So, just pure conjecture on your part, then? And for that he should hang?


 
I will accept his head on a spike.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> I will accept his head on a spike.


 
Violence achieves nothing. It just leads to more violence.


----------



## rekil (Nov 10, 2010)

Dark now. I fear the savages will be going about their baton happy business soonish.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

copliker said:


> Dark now. I fear the savages will be going about their baton happy business soonish.


 
Not to mention the feral youth


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 10, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> so do I - having these lickspittle bureaucrats in charge of *any* union, let alone the NUS


 
Then it depends on what the aims are.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Violence achieves nothing. It just leads to more violence.


 
yeah, they wage violent class war on the working class and should be met with violence in return.

peaceful lawful protest achieves fuck all. How many million marched against the invasion of Iraq did fuck all, maybe if a a tenth of those marching had taken direct action and violence the outcome would have been different.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Still, not a lot to get excited about. Tianamen Square this ain't.


 
All in good time, my boy, all in good time.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Not to mention the feral youth


 
are you some sort of west brit?


----------



## FoxyRed (Nov 10, 2010)

Does any know if it is safe to travel home via Westminster on the tube


----------



## sir.clip (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Not to mention the feral youth


 
And some elderly student protestor gang bangers.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 10, 2010)

Stoat Boy said:


> The ones I had to work my way through all sounded very well spoken.



Yeah, yeah, if they'd all been glottal stops and dropped 'h's that wouldn't have been acceptable either, would it?


----------



## grit (Nov 10, 2010)

Idris2002 said:


> All in good time, my boy, all in good time.


 
Yeah, this certainly seems to be just the start of such things.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Violence achieves nothing. It just leads to more violence.


Revolutionary violence achieves an awful lot, actually!


----------



## audiotech (Nov 10, 2010)

The Dep Comm of the Met.
'Did you anticipate trouble?'
'Reserve's were available.'
'Are people confident now in the ability of the Met to manage such protests?'
'The Met hugely experienced.'


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 10, 2010)

FoxyRed said:


> Does any know if it is safe to travel home via Westminster on the tube


 
I dunno, are you a tory?


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 10, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Revolutionary violence achieves an awful lot, actually!


 
An awful lot of destruction, generally.


----------



## Ungrateful (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Violence achieves nothing. It just leads to more violence.


 
Errr.... Second World War.... Anti-Franco resistance.... containing and confronting aggressive racists.... All effective to a lesser or greater extent.

In fact to do anyting effective against the ruling owers requires actions which they will consider 'violent'. It's not a matter of pacifism against violemnce, but which types of violence. Whose hurt, what's gained, what sort of relationships are developed or destroyed through vthe action....

Good luck to the students and university employees..... shake in your boots NUS bureaucrats and the political class you want to join....


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

The cunt from the NUS is on Sky, blaming it on Anarchists, called the actions at Millbank despicable and a disgrace.

Fuck off you piece of shit wannabe bureaucrat.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 10, 2010)

grit said:


> Yeah, this certainly seems to be just the start of such things.


 
Fuckin' right!

Have they torched Tory HQ yet?


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> Because leadership like this crave ineffectual protest as an outlet and diversion for real anger, safe in the knowledge that such protests will achieve nothing and allow them to scale the career ladder in politics that every national NUS bureaucrat dreams of building on the backs of their members.
> 
> This is real treachery and his reaction to the minor civil disobedience shown today tells us everything we need to know about him and the entire NUS leadership. He, like all union leaders are active obstacles to a real fight. Steam valves whose entire purpose is to control and dampen real struggles. As soon as the slightest attempt to launch anything but  impotent symbolic protest is made his true colours come out and he condemns it.  He's a traitor and every NUS member should treat him with the contempt he deserves and spit in his cowardly face.


 
well said


----------



## dylans (Nov 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> yeah, they wage violent class war on the working class and should be met with violence in return.
> 
> peaceful lawful protest achieves fuck all. How many million marched against the invasion of Iraq did fuck all, maybe if a a tenth of those marching had taken direct action and violence the outcome would have been different.


 
This


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 10, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Revolutionary violence achieves an awful lot, actually!


 
Too true.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Revolutionary violence achieves an awful lot, actually!


 
This is a revolution, is it? Thing is, much as I deplore violence, I can understand it in truly repressed countries where the people are subject to brutal regimes. As I said earlier, this ain't no Tianamen Square. 

Yeah, it's shit what the ConDems and their New Labour predecessors and their predecessors etc have done to the people but it's not fertile ground for a revolution.


----------



## grit (Nov 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> The cunt from the NUS is on Sky, blaming it on Anarchists, called the actions at Millbank despicable and a disgrace.
> 
> Fuck off you piece of shit wannabe bureaucrat.


 
Even if he did agree, he couldnt say it publicly. Also, the lads in millbank are not representative of the general students down there today, I still salute them though.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 10, 2010)

BBC spokeswoman:

'Protest very violent, people were kicking in windows.'


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 10, 2010)

Will you advise us when we have been sufficiently repreesed?


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Violence achieves nothing. It just leads to more violence.


Poll Tax?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

Ungrateful said:


> Errr.... Second World War.... Anti-Franco resistance.... containing and confronting aggressive racists.... All effective to a lesser or greater extent.
> 
> Good luck to the students and university employees..... shake in your boots NUS bureaucrats and the political class you want to join....


 
This is not WW2, nor a fight against fascism or racism. To even compare today's violence to the above is crass and insulting.


----------



## The Rural Juror (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> This is not WW2, nor a fight against fascism or racism. To even compare today's violence to the above is crass and insulting.


 
to compare what's happening today with any kind of significance violence is crass and insulting. You credulous dick


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> This is not WW2, nor a fight against fascism or racism. To even compare today's violence to the above is crass and insulting.


Dude, you have no idea what it is.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> Poll Tax?


 
Which was replaced by the lesser of two evils - council tax.

I'm not knocking the protests today - but what has the *violence* achieved?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

The Rural Juror said:


> to compare what's happening today with any kind of significance violence is crass and insulting. You credulous dick


 
That's what I said, arse biscuit


----------



## The Rural Juror (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Which was replaced by the lesser of two evils - council tax.
> 
> I'm not knocking the protests today - but what has the *violence* achieved?



not quite Compton is it? fucksake


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> but what has the *violence* achieved?


a great deal of tv coverage for one thing.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> I'm not knocking the protests today - but what has the *violence* achieved?



Hopefully it's got the ball rolling!


----------



## The Rural Juror (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> That's what I said, arse biscuit


 
jesus wept (facepalm).


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 10, 2010)

It's energised others and made people like yourself sit up and take notice.  No damage == no coverage.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> a great deal of tv coverage for one thing.


 
Yeah, played right into their hands, didn't they? Once again the reasons for the protest will be ignored in favour of salacious coverage of the violence.

Well done, dickheads.


----------



## grit (Nov 10, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> a great deal of tv coverage for one thing.


 
*++*


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Which was replaced by the lesser of two evils - council tax.
> 
> I'm not knocking the protests today - but what has the *violence* achieved?


 
We'll know soon enough. Quite possibly it may have achieved little or nothing; on the other hand. . .


----------



## sir.clip (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> - but what has the *violence* achieved?



one big headache & a few dead folk, poppy day & grime music.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

The Rural Juror said:


> jesus wept (facepalm).


 
Tell me about it


----------



## audiotech (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> I'm not knocking the protests today - but what has the *violence* achieved?


 
Mostly property damage.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> This is a revolution, is it? Thing is, much as I deplore violence, I can understand it in truly repressed countries where the people are subject to brutal regimes. As I said earlier, this ain't no Tianamen Square.
> 
> Yeah, it's shit what the ConDems and their New Labour predecessors and their predecessors etc have done to the people but it's not fertile ground for a revolution.



This post contains _epic_ amounts of stupid.


----------



## The Rural Juror (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Tell me about it


 
quite the debater, aren't you?


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Yeah, played right into their hands, didn't they? Once again the reasons for the protest will be ignored in favour of salacious coverage of the violence.
> 
> Well done, dickheads.


 
You're new to this business aren't you?


----------



## audiotech (Nov 10, 2010)

BBC spokesman:

'A more aggressive brand of protester....'


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

The Rural Juror said:


> quite the debater, aren't you?


 
You simply echoed the post I made; what do you want me to do? Disagree?


----------



## A380 (Nov 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> The cunt from the NUS is on Sky, blaming it on Anarchists, called the actions at Millbank despicable and a disgrace.
> 
> Fuck off you piece of shit wannabe bureaucrat.



These are some pretty bold statements from someone who is sitting in the warm typing, rather than protesting...


----------



## moon23 (Nov 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> Because leadership like this crave ineffectual protest as an outlet and diversion for real anger, safe in the knowledge that such protests will achieve nothing and allow them to scale the career ladder in politics that every national NUS bureaucrat dreams of building on the backs of their members.
> 
> This is real treachery and his reaction to the minor civil disobedience shown today tells us everything we need to know about him and the entire NUS leadership. He, like all union leaders are active obstacles to a real fight. Steam valves whose entire purpose is to control and dampen real struggles. As soon as the slightest attempt to launch anything but  impotent symbolic protest is made his true colours come out and he condemns it.  He's a traitor and every NUS member should treat him with the contempt he deserves and spit in his cowardly face.


 
He's trying to maintain the reputation of the protest from a minority of trouble makers though. 

Most people don't think it's reasonable to go around smashing windows and setting fire to things because you don't like the decision of a democratically elected government. He fully knows when all the media will report is this trouble that he needs to distance himself and the NUS from it to maintain any credibility.


----------



## The Rural Juror (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> You simply echoed the post I made; what do you want me to do? Disagree?



i really didn't, you know.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 10, 2010)

eoin_k said:


> Will you advise us when we have been sufficiently repreesed?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> You're new to this business aren't you?


 
No. But I do notice similar sarcastic replies whenever one goes against the more pro-violence posters on urban.

I've been on plenty of protests; been kettled, knocked to the ground etc. But I don't get a hard on for a punch up like some of ye.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> democratically elected government


 
Stretching things a bit there


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 10, 2010)

lol... it has even been reported on newsround sympathetically!!! hopefully the nursery kids are next on the streets...


----------



## The Rural Juror (Nov 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> a democratically elected government. .


 
Oh rlly?


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 10, 2010)

I'm not sure you have your finger on the pulse of what most people think to be honest.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

The Rural Juror said:


> i really didn't, you know.


 
I suggest you read the post again and then your reply.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> I'm not sure you have your finger on the pulse of what most people think to be honest.


 
Ditto


----------



## Santino (Nov 10, 2010)

moon23 said:


> He's trying to maintain the reputation of the protest from a minority of trouble makers though.
> 
> Most people don't think it's reasonable to go around smashing windows and setting fire to things because you don't like the decision of a* democratically elected government*. He fully knows when all the media will report is this trouble that he needs to distance himself and the NUS from it to maintain any credibility.



lol


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

Space monkey said:


> These are some pretty bold statements from someone who is sitting in the warm typing, rather than protesting...


 
LOL! Welcome to urban


----------



## audiotech (Nov 10, 2010)

sir.clip said:


> one big headache & a few dead folk, poppy day & grime music.



The grime music sounded good.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Ditto


 
Coming from you that means.....nothing at all.


----------



## chilango (Nov 10, 2010)

Anyway...

Violence???

Has this protest actually been violent?

Y'know. Proper fighting etc.

Or just a bit of vandalism and chucking bits of paper and balsa wood around?


----------



## strung out (Nov 10, 2010)

there hasn't even been that much violence anyway, has there? 9 minor injuries? that's not what i call widespread violence...


----------



## audiotech (Nov 10, 2010)

BBC spokesman.

"Anarchists."


----------



## The Rural Juror (Nov 10, 2010)

chilango said:


> Or just a bit of vandalism and chucking bits of paper and bala wood around?


 
this. but let's not ruin jer..'s absurd narrative


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 10, 2010)

Probably eat babies the barbaric bastards.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> Coming from you that means.....nothing at all.


 
Ditto


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

The Rural Juror said:


> this. but let's not ruin jer..'s absurd narrative


 
Hell's teeth, man, you kicked it off.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Yeah, played right into their hands, didn't they? Once again the reasons for the protest will be ignored in favour of salacious coverage of the violence.
> 
> Well done, dickheads.




yep, cos debate and trusting the elected representatives has really worked well to date eh?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> yep, cos debate and trusting the elected representatives has really worked well to date eh?


 
And this is really changing the world, isn't it? Double  right backatcha


----------



## Random (Nov 10, 2010)

Good to hear about a bit of millitancy on a student protest. Nice one to anyone who went along


----------



## sir.clip (Nov 10, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> yep, cos debate and trusting the elected representatives has really worked well to date eh?



I'm well happy with my education.


----------



## dylans (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> And this is really changing the world, isn't it? Double  right backatcha


 I
Not yet no. But I have a feeling that this is just the tip of an iceburg. Give it a year or so until the cuts start to bite and I predict serious civil disturbances. I hope.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> This is a revolution, is it? Thing is, much as I deplore violence, I can understand it in truly repressed countries where the people are subject to brutal regimes. As I said earlier, this ain't no Tianamen Square.
> 
> Yeah, it's shit what the ConDems and their New Labour predecessors and their predecessors etc have done to the people but it's not fertile ground for a revolution.


 Why are you talking about violence, there has been very little injuries, you can't have violence against property you muppet.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 10, 2010)

What's the latest? Have they kettled them in?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2010)

Random said:


> Good to hear about a bit of millitancy on a student protest. Nice one to anyone who went along


 
yep


----------



## The Rural Juror (Nov 10, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> What's the latest? Have they kettled them in?


 
nah, all drifted away i think


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> And this is really changing the world, isn't it? Double  right backatcha


 
Well it does more than a shitty legal A to B march has ever done.


----------



## sir.clip (Nov 10, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> What's the latest? Have they kettled them in?


 

boiled to freezing point.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> But I have a feeling that this is just the tip of an iceburg. Give it a year or so until the cuts start to bite and I predict serious civil disturbances. I hope.



Bring it on!


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> This is not WW2, nor a fight against fascism or racism. To even compare today's violence to the above is crass and insulting.


It IS a fight against the british ruling class shafting our people. That's good enough for me.


----------



## Random (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> And this is really changing the world, isn't it? Double  right backatcha


 
How do you know it isn't? Worries about causing civil disorder is one of the only things restraining the cuts at all these days. Polite lobbying from the NUS will achieve absolutely nothing apart from jobs for NUS officers


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> It IS a fight against the british ruling class shafting our people. That's good enough for me.


 
aye and it's been overdue for a long fucking time.

I think alot of people will be saying fair fucks to them.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 10, 2010)

dylans said:


> I
> Not yet no. But I have a feeling that this is just the tip of an iceburg. Give it a year or so until the cuts start to bite and I predict serious civil disturbances. I hope.


 
And I predict it all being put to bed, with the usual tut tutting from the media and moral majority. Sad but that's what usually happens.

Anyway, kudos to the students who made their point without throwing shapes and poses.

Prepare for bedtime!


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2010)

Random said:


> Polite lobbying from the NUS will achieve absolutely nothing apart from jobs for NUS officers


 
yep.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 10, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> What's the latest? Have they kettled them in?


 
There's a small kettle with plod lashing out (bbc news)


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2010)

BTW there's a student strike and mass walkout sometime on the 24th/23rd.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Then it depends on what the aims are.


simple; to have a protest that people in power have to take seriously, rather than just shrug it off


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> aye and it's been overdue for a long fucking time.
> 
> I think alot of people will be saying fair fucks to them.


yes, I think so. I hope so, anyway....


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> And this is really changing the world, isn't it? Double  right backatcha


how do you know it won't. If this spreads, and there are widespread civil disturbances, the coalition will shit themsleves


----------



## audiotech (Nov 10, 2010)

* 10 people injured, non serious, three police out of that number. Violence?

* police figures


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 10, 2010)

It's interesting that plod weren't out in numbers for this protest - & i suspect that if the Met had took a G20 approach to this demo, it would have been violent.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 10, 2010)

"Students have set up impromtu study camp on parliament sq and others have reportedly occupied the LSE"

*was their a rally point/platform?

just heard from a friend that they felt the march drifted off, rather than have a rally point, other than a stop by parliament? just curious...


----------



## the button (Nov 10, 2010)

Great photos here from El Pais: -

http://bit.ly/cQgTyA


----------



## audiotech (Nov 10, 2010)

pics

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11728003


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Nov 10, 2010)

This is a great shot:


----------



## dennisr (Nov 10, 2010)

the button said:


> Great photos here from El Pais: -
> 
> http://bit.ly/cQgTyA


 
nice


----------



## Dan U (Nov 10, 2010)

i bet he'll wake up tomorrow wishing he had a scarf


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> This is a great shot:


 
it's superb. wish it was a bit bigger, it'd make a well nice desktop for work...


----------



## dennisr (Nov 10, 2010)

Dan U said:


> i bet he'll wake up tomorrow wishing he had a scarf


 
yep, my thoughts


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2010)

I think I will take a wander down that way on my way home from work.


----------



## e19896 (Nov 10, 2010)

Nuff said..


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2010)




----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> This is a great shot:


 
That appears to be the frame of a Le Corbusier 2 seat sofa.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 10, 2010)

BBC spokesman:

'That was the hardcore anarchists......'


----------



## sir.clip (Nov 10, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> This is a great shot:
> 
> Not for ya man wid the agro face & metal battle ram.. I'd say he will be in a bit of bother.
> oh well i guess it beats C.O.D Black ops.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 10, 2010)

The drama department's good for something, after all:


----------



## A380 (Nov 10, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> This is a great shot:



That will be burglary (other building) then. Enters as a trespasser with intent to cause criminal damage. And easy to identify now its posted on here...


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 10, 2010)

killer b said:


>


 
He's just been told 'Luke, I am your father'.


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> That appears to be the frame of a Le Corbusier 2 seat sofa.


 
civil disobedience was never so stylish.


----------



## the button (Nov 10, 2010)

Dan U said:


> i bet he'll wake up tomorrow wishing he had a scarf



Aye, his mam'll give him hell for being out on a cold day like today dressed like that.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> That appears to be the frame of a Le Corbusier 2 seat sofa.


----------



## kropotkin (Nov 10, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> This is a great shot:



He will get nicked now.


----------



## The Rural Juror (Nov 10, 2010)

killer b said:


>



he's going to get SO much student pussy after this..

he looks a bit If.. - era Malcolm McDowell too


----------



## A380 (Nov 10, 2010)

Idris2002 said:


> He's just been told 'Luke, I am your father'.



And the masked up guy behing is stealing R2...


----------



## rekil (Nov 10, 2010)

Nasty cut on his hand. Gloves people, gloves.


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2010)

is that a dehumidifier he's about to hurl through the window?


----------



## sir.clip (Nov 10, 2010)

The Rural Juror said:


> he's going to get SO much student pussy after this..
> 
> he looks a bit If.. - era Malcolm McDowell too



he defo has the X-factor.


----------



## Chairman Meow (Nov 10, 2010)

The Rural Juror said:


> he's going to get SO much student pussy after this..
> 
> he looks a bit If.. - era Malcolm McDowell too


 
He's a bit of a blond good looking Pete Docherty.


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2010)

copliker said:


> Nasty cut on his hand. Gloves people, gloves.


 
the lack of gloves, masks and the like is pretty encouraging tbh - proves it isn't just a 'hardcore of troublemakers'.


----------



## sir.clip (Nov 10, 2010)

killer b said:


> is that a dehumidifier he's about to hurl through the window?


 
Nah, if he's half a mind he's having that for his student digs.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 10, 2010)

Boris Johnson is comparing Bullingdon Club notes on BBC.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 10, 2010)

Chairman Meow said:


> He's a bit of a blond good looking Pete Docherty.


 
Are there any latter-day miniskirted hellions, a la Bernadette Devlin?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> every bloody year for as long as i can remember there's been the obligatory student march and much bloody good it's done.


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2010)

haha!


----------



## belboid (Nov 10, 2010)

Idris2002 said:


> Are there any latter-day miniskirted hellions, a la Bernadette Devlin?


 
all seems very male, and hideously white, as Greg Dyke might put it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2010)

e19896 said:


>


haha


----------



## Chairman Meow (Nov 10, 2010)

Idris2002 said:


> Are there any latter-day miniskirted hellions, a la Bernadette Devlin?


 
Who could you possibly mean?


----------



## belboid (Nov 10, 2010)

Chairman Meow said:


> Who could you possibly mean?


 
Bernadette Devlin?


----------



## spliff (Nov 10, 2010)

The Rural Juror said:


> .. he looks a bit If.. - era Malcolm McDowell too








Spot on!!


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 10, 2010)

Met  Commissioner:

"Determined this sort of thing never happens on our streets again"


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


>


 
Quoth the Raven, nevermore!


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2010)

More photos here


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 10, 2010)

belboid said:


> Bernadette Devlin?


 
In a very short mini.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

Congratulations Young Man you are the coolest person in the whole UK.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2010)

Here are some females for you. White though.


----------



## kropotkin (Nov 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Congratulations Young Man you are the coolest person in the whole UK.


 
The preposterously dressed chap on the right?


----------



## kropotkin (Nov 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Here are some females for you. White though.


 
Hideously


----------



## belboid (Nov 10, 2010)

Idris2002 said:


> In a very short mini.


 
if only it weren't November.


----------



## the button (Nov 10, 2010)

That bloke on the left is going to be bald as a coot by the time he's 25.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

kropotkin said:


> The preposterously dressed chap on the right?


 
well he's an important part of the shot but the kid in the middle is literally too cool for school.


----------



## belboid (Nov 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> Here are some females for you. White though.


 
where did that chaps jumper come from?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> well he's an important part of the shot but the kid in the middle is literally too cool for school.


 
What do you mean "literally"?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> they've been bloody hopeless for the past 20 years tho'


oh fuck, do I ever feel stupid right now


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> What do you mean "literally"?


 
well he's a student who is not in school.


----------



## TAE (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Once again the reasons for the protest will be ignored in favour of salacious coverage of the violence.


Actually, no: 




			
				BBC News said:
			
		

> One of the protesters who got on to the roof was Manchester student Emily Parks.
> 
> She said she had no regrets.
> 
> ...


----------



## treelover (Nov 10, 2010)

> i bet he'll wake up tomorrow wishing he had a scarf




well, some youths university careers are over...


----------



## the button (Nov 10, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> oh fuck, do I ever feel stupid right now


 Maybe add a poll option to the "How do you think the protests against the cuts will go?" thread -- something along the lines of, "None of us have got a clue, tbh"


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2010)

treelover said:


> well, some youths university careers are over...


 
why so?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Nov 10, 2010)

I reckon this could be the most popular "demonstration turned violent" event since the poll tax riots. Most people are going to be, "Well what do you expect"


----------



## Gerry1time (Nov 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Congratulations Young Man you are the coolest person in the whole UK.



They look like they're there to tear the roof off the mothersucker.


----------



## treelover (Nov 10, 2010)

they will be expelled, the images show them committing criminal acts, i was NUS once, their Uni's will want to make an example of them.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 10, 2010)

So, when's the grown ups turn to have a bit of disorder?


----------



## treelover (Nov 10, 2010)

btw, indymedia has been superceded, there is hardly anything on it yet.


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2010)

treelover said:


> they will be expelled, the images show them committing criminal acts, i was NUS once, their Uni's will want to make an example of them.


 
i look forward to further violent protests at the universities themselves when this happens then. 

i dunno. i'd be treading carefully over expelling anyone over this if i were running a uni. it's not as if we don't know what they're capable of...


----------



## Chairman Meow (Nov 10, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> They look like they're there to tear the roof off the mothersucker.


 
They look like they're in the middle of a song and dance number. Riot Kids from Fame.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 10, 2010)

To be fair indymedia tend not to have much on the day unless it is a big mobilisation that they have planned for G8 etc.  Otherwise they have to wait for people to post stuff after the event.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 10, 2010)

i wonder how many people there actually know what indymedia is

the rest of the internet is full of this stuff, twitter, flickr etc etc


----------



## Mitre10 (Nov 10, 2010)

kropotkin said:


> The preposterously dressed chap on the right?


 

What has that lad got on his feet??

Youth of today, mutter, grumble etc.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> I reckon this could be the most popular "demonstration turned violent" event since the poll tax riots. Most people are going to be, "Well what do you expect"


 
Yep, smashing up Tory HQ is something of a PR Coup.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 10, 2010)

indymedia is utterly obsolete


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

Crispy said:


> indymedia is utterly obsolete


 
Not if you want to find out the latest in anti Semitic tinged conspiracies it ain't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Yep, smashing up Tory HQ is something of a PR Coup.


 
yeh. i wouldn't have put money on it this morning.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 10, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> They look like they're there to tear the roof off the mothersucker.


 
looks like glee doing a Frsh Prince of Bel Air tribute .


----------



## audiotech (Nov 10, 2010)

treelover said:


> they will be expelled, the images show them committing criminal acts, i was NUS once, their Uni's will want to make an example of them.


 
You really haven't a clue have you?


----------



## winjer (Nov 10, 2010)

kropotkin said:


> He will get nicked now.


Probably, but not convicted on basis of just that photo.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 10, 2010)

Remember, photos don't always tell the whole story.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> Remember, photos don't always tell the whole story.


 
which reminds me - has our least favourite ex-plod been showing his ugly face on this thread?


----------



## The Rural Juror (Nov 10, 2010)

from twitter

"@guidofawkes Bet this offer will be cancelled in Millbank restaurant "Pizza Express Student Discount – 20% off Food Bill With NUS Card""


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

DB was on for a bit earlier but soon cleared off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2010)

The Rural Juror said:


> from twitter
> 
> "@guidofawkes Bet this offer will be cancelled in Millbank restaurant "Pizza Express Student Discount – 20% off Food Bill With NUS Card""


 


i'll have to pop down and see.


----------



## winjer (Nov 10, 2010)

treelover said:


> btw, indymedia has been superceded, there is hardly anything on it yet.


Plenty here:
http://london.indymedia.org.uk/tumbles/promoted


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> DB was on for a bit earlier but soon cleared off.


 
showed a clean pair of heels i hope.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2010)

did anyone notice that kid from kid n play was one of the windowsmashers


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

the button said:


> Maybe add a poll option to the "How do you think the protests against the cuts will go?" thread -- something along the lines of, "None of us have got a clue, tbh"


 now that's the option I'd take after this! I don't know whether to be exhilarated or embarrassed


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> did anyone notice that kid from kid n play was one of the windowsmashers



Are you referring to this young lad?



revol68 said:


> Congratulations Young Man you are the coolest person in the whole UK.



What a BAMF.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 10, 2010)

Crispy said:


> indymedia is utterly obsolete


 
About as obsolete as Urban75.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2010)

Watching the BBC News, the focus seemed to be on why weren't the police effective rather than why were people so fucked off.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

A very well known urbanite was interviewed on TV earlier!


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 10, 2010)

um... itv news wants people to comment their thoughts on their facebook page... http://www.facebook.com/itvnews


----------



## Gerry1time (Nov 10, 2010)

So when the fire extinguisher's thrown, it sounds like the student masses are right behind the violent class struggle then...


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> A very well known urbanite was interviewed on TV earlier!


 
who?

becoming quite a theme what with Firky and that mad taxi man massacre.


----------



## Gerry1time (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> A very well known urbanite was interviewed on TV earlier!



Umm, surely not Firky?


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> Umm, surely not Firky?


I'm not going to say (privacy, innit?) but it certainly wasn't firky, Why some people here are still obsessed with him is quite baffling, really.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> A very well known urbanite was interviewed on TV earlier!


 
someone clue me up


----------



## fogbat (Nov 10, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> Umm, surely not Firky?


 
He just overtuckit on his bike, like.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> I'm not going to say (privacy, innit?) but it certainly wasn't firky, Why some people here are still obsessed with him is quite baffling, really.


 
cos he's a good lad that's why.


----------



## editor (Nov 10, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> So when the fire extinguisher's thrown, it sounds like the student masses are right behind the violent class struggle then...


Throwing a fire extinguisher into the crowd was a REALLY fucking stupid thing to do.


----------



## plurker (Nov 10, 2010)

5/1 at Ladbrokes that there'll be a u-turn on fees now  bettingpro


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> And this is really changing the world, isn't it? Double  right backatcha


 
Do us all a favour, start drinking again or something. Your sanctimonious weeping piety is really not what anyone needs right now.


----------



## Gerry1time (Nov 10, 2010)

editor said:


> I'm not going to say (privacy, innit?) but it certainly wasn't firky, Why some people here are still obsessed with him is quite baffling, really.


 
Sorry, was joking. I hate the obsession with him, and was being ironic i guess. Like the guy who threw the fire extinguisher is now doubtless claiming to have been too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Do us all a favour, start drinking again or something. Your sanctimonious weeping piety is really not what anyone needs right now.


 
or indeed at any time


----------



## OneStrike (Nov 10, 2010)

delete


----------



## Gerry1time (Nov 10, 2010)

Watching the news, one thing that has been missed so far is that two of the national reporters who are covering this event are close relations of lib dem peers.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> These are not just any protestors.



They are M&S protesters?


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 10, 2010)

awesome photos   bit daft to not cover their faces though tbh. 

wish I could have gone


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Congratulations Young Man you are the coolest person in the whole UK.


 
Am I the only one who can't help but think highschoolmuscialkidsfromfame?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> They are M&S protesters?


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 10, 2010)

Rutita1 said:


> Am I the only one who can't help but think highschoolmuscialkidsfromfame?


 
Kid'n'Play was the first thing to come to my mind


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 10, 2010)

stephj said:


> Kid'n'Play was the first thing to come to my mind


 
Typecaster!!!


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 10, 2010)

audiotech said:


> BBC spokesman:
> 
> 'A more aggressive brand of protester....'


 
"What brand of protestor are you?"
- Socialist Worker "would you like a copy of my paper?" protestor?
- Hardcore anarchy protestor?
- Fluffy first time protestor?
- Aged academic who should know better protestor?
- Community activist protestor?
- Outraged Daily Mail reader protestor?
- Supermarket's own brand protestor?
- Luxury designer label protestor with added bling?

Journo fail.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 10, 2010)

Rutita1 said:


> Typecaster!!!


 


Wicked high top tho'


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 10, 2010)

stephj said:


> Wicked high top tho'


 
Oh yes it is....Funny, on my way about my business today I was quietly smiling to myself at the beautiful array of hairstyles...this one  makes me smile too!


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 10, 2010)

Was mighty cheering to see this in the pub at lunchtime, with slightly surprised looking Sky News presenters going 'We didn't expect this!' 

Get used to it motherfuckers


----------



## madzone (Nov 10, 2010)

I was watching footage of this with the young kids on my course (after our own very middle class protest with pots and pans ) and they were aghast at the violence. I felt very old.


----------



## strung out (Nov 10, 2010)

should've told them to grow some


----------



## strung out (Nov 10, 2010)

the only thing that was out of order was chucking a fire extinguisher off the roof, but apart from that, all gravy


----------



## madzone (Nov 10, 2010)

strung out said:


> should've told them to grow some


 
I attempted to educate them by going 'whoop whoop yeah bring it the fuck on!!'

I didn't really.

I did attempt to educate them though.


----------



## Part 2 (Nov 10, 2010)

Is there another demo next Wednesday? I was buying gig tickets in Mcr Uni the other day and load of students were queuing for coach tickets but I thought it said 17th.

Anyway, there was a poster on the wall "What to expect on a march", for noob protestors. It did recommend people took some food and water and a waterproof coat, a bit like the letters sent home from school for a school trips. I did think while I was queuing that it should recommend taking a bally or scarf.


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 10, 2010)

strung out said:


> the only thing that was out of order was chucking a fire extinguisher off the roof, but apart from that, all gravy


 
yeah, that was off key.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2010)

strung out said:


> the only thing that was out of order was chucking a fire extinguisher off the roof, but apart from that, all gravy


 
yeh, next time aim better.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 10, 2010)




----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> Which was replaced by the lesser of two evils - council tax.
> 
> I'm not knocking the protests today - but what has the *violence* achieved?



One hell of a lot more media coverage than there would have been otherwise, for starters.



jer said:


> Yeah, played right into their hands, didn't they? Once again the reasons for the protest will be ignored in favour of salacious coverage of the violence.
> 
> Well done, dickheads.



I would disagree, I am watching BBC News 24 and whilst they are reporting on the violence, they are also interviewing those against that violence and they are putting their points across well.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


>


 
I've got those trainers.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 10, 2010)

Oh, he looks genuine...


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 10, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> This is a great shot:


 
'Outstanding, Red Team, outstanding! Get you a case of beer for that one.'


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2010)

i'm outside millbank tower just now, stopped by on my way home. There's a small(ish) number of protestors surrounded by quite a lot of police. I can't work out if they are being stopped from leaving or not.


----------



## articul8 (Nov 10, 2010)

The asian Morrisey-esque fop on the right makes it for me - how student is that?!


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2010)

oh, they are searching them and then letting them go.


----------



## Gerry1time (Nov 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh, next time aim better.


 
We still don't know what the injuries were that might have been caused by that. Or the class history of the person or persons who may have been injured as a result. What if it hit fellow workers engaged in class struggle?

My point is, doing shit like that is as fucking stupid as anyone else who has thrown an untargeted bomb into a crowd, no matter what your beliefs are.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 10, 2010)

articul8 said:


> The asian Morrisey-esque fop on the right makes it for me - how student is that?!


 
Six months is a long time. Try living in the real world, instead of a shell.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> My point is, doing shit like that is as fucking stupid as anyone else who has thrown an untargeted bomb into a crowd, no matter what your beliefs are.


 
gotta agree about the fire extinguisher tbh.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 10, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> gotta agree about the fire extinguisher tbh.


 
As most people do!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2010)

Rutita1 said:


> As much people do!


on the beer?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> My point is, doing shit like that is as fucking stupid as anyone else who has thrown an untargeted bomb into a crowd, no matter what your beliefs are.


they were throwing it at the fire. they were trying to put it out. obviously.
at least that's what i'd say in court.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> We still don't know what the injuries were that might have been caused by that. Or the class history of the person or persons who may have been injured as a result. What if it hit fellow workers engaged in class struggle?
> 
> My point is, doing shit like that is as fucking stupid as anyone else who has thrown an untargeted bomb into a crowd, no matter what your beliefs are.


 
yes. and my point is that aiming better would prevent it going near the crowd and nearer to your desired target.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Nov 10, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> We still don't know what the injuries were that might have been caused by that. Or the class history of the person or persons who may have been injured as a result. What if it hit fellow workers engaged in class struggle?


 
Yeah, cus if it had hit a middle class person (say a student maybe) it would have been fine. Just out of interest, what was the 'class history' of the gimp that threw the thing?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. and my point is that aiming better would prevent it going near the crowd and nearer to your desired target.


 

Was db down below?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> on the beer?


 
No.  See edit!


----------



## Gerry1time (Nov 10, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> they were throwing it at the fire. they were trying to put it out. obviously.
> at least that's what i'd say in court.


 
You're a script writer for Brass Eye and I claim my five pounds.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2010)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Yeah, cus if it had hit a middle class person (say a student maybe) it would have been fine. Just out of interest, what was the 'class history' of the gimp that threw the thing?


 
i think he may not be being entirely serious.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Nov 10, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> i think he may not be being entirely serious.


 
Ahhh, I see now. Apologies for that serious malfunction in my sense of humour circuitry. End of a long day and all that


----------



## madzone (Nov 10, 2010)

articul8 said:


> The asian Morrisey-esque fop on the right makes it for me - how student is that?!


 
I bet he's an art student.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Congratulations Young Man you are the coolest person in the whole UK.


 
'The revolution is our dance floor'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Congratulations Young Man you are the coolest person in the whole UK.


 If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> If I can't dance, I don't want to be in your revolution


 
Almost makes one want to be young again, eh Pickman's?


----------



## Gerry1time (Nov 10, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> i think he may not be being entirely serious.



Well quite. Anyone who entirely defines fellow human beings solely by their assumed politics is a Grade A Cunt. We may vehemently disagree about politics, and that's very healthy for a good democracy. 

Wanting someone dead as a result of their beliefs though is as dark as you like, be it from a right wing, centrist or left wing perspective. 

If the only way you can win your argument is by wanting people dead, chances are you haven't got a very good argument.


----------



## rekil (Nov 10, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> they were throwing it at the fire. they were trying to put it out. obviously.
> at least that's what i'd say in court.


 
They were physics students giving a practical demonstration of the equivalence principle. The police below happened to be _in the way_ of science.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> Well quite. Anyone who entirely defines fellow human beings solely by their assumed politics is a Grade A Cunt. We may vehemently disagree about politics, and that's very healthy for a good democracy.
> 
> Wanting someone dead as a result of their beliefs though is as dark as you like, be it from a right wing, centrist or left wing perspective.
> 
> If the only way you can win your argument is by wanting people dead, chances are you haven't got a very good argument.


so churchill was wrong then about wanting dead germans.

i recently saw an advertisement from a 1917 copy of the hackney gazette advertising a film showing of battlefield action from the battle of ancre, the last bit of the battle of the somme. the ad said the projector operator would be a mained soldier who was one of many trained to operate a projector to give them gainful employment. the footage contained scenes of tanks moving forwards and killing jerry. i don't suppose there would have been many people in the audience who'd have taken kindly to your argument. if it won't stand up when put to the test - against hitler or kaisar wilhelm, for example - it's not a particularly good argument.

and look at thatcher, for a more recent example. there's lots of people here and elsewhere in this country who were sorely disappointed when she didn't pop her clogs in brighton. the showing from threads about her impending death indicates to me that you're not exactly in a majority here.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> so churchill was wrong then.


 
The thing about Winnie is that he actuall was a C*%t, albeit the right one in the right place come 1940.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 10, 2010)

Idris2002 said:


> The thing about Winnie is that he actuall was a C*%t, albeit the right one in the right place come 1940.


 
Innit lol

He'd have had those stoodents gassed!


----------



## vauxhallmum (Nov 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> so churchill was wrong then.


 
That'll be why war is evil, then.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> So when the fire extinguisher's thrown, it sounds like the student masses are right behind the violent class struggle then...


The cunt that thought throwing that off the roof needs a fucking good kicking IMO.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 10, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> The cunt that thought throwing that off the roof needs a fucking good kicking IMO.


 
The Daily Wail will probably report that it was a disgruntled FBU member.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2010)

Rutita1 said:


> Am I the only one who can't help but think highschoolmuscialkidsfromfame?



Innit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> The cunt that thought throwing that off the roof needs a fucking good kicking IMO.


 
and you're the man to hand it out?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2010)

Idris2002 said:


> The thing about Winnie is that he actuall was a C*%t, albeit the right one in the right place come 1940.


 
could have mentioned orwell. what about franco, was someone like stuart christie wrong for wanting him dead?


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> could have mentioned orwell. what about franco, was someone like stuart christie wrong for wanting him dead?


 
Well, in his autobiography Christie specifically says that he's glad he never got to carry out his planned bombing campaign in Franco's Spain, precisely because it could have hurt or killed innocent people.

1 - 0 to me, there, I reckon.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2010)

Idris2002 said:


> Well, in his autobiography Christie specifically says that he's glad he never got to carry out his planned bombing campaign in Franco's Spain, precisely because it could have hurt or killed innocent people.
> 
> 1 - 0 to me, there, I reckon.


more of a score draw - you're not suggesting he was wrong to want to see a dead generalissimo, or that he didn't want to see him dead.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 10, 2010)




----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> more of a score draw - you're not suggesting he was wrong to want to see a dead generalissimo, or that he didn't want to see him dead.


 
In his _Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War_ Guevara tells the story of how he had a 14 year old boy shot for thieving. What's disturbing is the way he says it. If he'd said 'we did a terrible thing, but it was a desperate situation', it would still have been a disgusting thing to do, but less disturbing than treating it as a walk in the park, which is the tone 'El Che' takes in regard to that case.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2010)

i for one am just oh so shocked by pickman's awfully controversial opinions.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> i for one am just oh so shocked by pickman's awfully controversial opinions.


 
You don't say?


----------



## where to (Nov 10, 2010)

The protesters in the Tory HQ building and on the roof released this statement:



> We oppose all cuts and we stand in solidarity with public sector workers, and all poor, disabled, elderly and working people. We are occupying the roof in opposition to the marketisation of education pushed through by the coalition government, and the system they are pushing through of helping the rich and attacking the poor. We call for direct action to oppose these cuts- this is only the beginning of the resistance to the destruction of our education system and public services.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> i for one am just oh so shocked by pickman's awfully controversial opinions.


 
whatever other sins you can be accused of, originality isn't one of them


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> The Daily Wail will probably report that it was a disgruntled FBU member.



 



Pickman's model said:


> and you're the man to hand it out?



I don't care who hands it out, he or she was a right cunt to do that, don't you agree?


----------



## nick h. (Nov 10, 2010)

It's intriguing that the police were so hopeless. Was it deliberate? Maybe they wanted to show what happens when they don't use G20 tactics? They're hoping the press and politicians will ask them to get back to their old tricks next time - lots more officers, everyone suited up, horses etc.


----------



## Voley (Nov 10, 2010)

I liked the kid I just saw on TV who said 'It's like the days of Thatcher. You've got the cuts. Now you've got the riot."

Very pleased to see so many standing up to this government. More, please.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 10, 2010)

Watching the NUS guy on channel 4+1.

What a cunt.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> I don't care who hands it out, he or she was a right cunt to do that, don't you agree?


 
So you want to punish someone for potentially injuring someone by violently injuring them.


----------



## jiggajagga (Nov 10, 2010)

NVP said:


> I liked the kid I just saw on TV who said 'It's like the days of Thatcher. You've got the cuts. Now you've got the riot."
> 
> Very pleased to see so many standing up to this government. More, please.


I agree.
Poll tax march = violence= change of government policy
Womens rights march = violence and civil disobediance = change of government policy
March against war in Iraq = peacful = no change of government policy
Nuff said?


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> So you want to punish someone for potentially injuring someone by violently injuring them.


 
No, I want to punish someone for potentially _killing_ someone by giving them a few cuts & bruises.


----------



## Gerry1time (Nov 10, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> so churchill was wrong then about wanting dead germans.
> 
> i recently saw an advertisement from a 1917 copy of the hackney gazette advertising a film showing of battlefield action from the battle of ancre, the last bit of the battle of the somme. the ad said the projector operator would be a mained soldier who was one of many trained to operate a projector to give them gainful employment. the footage contained scenes of tanks moving forwards and killing jerry. i don't suppose there would have been many people in the audience who'd have taken kindly to your argument. if it won't stand up when put to the test - against hitler or kaisar wilhelm, for example - it's not a particularly good argument.
> 
> and look at thatcher, for a more recent example. there's lots of people here and elsewhere in this country who were sorely disappointed when she didn't pop her clogs in brighton. the showing from threads about her impending death indicates to me that you're not exactly in a majority here.



Your extrapolated supposition about the feelings of people in a cinema in 1917 is hardly an argument now is it?

If you go out to kill others as an act of war, then you can expect to get killed as a result of that. That's how it works. Those that Churchill wished dead were those that wanted us dead. It was a war. 

Were any of those on whom the fire extinguisher was dropped wishing anyone dead, be they the police or the protesting students? Of course not. Trying to kill, even risking killing, people as part of a protest is a cunt's trick. That's why I'll fully condemn the coppers that caused deaths at the G20 protests, just as I'll condemn any protestors that even risked causing deaths in this one. We're all living on this little island together. Anyone who aims to kill or cause the death of a fellow citizen is a cunt. 

It seems from the other responses on this thread that actually you're not exactly in the majority here.


----------



## DJ Squelch (Nov 10, 2010)

nick h. said:


> It's intriguing that the police were so hopeless. Was it deliberate? Maybe they wanted to show what happens when they don't use G20 tactics? They're hoping the press and politicians will ask them to get back to their old tricks next time - lots more officers, everyone suited up, horses etc.



Maybe images going round the world of police beating students in the UK wouldn't of sat to well with Cameron over in China trying to bring up their human rights record.


----------



## OneStrike (Nov 10, 2010)

nick h. said:


> It's intriguing that the police were so hopeless. Was it deliberate? Maybe they wanted to show what happens when they don't use G20 tactics? They're hoping the press and politicians will ask them to get back to their old tricks next time - lots more officers, everyone suited up, horses etc.


 
I know that this is a deluded thought but part of my brain was trying to persuade everything i have ever known that the police were on the protestors side, so doing the bare minimum (don't laugh, i know!).


----------



## where to (Nov 10, 2010)

nick h. said:


> It's intriguing that the police were so hopeless. Was it deliberate?


 
i can't help but wonder the same.  225 officers deployed today.

Tory cuts to policing imminent, Tory HQ trashed by very poorly policed protest.  you've got to wonder.


----------



## Gerry1time (Nov 10, 2010)

jiggajagga said:


> Womens rights march = violence and civil disobediance = change of government policy



It was actually the peaceful suffragists, not the protesting suffragettes, who are acknowledged to have led to that particular change in the law.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 10, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> It was actually the peaceful suffragists, not the protesting suffragettes, *who are acknowledged* to have led to that particular change in the law.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 10, 2010)

where to said:


> i can't help but wonder the same.  225 officers deployed today.
> 
> Tory cuts to policing imminent, Tory HQ trashed by very poorly policed protest.  you've got to wonder.



As Ed said earlier on, G20 tactics would have resulted in some proper violence, & the Met knew it.


----------



## nick h. (Nov 10, 2010)

DJ Squelch said:


> Maybe images going round the world of police beating students in the UK wouldn't of sat to well with Cameron over in China trying to bring up their human rights record.


 
True. 

The Met's excuse that they were taken by surprise seems uncharacteristically limp. Maybe they want to plead poverty - "we don't have the money for intelligence". Or "we don't have the money for adequate reserves".


----------



## where to (Nov 10, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Watching the NUS guy on channel 4+1.
> 
> What a cunt.


 
a thick cunt to boot.  pissed away a very good hand there.


----------



## strung out (Nov 10, 2010)

nick h. said:


> True.
> 
> The Met's excuse that they were taken by surprise seems uncharacteristically limp. Maybe they want to plead poverty - "we don't have the money for intelligence". Or "we don't have the money for adequate reserves".


maybe they should send some undercover officers to infiltrate halls of residence over a number of years?


----------



## where to (Nov 10, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> As Ed said earlier on, G20 tactics would have resulted in some proper violence, & the Met knew it.


 
225 police looked short.  more numbers doesn't = g20 tactics.


----------



## killer b (Nov 10, 2010)

any predictions on what effect this will have on the planned campus actions in a couple of weeks? nervous local plod cracking down too hard perhaps?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> No, I want to punish someone for potentially _killing_ someone by giving them a few cuts & bruises.


 
I'd say that giving someone a "good kicking" could amount to "potentially killing" them.

I suppose you'd be happy for the police to give them a "good kicking".


----------



## Goatherd (Nov 10, 2010)

Irony anyone?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Po...e-Spending-Cuts-Begin/Article/201004215599056


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 10, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> This is a great shot:


 
Student angry at being dragged from his bed for the afternoon protest?


----------



## Mr Smin (Nov 10, 2010)

strung out said:


> maybe they should send some undercover officers to infiltrate halls of residence over a number of years?


 
A nice idea, but budget cuts mean they couldn't afford the fees.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Nov 10, 2010)

Goatherd said:


> Irony anyone?
> 
> http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Po...e-Spending-Cuts-Begin/Article/201004215599056


 


> 'Greek Style Unrest If Narrow Tory Win'
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## where to (Nov 10, 2010)

"I got there at 1.10pm, at 1.30pm the first students ran up to the front of Millbank. There were then about four or five police around but there was no barrier or cordon as outside parliament and Downing Street. As the march arrived down there the police disappeared. I left the resturant and walked up nearer the front of the protesters and there were no police around. There were five around the back doing nothing. The police didn't arrive in force until 3pm."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2010/nov/10/demo-2010-student-protests-live

hmm.


----------



## smep (Nov 10, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Burn it to the ground


 
I know 9/11 may have led you to believe otherwise, but in the real world steel-framed buildings don't burn to the ground.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2010)

claphamboy said:


> Student angry at being dragged from his bed for the afternoon protest?


----------



## Voley (Nov 10, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


>


 
The bloke from C4 news had a similarly annoying interview technique - something along the lines of 'What made you get out of bed to come here?'


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 10, 2010)

jer said:


> And this is really changing the world, isn't it? Double  right backatcha


whom said it changed the world, you nob?

it certainly registers a level of discontent that goes beyond the fucking chattering classes tbf.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Congratulations Young Man you are the coolest person in the whole UK.



The new Jackson Five.

Can You Feel It?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 10, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> It was actually the peaceful suffragists, not the protesting suffragettes, who are acknowledged to have led to that particular change in the law.


 
I think the first world war might have had something to do with it.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Corax (Nov 10, 2010)

I doubt the met got as many volunteers for this one.  I'm sure they hate students, but nowhere near as much as they hate 'swampies' (to use but one of the nicknames they use for virtually any left-wing protester on police blogs and forums).


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 10, 2010)

jiggajagga said:


> I agree.
> Poll tax march = violence= change of government policy
> Womens rights march = violence and civil disobediance = change of government policy
> March against war in Iraq = peacful = no change of government policy
> Nuff said?



The war in Iraq was a sufficiently worthy cause; to stop a nightmare - sorry, this isn't worth injuries and custodial sentences and we should be careful about egging them on from the sidelines.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2010)

a) yes it is b) it won't be from them where the real trouble comes. We shouldn't even allow this to develop into a 'them' thing. I've been quite impressed by how aware the students were of the necessity to put their action across as part of a reaction to an attack on society as whole, as part of a social-front.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


> More photos here


thanks, very good


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 10, 2010)

Mr Moose said:


> The war in Iraq was a sufficiently worthy cause; to stop a nightmare - sorry, this isn't worth injuries and custodial sentences


 
What is 'this' and why is it not worth it?

Edit: Cracking shot:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laurence-hardy/5164103075/in/set-72157625355444058/

Edit again: It's really interesting how 'social media' (wanky term) have altered the coverage - people on the demo filming and photographing, and then passing it on to the mainstream media. Makes it far harder for the police side of things to dominate coverage, don't you (you all, in general) think? Wish I'd had that capacity on some demos I've been on.


----------



## Voley (Nov 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I've been quite impressed by how aware the students were of the necessity to put their action across as part of a reaction to an attack on society as whole, as part of a social-front.


 
Agreed.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 10, 2010)

Mr Moose said:


> The war in Iraq was a sufficiently worthy cause; to stop a nightmare - sorry, this isn't worth injuries and custodial sentences and we should be careful about egging them on from the sidelines.


 
How many people do you think should get screwed over until you consider it a 'worthy cause'?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 10, 2010)

The Rural Juror said:


> from twitter
> 
> "@guidofawkes Bet this offer will be cancelled in Millbank restaurant "Pizza Express Student Discount – 20% off Food Bill With NUS Card""


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 10, 2010)

The more spirited actions today; the ones that end up with people going to jail for a sizeable chunk when everyone else has got bored and moved on. There won't be a national strike to get them out of jail.

Don't get me wrong - part of me is very pleased to see it get so personal for the coalition. But is much of it good tactics given the cameras? No.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 10, 2010)

Mr Moose said:


> The war in Iraq was a sufficiently worthy cause; to stop a nightmare - sorry, this isn't worth injuries and custodial sentences and we should be careful about egging them on from the sidelines.


 
Not a sufficiently worth cause? This is about an ideological war against the majority of people in Britain (in fact it's a global battlefield but lets not get into that). These cuts will result in sickness, mental illness, family break-ups, deaths, the increased development of an 'underclass' who will be considered useless except as cheap-as-chips labour, and the entrenchment of a 'useful' wealthy and professional class who will defend themselves against those born into the wrong social class (social mobility having gone out the window) with increasingly authoritarian measures and even more shrill propaganda, so undermining what little democracy we have at the moment and closing down debate yet further over how society should live and support itself, thus ensuring that in a few years they can get away with even more than they are doing now...and so on.

You're right that we shouldn't be egging them on from the sidelines though


----------



## audiotech (Nov 10, 2010)




----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 10, 2010)

stephj said:


> How many people do you think should get screwed over until you consider it a 'worthy cause'?


 
Well go and get arrested, duffed over in the back of a van and do six months. Then say if it was worth it...on this occasion.

I'm not saying do nothing, just choose your battles and where to have them.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 10, 2010)

Mr Moose said:


> The war in Iraq was a sufficiently worthy cause; to stop a nightmare - sorry, this isn't worth injuries and custodial sentences and we should be careful about egging them on from the sidelines.


i think you're comparing apples and oranges tbh.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 10, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> i think you're comparing apples and oranges tbh.


 
Someone else was comparing them - I took up their theme.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 10, 2010)




----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 10, 2010)

Mr Moose said:


> Someone else was comparing them - I took up their theme.


which is why it's sometimes more constructive to ignore such ludicrous comparisons. 

if the iraq war march proved anything, it was the limits of peaceful protest, rather than the potential of something else, iyswim? ghandi never meant shit to me....


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> a) yes it is b) it won't be from them where the real trouble comes. We shouldn't even allow this to develop into a 'them' thing. I've been quite impressed by how aware the students were of the necessity to put their action across as part of a reaction to an attack on society as whole, as part of a social-front.


 
Agreed.


----------



## where to (Nov 10, 2010)

this photo is apparently taken shortly after riot police turned up to protect Lib Dems offices, they just got there before the protesters its said.


----------



## where to (Nov 10, 2010)

NATIONAL WALKOUT
AGAINST FEES AND CUTS
24th NOVEMBER

http://anticuts.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/walkout.pdf


----------



## Belushi (Nov 10, 2010)

Just catching up with todays events. Well done students! Didnt know you had it in you!


----------



## where to (Nov 10, 2010)

where to said:


> NATIONAL WALKOUT
> AGAINST FEES AND CUTS
> 24th NOVEMBER
> 
> http://anticuts.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/walkout.pdf



http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=134751449911080

http://educationactivistnetwork.wordpress.com/


----------



## where to (Nov 10, 2010)

interesting post from the Libcom website forum:



> As the march passed the Tory HQ for the first time, people stormed the wrong building, smashing a few windows and leaving the office workers there looking quite bemused as to what the hell was going on.
> 
> I think most continued on to the end of the march after that, which was just the big screen on the street playing some really random looking anti-fees+cuts campaign video (there was images of baby lambs at one point?) before heading back to see loads of people massed outside the correct building.
> 
> ...


----------



## where to (Nov 10, 2010)

> Coordinating meeting: Where next after the national demonstration?
> Monday 15th November, 6pm, King’s College London
> *Speakers include Aaron Porter (NUS President*) and Alison Lord (Tower Hamlets College strike



give that bastard hell.


----------



## madzone (Nov 10, 2010)

Mr Moose said:


> The war in Iraq was a sufficiently worthy cause; to stop a nightmare - sorry, this isn't worth injuries and custodial sentences and we should be careful about egging them on from the sidelines.


 
Why isn't it?


----------



## Gerry1time (Nov 10, 2010)

where to said:


> this photo is apparently taken shortly after riot police turned up to protect Lib Dems offices, they just got there before the protesters its said.


 
There's more than sufficient police presence as standard in Cowley Street anyway, as it's not just home the lib dem HQ, but a number of other important political figures too. Who have armed police outside their front doors 24/7.

I do doubt that that this was a 'just in time' exercise.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 10, 2010)

on radio earlier on, some top fem cop said they had ~225-250 cops available initially, for a crowd of possibly 50k, def 25k. after recent events, they had to be a bit softly-softly. lots of footie matches on tonight. lots of media (particularly of the social kind) in case some cop goes rogue. good on people for taking advantage of a situation.

and now?


----------



## Goatherd (Nov 10, 2010)

(I don't remember posting this!)


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> on radio earlier on, some top fem cop said they had ~225-250 cops available initially, for a crowd of possibly 50k, def 25k. after recent events, they had to be a bit softly-softly. lots of footie matches on tonight. lots of media (particularly of the social kind) in case some cop goes rogue. good on people for taking advantage of a situation.
> 
> and now?



TBH policing and esp london policing is neither here nor there in the anti-cuts fight. That;s just not where the battle is going to won or lost.


----------



## belboid (Nov 10, 2010)

christ, Paxman is being a twat, Clare Solomon is being quite good tho


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2010)




----------



## A380 (Nov 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


>



Why is Gordon Brown in police uniform in that middle photograph?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2010)

belboid said:


> christ, Paxman is being a twat, Clare Solomon is being quite good tho


 Notice the counter-fire lot get all the BBC media stuff now?


----------



## kropotkin (Nov 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


>


 
Wicked shots. Are they yours?


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 10, 2010)

Dear Clare Solomon, 

Rip that little shit a new one.

@solomonsmfield


----------



## e19896 (Nov 10, 2010)

http://www.facebook.com/#!/Aaron.Porter85


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> TBH policing and esp london policing is neither here nor there in the anti-cuts fight. That;s just not where the battle is going to won or lost.


no, not at all. just an observation about the coverage, the chaos and the probable miminal impact on the cunting cuts. 

but all the same, nice to see some fire in the belly on a chilly day.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> no, not at all. just an observation about the coverage, the chaos and the probable miminal impact on the cunting cuts.
> 
> but all the same, nice to see some fire in the belly on a chilly day.



Each anti-cuts coalition will now have this on the agenda - win the battle for aggressive immediate action over the next month and we'll have hurdled the jumps the STWC put in people's way already. If that comes about because of this - result.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 10, 2010)

just got in, good day, just the beginning


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2010)

kropotkin said:


> Wicked shots. Are they yours?



Yes, went by on my way home from work.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Each anti-cuts coalition will now have this on the agenda - win the battle for aggressive immediate action over the next month and we'll have hurdled the jumps the STWC put in people's way already. If that comes about because of this - result.


inshallah, as it were.


----------



## RaverDrew (Nov 10, 2010)

e19896 said:


> http://www.facebook.com/#!/Aaron.Porter85


 
Fuck he's a Palace fan 

Used to be a steward at Selhurst Park, no surprises there then, most of them are jumped up pricks.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> TBH policing and esp london policing is neither here nor there in the anti-cuts fight. That;s just not where the battle is going to won or lost.


What do you mean here? I love the street action but tbh one of the reasons for that is that I see fuck all else going on in the organisational sense. Or rather, nothing large scale - lots of small scale things. And even if a bunch of groups - students, unions, mentalists etc - unite, they would likely unite behind getting labour back in, because what else is there?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2010)

I have no fucking idea what you just asked me, or what relevance it has to stopping the cuts - i'm assuming you're being an isolated toff or something?


----------



## N_igma (Nov 10, 2010)

Good stuff! Though they should've cracked some Tory skulls!


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I have no fucking idea what you just asked me, or what relevance it has to stopping the cuts - i'm assuming you're being an isolated toff or something?


 I wasn't having a go. I was asking where you think the battle will be won or lost? And a subsidiary question about what exactly the battle will be for.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I have no fucking idea what you just asked me, or what relevance it has to stopping the cuts - i'm assuming you're being an isolated toff or something?


 
Stop being cryptic oh wise one. If you're so shit hot give us the bearing.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 10, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> I wasn't having a go. I was asking where you think the battle will be won or lost? And a subsidiary question about *what exactly the battle will be for*.


power to the people perhaps?


----------



## Dovydaitis (Nov 10, 2010)

I was there on the march today too, but not at Millbank. The atmosphere was pretty good all the way through.

Found out when I got back that unfortunately, Nick Clegg has had to cancel his visit to Oxford University..........


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 10, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> power to the people perhaps?


 
Yeah, that's what I'd like to see. What I fear I will see is 'power back to Labour'.


As dissent at the cuts increases labour will presumably re-position themselves in such a way as to look like they are the natural channel for that dissent. I'd like to think people's memories weren't so short, but that would be wishful thinking.


----------



## Gerry1time (Nov 10, 2010)

Dovydaitis said:


> Found out when I got back that unfortunately, Nick Clegg has had to cancel his visit to Oxford University..........



It was cancelled before today sadly. 

Sure it was to do with this issue, but it was nothing to do with today's events.


----------



## kropotkin (Nov 10, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> Yeah, that's what I'd like to see. What I fear I will see is 'power back to Labour'.


 
You are missing the point though. 

Extraparliamentary power forces concessions and acts as a counterpressure to demands of the Market and its political representatives. Hence the better working conditions in France. 

It is a mistake to look at which manager is in charge, it is the parameters of 'political reality' which are altered by the development of a militant public mood.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 10, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> Yeah, that's what I'd like to see. What I fear I will see is 'power back to Labour'.


Labour are fucked for at least one more election, imo.

whether the populace has the desire for something a bit more radical is more questionable, unfortunately.

it's at times like this, i need danny-la-rouge to give me some positive thinking tbh.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 10, 2010)

kropotkin said:


> You are missing the point though.
> 
> Extraparliamentary power forces concessions and acts as a counterpressure to demands of the Market and its political representatives. Hence the better working conditions in France.
> 
> It is a mistake to look at which manager is in charge, it is the parameters of 'political reality' which are altered by the development of a militant public mood.


I like that line of thought


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> I wasn't having a go. I was asking where you think the battle will be won or lost? And a subsidiary question about what exactly the battle will be for.


 
You didn't though. Go on have a look at what you actually said. You said that you see nothing and i suggested a reason why you see nothing. The battle will be won or lost around how the bulk of people, the working class react, and how far they're prepared to act to stop the cuts - from passive refusal to comply to outright rebellion. The policing is one part of the country is neither here nor there. 

Currently there are thousands of groups organising themselves - organising themselves to defend their own conditions and those of their family/friends from ongoing or expected attacks. To make those battles into something more than defence, to turn them into something offensive, you have to be in there, and you have to be in there demonstrating that your way is a) more effective in immediate defence of those interests and b) more likely to ensure they'll not only be defended but also extended in the future. That's what politics is. It's not washing your hands and saying oh it'll only get labour in. It'll only get labour in if we don't bother using an unprecedented wave of public anger to build something else. 

The open thatcherite wasn't her worst present- it's the uncommitted liberal.


----------



## Gerry1time (Nov 10, 2010)

teuchter said:


>


 
I'm sure that will have them quaking in their boots, and ensure the civil servants who actually write the minutiae of policy think again...

Especially the way the word 'cunt' was over written.

I'm not criticising protest here, but with stuff like that, and some utter twunt chucking a fire extinguisher at a crowd, if people are going to protest and effect change, they need to start raising their game substantially.

All today will have done is cost insurance companies some money. I was in a government department in Whitehall whilst this all was going on, i can assure you there as so many easier ways to make things change.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 10, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> i can assure you there as so many easier ways to make things change.


 Go on then.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 10, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> I'm sure that will have them quaking in their boots, and ensure the civil servants who actually write the minutiae of policy think again...
> 
> Especially the way the word 'cunt' was over written.
> 
> ...


 
Fucke me, i though articul8 was the boy in the bubble. You think it's about how the people you were talking to react at that time?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 10, 2010)

RaverDrew said:


> Fuck he's a Palace fan
> 
> Used to be a steward at Selhurst Park, no surprises there then, most of them are jumped up pricks.


 
bloody hell, ive 8 common friends with him!


----------



## ymu (Nov 10, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Why are you talking about violence, there has been very little injuries,* you can't have violence against property* you muppet.


I agree with this, apart from the bolded bit. Try telling that to a Palestinian or Zimbabwean whilst they're watching armoured bulldozers demolish their homes.

I'm not against political violence - there's no such thing as a struggle which has been won without it, including India whatever hippy bollocks is spouted about Gandhi. But random violence is pointless. Hence, few people are going to have a problem with the 'violence' used to occupy Millbank, whereas most have a big issue with the dick who threw the fire extinguisher. Even if you're not unhappy to see a copper killed by such an action, nothing good could have come out of it.

Glib statements about "no such thing as violence against property" are really unhelpful, IMO. There's no tactical awareness there - just blanket permission to smash shit up for the sake of it. Violence is sometimes tactically necessary, and when things kick off on a demo like this an important indicator of the sheer amount of anger out there whether or not the violence 'achieves' anything, but it's not good enough to just say that it's OK without qualifying when and how it is OK.

Some black bloc anarchists in Brum stopped some kids from turning over and setting fire to some random parked cars during the Iraq demonstrations in 2003. They were right to do so, IMO.

Anyways ... echoing what others have said, very encouraging to see this kick off, and to see the political messages going far beyond narrow student interests. Well done all.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> All today will have done is cost insurance companies some money. I was in a government department in Whitehall whilst this all was going on, i can assure you there as so many easier ways to make things change.


  do you have a skeleton key then? pity you didn't tell us about this before last friday


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You didn't though. Go on have a look at what you actually said. You said that you see nothing and i suggested a reason why you see nothing. The battle will be won or lost around how the bulk of people, the working class react, and how far they're prepared to act to stop the cuts - from passive refusal to comply to outright rebellion. The policing is one part of the country is neither here nor there.
> 
> Currently there are thousands of groups organising themselves - organising themselves to defend their own conditions and those of their family/friends from ongoing or expected attacks. To make those battles into something more than defence, to turn them into something offensive, you have to be in there, and you have to be in there demonstrating that your way is a) more effective in immediate defence of those interests and b) more likely to ensure they'll not only be defended but also extended in the future. That's what politics is. It's not washing your hands and saying oh it'll only get labour in. It'll only get labour in if we don't bother using an unprecedented wave of public anger to build something else.
> 
> The open thatcherite wasn't her worst present- it's the uncommitted liberal.


If when you say 'working class' you also include many of the people who identify as 'middle class' - non-professionals or professionals with sod all influence and little control over their environment - then I don't disagree with you.

No need to get all personal


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You didn't though. Go on have a look at what you actually said. You said that you see nothing and i suggested a reason why you see nothing. The battle will be won or lost around how the bulk of people, the working class react, and how far they're prepared to act to stop the cuts - from passive refusal to comply to outright rebellion. The policing is one part of the country is neither here nor there.
> 
> Currently there are thousands of groups organising themselves - organising themselves to defend their own conditions and those of their family/friends from ongoing or expected attacks. To make those battles into something more than defence, to turn them into something offensive, you have to be in there, and you have to be in there demonstrating that your way is a) more effective in immediate defence of those interests and b) more likely to ensure they'll not only be defended but also extended in the future. That's what politics is. It's not washing your hands and saying oh it'll only get labour in. It'll only get labour in if we don't bother using an unprecedented wave of public anger to build something else.
> 
> The open thatcherite wasn't her worst present- it's the uncommitted liberal.


yep


----------



## free spirit (Nov 10, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> and some utter twunt chucking a fire extinguisher at a crowd


I've not checked through the thread, but is there any actual evidence that this extinguisher was chucked rather than just being accidentally dropped from the roof?

I ask because the footage I saw on the news showed a CO2 fire extinguisher being set off on the roof, and CO2 exinguishers get really (dangerously) cold at the nozzle when they're let off, so anyone not realising this and going to grab it by the nozzle would have little option but to drop it or watch their hand freeze on to the nozzle.

I'd give them the benefit of the doubt on this tbh in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Still stupid, but not necessarily deliberately so.


----------



## strung out (Nov 10, 2010)

free spirit said:


> I've not checked through the thread, but is there any actual evidence that this extinguisher was chucked rather than just being accidentally dropped from the roof?
> 
> I ask because the footage I saw on the news showed a CO2 fire extinguisher being set off on the roof, and CO2 exinguishers get really (dangerously) cold at the nozzle when they're let off, so anyone not realising this and going to grab it by the nozzle would have little option but to drop it or watch their hand freeze on to the nozzle.
> 
> I'd give them the benefit of the doubt on this tbh in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Still stupid, but not necessarily deliberately so.


 
think there's footage of someone lobbing it off the top of the building


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 10, 2010)

it was a red extinguisher - don't they have h2o in them? anyway, one person threw it. lots of people didn't.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2010)

Missed too. Pathetic.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 11, 2010)

strung out said:


> think there's footage of someone lobbing it off the top of the building


fair enough then



Orang Utan said:


> it was a red extinguisher - don't they have h2o in them? anyway, one person threw it. lots of people didn't.


they're all red now for some fucking stupid reason.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 11, 2010)

Goatherd said:


> Fuck. Yes.



Fuck. No. Narodnik.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2010)

If they have then that's one serious charge coming for someone...


----------



## audiotech (Nov 11, 2010)

strung out said:


> think there's footage of someone lobbing it off the top of the building


----------



## story (Nov 11, 2010)

Just listening to the midnight news on the Beeb.

Feeling somehow, ridiculously, proud of the students.*

Was chatting with a couple of students on Monday night, they seemed really clued up and informed. And they also seemed to have that deep calm visceral anger that I remember from the days of Thatcher.




*And of course I posted this immediately after audiotech's posted link showing the stupid stupid stupidity of throwing a fire extinguisher off the roof into the crowd. Not so proud of that, obv.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Nov 11, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> it was a red extinguisher - don't they have h2o in them? anyway, one person threw it. lots of people didn't.


 
All types of extinguishers are now red with small panel of colour to identify the type.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2010)

story said:


> Just listening to the midnight news on the Beeb.
> 
> Feeling somehow, ridiculously, proud of the students.
> 
> Was chatting with a couple of students on Monday night, they seemed really clued up and informed. And they also seemed to have that deep calm visceral anger that I remember from the days of Thatcher.


 
Oh for gods sake. We don't need heroism - esp not generalised heroism. Ridiculous was correct.


----------



## story (Nov 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Oh for gods sake. We don't need heroism - esp not generalised heroism. Ridiculous was correct.


 
I don't think of them as heroes.

How did you get that from my post?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 11, 2010)

proud is the wrong word, but i do feel heartened by what happened


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Oh for gods sake. We don't need heroism - esp not generalised heroism. Ridiculous was correct.


calm down mate,


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2010)

From what you said. From the ridiculously proud bit.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> If they have then that's one serious charge coming for someone...


yep.

I could see them trying for attempted murder for that.


----------



## story (Nov 11, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> proud is the wrong word, but i do feel heartened by what happened


 
Yeah, maybe that's it.

Or maybe it's something akin to pride cos of the conversation I had with the youngsters on Monday.

I was impressed by them, and they gave me the impression that there was a swelling mood of determination amongst their fellows.


----------



## where to (Nov 11, 2010)




----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> calm down mate,


 
Perfectly justifiable response to this piece of Stalinist socialist realism i think:



> Was chatting with a couple of students on Monday night, they seemed really clued up and informed. And they also seemed to have that deep calm visceral anger that I remember from the days of Thatcher.


----------



## story (Nov 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> From what you said. From the ridiculously proud bit.


 
No, I said that I was feeling somehow proud, and that I recognised that it was ridiculous to feel so.


Perhaps if I'd punctuated thus, it would have been more clear.



> Feeling somehow - ridiculously - proud of the students.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 11, 2010)

night all


----------



## story (Nov 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Perfectly justifiable response to this piece of Stalinist socialist realism i think:


 

Oh okay, if you say so. Once again I bow out, since I don't have the requisite reading or references.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 11, 2010)

where to said:


>




nang man, gold tooth


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2010)

story said:


> No, I said that I was feeling somehow proud, and that I recognised that it was ridiculous to feels so.
> 
> 
> Perhaps if I'd punctuated thus, it would have been more clear.
> ...



Maybe, it was the last paragraph that made me choke in all honesty though. Want to leave it here?


----------



## story (Nov 11, 2010)

Oh yes, as I already said


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 11, 2010)

come on. peace love and all that eh?


----------



## audiotech (Nov 11, 2010)

Here we go, the morning headlines:

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2010/11/nus-protest-front-pages/?ref=nf


----------



## where to (Nov 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Here we go, the morning headlines:
> 
> http://politicalscrapbook.net/2010/11/nus-protest-front-pages/?ref=nf


 
finally, a riot the guardian can support...


----------



## where to (Nov 11, 2010)




----------



## Mitre10 (Nov 11, 2010)

free spirit said:


> yep.
> 
> I could see them trying for attempted murder for that.


 

TBH, if I was on the ground and that landed a foot away from me I would like the prick who threw it to be tried for attempted murder.

Stupid arse, most people put up a decent and newsworthy protest today but some surplus cunt lobbing a 10kg metal cylinder off a building only gives the red tops extra headlines.

Twat.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 11, 2010)

there always has to be a small bunch of students ruining it for the rest of us


----------



## audiotech (Nov 11, 2010)




----------



## winjer (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Yeah, played right into their hands, didn't they? Once again the reasons for the protest will be ignored in favour of salacious coverage of the violence. Well done, dickheads.


Compared to all the previous student marches which have been really successful in getting rid of tuition fees?


----------



## audiotech (Nov 11, 2010)

winjer said:


> Compared to all the previous student marches which have been really successful in getting rid of tuition fees?



I remember the very early ones. The one with the NUS inspired slogan "Good Grief Keith" was particularly memorable for being completely and utterly ineffective in every way possible.


----------



## Azrael (Nov 11, 2010)

Channeling a whisper of '68 yesterday. Never knew they had it in 'em!


----------



## treelover (Nov 11, 2010)

onewonders why there wasn't this level of anger against NL,

actually i think I know, it wasn't just about fees, a whole generation feels it has no future, i heard lots of young people talking about the protest in the pub, many seemed fearful about what jobs, lives, they will have..


----------



## winjer (Nov 11, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> It was actually the peaceful suffragists, not the protesting suffragettes, who are acknowledged to have led to that particular change in the law.


[_by whom?_]



Gerry1time said:


> There's more than sufficient police presence as standard in Cowley Street anyway, as it's not just home the lib dem HQ, but a number of other important political figures too. Who have armed police outside their front doors 24/7.


Correction: 1 armed cop.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Nov 11, 2010)

The original march was a bit of a joke, most people were just standing still for ages doing nothing, we had to squeeze through to get to Millbank, the stewards bless em were clueless. I really enjoyed it. At Millbank it was all students pretty much, fuck the anarchist infiltrator bullshit. What I liked seeing was how it was mostly normal kids there, not SWP politicos and all that lot. Turned the corner and saw a PA on the back of a tricycle playing Skeng by The Bug and thought  as fuck. People just dancing, proper carnival atmosphere.  

I think everyone was surprised by what happened today, if the apathetic students can have this much fun lets see what we can all do together. The turnout was possibly double what was expected, Millbank getting trashed, met fucking useless as ever. As students we have to emphasise that this is just the beginning, we have to build on this locally. A lot of my non political mates were texting me wishing they were there, next time they might be. It's up to us to get them involved. 

That twat with the fire extinguisher.  

Really dumb.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Nov 11, 2010)

Oh and who the fuck is Aaron Porter? 

Can't have twats like him taking up the airtime pretending to speak on our behalf.


----------



## Gerry1time (Nov 11, 2010)

winjer said:


> Correction: 1 armed cop.



Nope, i've been there a hell of a lot and know a fair amount of the procedure for that street. Lib Dems gossip more than most after all. 

There are various areas in which they can call for security far faster than others, or at least the plans are better laid. Cowley street seems to be  one. They've got a very well protected basement too. You could seal the fucker off for days. 

I did always wonder why the Tories moved from Smith Square (next to Cowley Street) into a far less easily protected area. I suspect they may not have thought things through in this way.


----------



## Gerry1time (Nov 11, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> there always has to be a small bunch of students ruining it for the rest of us


 
Well of course. Just look at the people in the photo, one of whom is now in government, one of whom is now mayor of London. The other 8 of whom are nothing to do with this. And Boris had nothing to do with it either, so make that 1 person in that photo who's ruining it for the rest of us.


----------



## Gerry1time (Nov 11, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> Go on then.



Respond en masse to their consultations. They're legally obliged to take those responses into account, and demonstrate how they have done so. It really, genuinely makes a difference to the policy officials. 

There are then many things that can happen from there in terms of processes, but seriously, if you respond to a government consultation, they legally have to listen to your response.


----------



## ernestolynch (Nov 11, 2010)

Fair play to the students, I thought they were too busy watching Inbetweeners on their yPads theses days.


----------



## Weller (Nov 11, 2010)

So how does this press photography photo opportunity stuff work I dont understand it you get lots of photographers taking pictures 






then the papers all use one picture does the  one photographer get paid for all , just once or do they all get a slice ?






first attempt probably ditched due to no rucksack which sort of adds evilness to everything now I suppose 







 seems they can create  any picture they want  though for the press if someones willing to recreate it it certainly looks staged


----------



## Goatherd (Nov 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Fuck. No. Narodnik.


 
FWIW I have literally no memory or idea why I posted that other than 'I am drunk and saw that film ages ago.' Sorry.

Edit : Really. I'll be over in the corner cringing for the next day or six.


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2010)

Weller said:


> seems they can create  any picture they want  though for the press if someones willing to recreate it it certainly looks staged


 
Hmm.

I remember a strict no cameras policy being enforced on many protests, and a healthy disdain for the media, on several occasions interviews being trashed etc etc. 

But I guess social media and fancy phones have made that idea obsolete.

But, these images of a single protester breaking a window surounded by a ring of cameras (and we're seeing this pretty regularly) is a little worrying imho.


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2010)

Last nigh the reaction form most people I know was pretty positive towards this protest and towards the "violence".

People who I really didn't expect to say it were saying stuff like "good for them" "it's about time" etc.


----------



## madzone (Nov 11, 2010)

chilango said:


> Last nigh the reaction form most people I know was pretty positive towards this protest and towards the "violence".
> 
> People who I really didn't expect to say it were saying stuff like "good for them" "it's about time" etc.


 
I've had the opposite. If I hear anyone else say 'Well, all they've done is undermine their point and spoil it for everyone who wanted to protest peacefully' I'm going to smack them in the gob.


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> I've had the opposite. If I hear anyone else say 'Well, all they've done is undermine their point and spoil it for everyone who wanted to protest peacefully' I'm going to smack them in the gob.



I think the media worked pretty (very) quickly to put this spin on the story and by now more people will be parroting that line.

But people's immediate, gut,  reactions (ime) were positive.


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2010)

From the Daily Mail...



> But anarchists hijacked the event, setting off the most violent scenes of student unrest seen in Britain for decades. Militants from far-Left groups whipped up a mix of middle-class students and younger college and school pupils into a frenzy.
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...chaos-50k-students-streets.html#ixzz14xakK7hB
> 
> ...





Is Class War still an effective bogeyman ?


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

This is all rather encouraging.


----------



## DRINK? (Nov 11, 2010)

I was there, put a gimp mask on a police horse......got arrested for peverting the horse of justice


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 11, 2010)

((Tory HQ))  

Ahahahahahahahaha.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

http://ianbone.wordpress.com/

Interesting report.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 11, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> Respond en masse to their consultations. They're legally obliged to take those responses into account, and demonstrate how they have done so. It really, genuinely makes a difference to the policy officials.
> 
> There are then many things that can happen from there in terms of processes, but seriously, if you respond to a government consultation, they legally have to listen to your response.


 I've been involved in two government consultations while temping in the civil service. One of them they started writing up the responses before they received them, because they 'knew what people would say and didn't have time to wait'. The other was a little more subtle but effectively the process was the same. They 'knew' everyone's position beforehand and had a ready 'line' for all of them, having already decided what they were going to do.

The very fact that you can say 'legally obliged to take the responses into account' with a straight face suggests a lot about your naivety. Even if that were enforcable - which it isn't - it only really means they are legally obliged to read them and invent some reason to ignore them. Civil servants are very good at inventing reasons to ignore people. It's pretty much one of their main specialities. They built entire careers on it. I know, because I've worked in government too


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 11, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> Well of course. Just look at the people in the photo, one of whom is now in government, one of whom is now mayor of London. The other 8 of whom are nothing to do with this. And Boris had nothing to do with it either, so make that 1 person in that photo who's ruining it for the rest of us.


 
boris is ruining it for the rest of us and i'm sure the rest are in their various ways.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> I've had the opposite. If I hear anyone else say 'Well, all they've done is undermine their point and spoil it for everyone who wanted to protest peacefully' I'm going to smack them in the gob.


 
really? wheres that? I think the majority of people are thinking students arent just a bunch of spoilt layabouts (as a rule british peopple hate students more than anywhere else in the world from what i can tell). but then again im getting that from the three people ive had time to talk about it to.

*was thinking this morning its nice to see that the police havent infilitrated everywhere to know in advance of any direct action that will take place - expect the desperate hiring of student snitches. 1-0


----------



## killer b (Nov 11, 2010)

If I were a student, I'd now be spending my spare time between riots harassing aaron porter to resign. Think he likely to get a lot of abuse over his various media appearances yesterday...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

the police have just made the next riot more certain, through the implication that there will be considerably more police deployed at future demonstrations in a desperate attempt to make sure we see less of this sort of thing. in addition, stephenson's made a rod for his own back by his emphasis that this will not happen again! it will be difficult, i think, for the 26 march demonstration not to kick off, given the likely police over-reaction to anti-cuts demonstrations over the coming months.

while there is the chance that some police careers are a bit fucked by the failure to spot the potential for a ruck, i suspect the upshot of this will be another one or two intelligence collators and analysts within co11, although public order intelligence may be brought in with the met intelligence bureau. but i imagine that the cops responsible for public order intelligence collation and analysis are going to be saying they were understaffed rather than they were useless at their job.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

killer b said:


> If I were a student, I'd now be spending my spare time between riots harassing aaron porter to resign. Think he likely to get a lot of abuse over his various media appearances yesterday...


he's going to be rather embarrassed if any of the people nicked were off the national executive!


----------



## Student_Teacher (Nov 11, 2010)

I was at the NUS march yesterday.  The mach started off brilliantly, atmosphere was buzzing, and everybody seemed to be enjoying themselves.  The vast majority of people there, marched, rallied, and then went home. They didn't disappear off because they were bored as somebody suggested earlier, but because we had said what we had come to say, made our point, and followed the plan.  I'm strongly opposed to such a drastic rise in fees, but I got that accross with chants and banners, not smashing up buildings, abusing police officers who were only doing their job, or setting fires all over London.  
  Considering how excited I was about both how the march had gone(during the arranged times, not what happened afterwards), and my first ever visit to London, I came away feeling dissapointed, deflated and embarrassed.  That was caused by such a small minority of the people who were there, and it has completely undermined what everybody else had done on the day.  The head of my student union at Teesside University Laurie Wheatman was on the phone to the radio; when asked how long it was going to take us to get home, she commented that we had been on the bus for an hour and a half, and were still not yet out of central London.  His response to that, was that it was a hold up that we ouselves had caused.  This was an unfair and untrue comment to make.  Teesside University were amongst the peacefull protesters, hence us all being on the bus at the planned time, not being detained by the police, and I for one really resent being lumped in with the students who behaved in that disgusting way.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 11, 2010)

they didn't undermine anything, they underlined it.


----------



## madzone (Nov 11, 2010)

Student_Teacher said:


> I was at the NUS march yesterday.  The mach started off brilliantly, atmosphere was buzzing, and everybody seemed to be enjoying themselves.  The vast majority of people there, marched, rallied, and then went home. They didn't disappear off because they were bored as somebody suggested earlier, but because we had said what we had come to say, made our point, and followed the plan.  I'm strongly opposed to such a drastic rise in fees, but I got that accross with chants and banners, not smashing up buildings, abusing police officers who were only doing their job, or setting fires all over London.
> Considering how excited I was about both how the march had gone(during the arranged times, not what happened afterwards), and my first ever visit to London, I came away feeling dissapointed, deflated and embarrassed.  That was caused by such a small minority of the people who were there, and it has completely undermined what everybody else had done on the day.  The head of my student union at Teesside University Laurie Wheatman was on the phone to the radio; when asked how long it was going to take us to get home, she commented that we had been on the bus for an hour and a half, and were still not yet out of central London.  His response to that, was that it was a hold up that we ouselves had caused.  This was an unfair and untrue comment to make.  Teesside University were amongst the peacefull protesters, hence us all being on the bus at the planned time, not being detained by the police, and I for one really resent being lumped in with the students who behaved in that disgusting way.


 
What do you think protesting peacefully would have achieved? Do you seriously and truly think that peaceful protest is going to make any difference or are you quite happy with just having your disapproval 'registered'.


----------



## madzone (Nov 11, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> they didn't undermine anything, they underlined it.



Fucking good comment - I shall bear that in mind


----------



## madzone (Nov 11, 2010)

ska invita said:


> really? wheres that? I think the majority of people are thinking students arent just a bunch of spoilt layabouts (as a rule british peopple hate students more than anywhere else in the world from what i can tell). but then again im getting that from the three people ive had time to talk about it to.
> 
> *was thinking this morning its nice to see that the police havent infilitrated everywhere to know in advance of any direct action that will take place - expect the desperate hiring of student snitches. 1-0



It was the young students on my course actually.

And mr madz but he's been 'told'.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 11, 2010)

and how is it 'disgusting' to occupy a building? tis legitimate protest!


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

Student_Teacher said:


> I was at the NUS march yesterday.  The mach started off brilliantly, atmosphere was buzzing, and everybody seemed to be enjoying themselves.  The vast majority of people there, marched, rallied, and then went home. They didn't disappear off because they were bored as somebody suggested earlier, but because we had said what we had come to say, made our point, and followed the plan.  I'm strongly opposed to such a drastic rise in fees, but I got that accross with chants and banners, not smashing up buildings, abusing police officers who were only doing their job, or setting fires all over London.
> Considering how excited I was about both how the march had gone(during the arranged times, not what happened afterwards), and my first ever visit to London, I came away feeling dissapointed, deflated and embarrassed.  That was caused by such a small minority of the people who were there, and it has completely undermined what everybody else had done on the day.  The head of my student union at Teesside University Laurie Wheatman was on the phone to the radio; when asked how long it was going to take us to get home, she commented that we had been on the bus for an hour and a half, and were still not yet out of central London.  His response to that, was that it was a hold up that we ouselves had caused.  This was an unfair and untrue comment to make.  Teesside University were amongst the peacefull protesters, hence us all being on the bus at the planned time, not being detained by the police, and I for one really resent being lumped in with the students who behaved in that disgusting way.


 
Thanks for your comments, you made me smile with your breathtaking naivety.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 11, 2010)

Just thinking will those photographers who have supplied pics to the Fail et al from the inside be prosecuted too?


UK Indymedia - PLEASE SIGN: Statement of solidarity with students arrested at Millbank


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 11, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> Well of course. Just look at the people in the photo, one of whom is now in government, one of whom is now mayor of London. The other 8 of whom are nothing to do with this. And Boris had nothing to do with it either, so make that 1 person in that photo who's ruining it for the rest of us.


 
I'd like to believe a few of them had rejected their given status, were providing front line care to older people, trying to cure hiv/aids, or even just growing organic veg.

However I've never known anyone who would have been such an utter tool as to be in that pic. My guess therefore is that most of them remain utter greedy bell-ends with few unpaid student debts.

But happy to be proved wrong.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 11, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Thanks for your comments, you made me smile with your breathtaking naivety.


_how excited I was about both how the march had gone(during the arranged times, not what happened afterwards), and *my first ever visit to London*,_ 

aw bless


----------



## RaverDrew (Nov 11, 2010)

TopCat said:


> http://ianbone.wordpress.com/
> 
> Interesting report.


 
The Bone gets a hard-on over riot porn  What a surprise.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

RaverDrew said:


> The Bone gets a hard-on over riot porn  What a surprise.


 
He will no doubt catch a lot of flak for his blog today.


----------



## madzone (Nov 11, 2010)

So, what comes next? I couldn't be there yesterday but I would like to be involved in any future protest. I think we owe it to the people who made their feelings so clear yesterday not to let this fizzle out or be a one off. I have to be careful not to get arrested before January though


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

I am rather encouraged by the number of people supporting direct action.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 11, 2010)

a Boner?


----------



## RaverDrew (Nov 11, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> _how excited I was about both how the march had gone(during the arranged times, not what happened afterwards), and *my first ever visit to London*,_
> 
> aw bless


----------



## RaverDrew (Nov 11, 2010)

TopCat said:


> I am rather encouraged by the number of people supporting direct action.


 
It makes a gloomy miserable morning very bright indeed.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 11, 2010)

jiggajagga said:


> Poll tax march = violence= change of government policy



Actually: Poll tax = mass non-payment = collapse of their own legal system = change of government policy

the one day riot was just icing and spectacle

not to say it I disagree that violence cannot play a role but - on its own - it just as disempowering/limited as a to b marching


----------



## dennisr (Nov 11, 2010)

TopCat said:


> I am rather encouraged by the number of people supporting direct action.


 
yep


----------



## Crispy (Nov 11, 2010)

Having seen how pointless peaceful protest was in 2003, it just makes sense.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 11, 2010)

Those howwible militants


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

jiggajagga said:


> I agree.
> Poll tax march = violence= change of government policy
> Womens rights march = violence and civil disobediance = change of government policy
> March against war in Iraq = peacful = no change of government policy
> Nuff said?



Miners Strike = Violence and civil disobediance = no change of government policy
Gurka right to stay = peacefull = Change of government policy
Anti-ID card campaign = peacefull = Change of government policy
June 18th = Violence and civil disobediance = no change of policy


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

I don't see why people are complaining that Sky & the BBC etc are blaming anarchists, there were after all Anarchist A's being graffiti and Black and Red flags being waved. It seems a reasonable deduction to make.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 11, 2010)

0:58 -


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't see why people are complaining that Sky & the BBC etc are blaming anarchists, there were after all Anarchist A's being graffiti and Black and Red flags being waved. It seems a reasonable deduction to make.


 
I was so pleased and proud to see some of the red and black flags me and debs and my mum and others made last year being waved about from the top of the tory HQ.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Miners Strike = Violence and civil disobediance = no change of government policy
> Gurka right to stay = peacefull = Change of government policy
> Anti-ID card campaign = peacefull = Change of government policy
> June 18th = Violence and civil disobediance = no change of policy


 
Not exactly a history buff are you. Yet another subject on which you are spectacularly woefully ill infomed.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Having seen how pointless peaceful protest was in 2003, it just makes sense.


 
Even my mum wishes she had scrapped with the police and looted on that big march back then.


----------



## Flanflinger (Nov 11, 2010)

I wonder how many of those Anarchists have ever paid any tax ?


----------



## Flanflinger (Nov 11, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Even my mum wishes she had scrapped with the police and looted on that big march back then.



So your Mum aspires to be a thief. How nice for you.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> I wonder how many of those Anarchists have ever paid any tax ?


 
Even if they have i'll bet it pales into insignificance in comparison to the tax avoidance/evasion of Lord Ashcroft the Tory's man in belize.....


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't see why people are complaining that Sky & the BBC etc are blaming anarchists, there were after all Anarchist A's being graffiti and Black and Red flags being waved. It seems a reasonable deduction to make.


 
if you're stupid and deliberately dishonest morons.  

Oh look, it's Sky and moon23!


----------



## revlon (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> I wonder how many of those Anarchists have ever paid any tax ?


 
about the same as vodaphone


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> I wonder how many of those Anarchists have ever paid any tax ?


 
And your mum will no doubt be delighted that your aspirations to be a wanker have been well and truly met.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> So your Mum aspires to be a thief. How nice for you.


 
She is a great role model.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

Gerry1time said:


> Wanting someone dead as a result of their beliefs though is as dark as you like, be it from a right wing, centrist or left wing perspective.


what about fash? or what about if we were in an actual, serious revolutionary situation?


----------



## love detective (Nov 11, 2010)

TopCat said:


> http://ianbone.wordpress.com/
> 
> Interesting report.



Never thought I'd see the day where I pretty much agreed with everything written by a student class war group! But I have to say most of that was spot on

Has anything been done across anti-cuts groups to establish any kind of legal/financial/practical support group/funds for anyone nicked yesterday/going ahead ?

Not only important from the practical point of view of individuals concerned, but also to prevent this being driven into a single issue/narrow focus type thing around students - as butchers mentioned earlier - the awareness of a lot of students of the wider picture has been pretty impressive, ditto their distancing from the NUS as a mediating/controlling body - both these things seem to have taken a lot of us, rather pleasantly, by surprise - so it would seem appropriate to show as much support as possible to those doing what we all thought would never be done. Any 'them and us' that develops should squarely have pricks like porter in the them camp, rather than 'students' in general as 'them'

Ideally solidarity actions shouldn't be contained to just coming from students (and even less the institutional student unions) per the request from the leeds class war student, but spread out across the wider anti-cuts 'movement' to keep the thing focussed on what it's about


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> I wonder how many of those Anarchists have ever paid any tax ?


you mean, like Philip "schmutter" Green the govt adviser did, er no, wait, hang on a minute....


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 11, 2010)

good post LD.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> I wonder how many of those Anarchists have ever paid any tax ?


 
I guess they pay VAT on Rizzla and Cider. 

I think the trouble yesterday will have hurt the student's case. If they expect other people to pay for their education they need to argue the net benefit to society is worth paying for it out of general education. For a long time they have allowed the debate to be framed in terms of individual benefit from education in terms of salary. Whilst the debate stays framed in those arguments they will lose. 

Scenes of kids with odd haircuts waving Iphones about and smashing up buildings will not do them any good.


----------



## rutabowa (Nov 11, 2010)

Student_Teacher said:


> I'm strongly opposed to such a drastic rise in fees, but I got that accross with chants and banners, not smashing up buildings, abusing police officers who were only doing their job, or setting fires all over London.


i wouldn't have even known anything was going on if there was only some chants and banners. your fire setters etc did a great job.


----------



## madzone (Nov 11, 2010)

love detective said:


> Never thought I'd see the day where I pretty much agreed with everything written by a student class war group! But I have to say most of that was spot on
> 
> Has anything been done across anti-cuts groups to establish any kind of legal/financial/practical support group/funds for anyone nicked yesterday/going ahead ?
> 
> ...


 
That's kind of what I was triyng to say only much more eleoquent


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 11, 2010)

What was/has Porter been saying then?


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I guess they pay VAT on Rizzla and Cider.
> 
> I think the trouble yesterday will have hurt the students case. If they expect other people to pay for their education they need to argue there the net benefit of having lot's of graduates in society is worth paying for education out of general taxation.
> 
> Scenes of kids with odd haircuts waving Iphones about and smashing up buildings will not do them any good.



A combination of "peaceful protest" and reasonable lobbying over the last 20 years has seen HE students go from zero fees and full grants to 9000 grand fees and 20 odd k of debt.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

Bit of a fail here, full-time campaigner admits she gets paid and says this is a good days work for her. 

!


----------



## dennisr (Nov 11, 2010)

TopCat said:


> She is a great role model.


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> I wonder how many of those Anarchists have ever paid any tax ?


So do you think that unless someone pays tax you they have no legitimate right to have a say in how the country is run?


----------



## dennisr (Nov 11, 2010)

editor said:


> So do you think that unless someone pays tax you they have no legitimate right to have a say in how the country is run?


 
Clearly not - given s/he probably supports the fella who just bought the results of the last election with his tax-free cash (Ashcroft)


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

love detective said:


> Has anything been done across anti-cuts groups to establish any kind of legal/financial/practical support group/funds for anyone nicked yesterday/going ahead ?


No, but there badly needs to be something like this, and there's the problem. The main national anti-cuts grouping - simply by dint of having got there first - is CoR, which unfortunately now looks like being another swappie frontjob, plus a few token Left Figureheads (Benn, Corbyn, Lucas, serwotka, Mcdonnell...), and going to their Whitehall rally did little to dispel this, as I stood listening to the usual rhetoric-by-numbers (the speaker who made the biggest impression on me was a 17-year-old 'A' level student, so draw your own conclusions). My group's a member, but i'd rather not leave that sort of thing to CoR.
So it's down to individual groups, and we're trying to build relationships with other groups, but it's very much hard work, just as is raising funds for our own group.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 11, 2010)

they're not really swappies, they're a split from the swappies IIRC


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I guess they pay VAT on Rizzla and Cider.
> 
> I think the trouble yesterday will have hurt the student's case. If they expect other people to pay for their education they need to argue the net benefit to society is worth paying for it out of general education. For a long time they have allowed the debate to be framed in terms of individual benefit from education in terms of salary. Whilst the debate stays framed in those arguments they will lose.
> 
> Scenes of kids with odd haircuts waving Iphones about and smashing up buildings will not do them any good.


sorry, but only someone under Tory indoctrination could come up with this ridiculous conformist crap. The people who will be most 'alienated' by yesterday (smug tory suits in the Home Counties) are simply not on our side anyway, and their support isn't worth having, and never has been. What possibly could the Studes lose by having such people tutting into their G&Ts? Parents up and down the country seeing their kids saddled with such crippling debts will see it differently. 
More importantly, yesterday was a declaration of intent, that we are NOT just going to be walked over. The Govt HAS to take that seriously.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

chilango said:


> A combination of "peaceful protest" and reasonable lobbying over the last 20 years has seen HE students go from zero fees and full grants to 9000 grand fees and 20 odd k of debt.


 
There has been direct action and violence against tution fees in the past. The real problem is that a lot more people are attending University these days. The international league tables are dominated by US universities that are able to charge a lot more in fees to raise funds. There is an argument that the social good that having an educated population brings benefits everyone, this is the case that needs to be made to ensure the greater funding from general taxation for Universities.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> I wonder how many of those Anarchists have ever paid any tax ?


 please in future engage brain before posting


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> sorry, but only someone under Tory indoctrination could come up with this ridiculous conformist crap. The people who will be most 'alienated' by yesterday (smug tory suits in the Home Counties) are simply not on our side anyway, and their support isn't worth having, and never has been. What possibly could the Studes lose by having such people tutting into their G&Ts? Parents up and down the country seeing their kids saddled with such crippling debts will see it differently.
> More importantly, yesterday was a declaration of intent, that we are NOT just going to be walked over. The Govt HAS to take that seriously.


 
I don't know how many parents would be happy to see their kid smashing up glass windows with concrete blocks, I guess a lot would agree that they should go on a peaceful demonstration. If someone had been killed by that fire extinguisher yesterday then things could be very different today. That type of violent protest is a highly risky strategy that is just as likely to damage cause than help it.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> they're not really swappies, they're a split from the swappies IIRC


Really? I thought it was some sort of collaboration?
the swappies are certainly involved - rees, bambery and german (i/c SWP) are on the steering committee, and Yaqoob is in there - and, given their history, a feeling of 'oh christ, here we go _again_' when I realised how strongly they were involved. CoR have a national conference on 27/11/10 after which all will become clearer as to who does what. We have delegates going.


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There has been direct action and *violence* against tution fees in the past.



Really? There have, to be sure, been attempts at pushing for a more action orientated strategy, but these have almost always been dismissed by the NUS and so on. Thus, more direct tactics have tended to remain localised or on the fringes.

As for violence? I'd like to hear  some evidence of *any* violence at a student protest over the last couple of decades since the demos of 90/91 I mentioned earlier, which wernt really violent either (I have one, and only one, very local example. Which as it happens was the most succesful student protest I've ever seen. It won.)


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 11, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Really? I thought it was some sort of collaboration?
> the swappies are certainly involved - rees, bambery and german (i/c SWP) are on the steering committee, and Yaqoob is in there - and, given their history, a feeling of 'oh christ, here we go _again_' when I realised how strongly they were involved. CoR have a national conference on 27/11/10 after which all will become clearer as to who does what. We have delegates going.


 
yeah they're still basically swappies though , lindsey german and some others are still involved and for all i know the swp themselves may also be involved. i thought german etc split from the swappies anyway? god knows i cant keep track


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

chilango said:


> Really? There have, to be sure, been attempts at pushing for a more action orientated strategy, but these have almost always been dismissed by the NUS and so on. Thus, more direct tactics have tended to remain localised or on the fringes.
> 
> As for violence? I'd like to hear  some evidence of *any* violence at a student protest over the last couple of decades since the demos of 90/91 I mentioned earlier, which wernt really violent either (I have one, and only one, very local example. Which as it happens was the most succesful student protest I've ever seen. It won.)


 
It's the extent to which they are reported, this was outside Millbank so it got lot's of national coverage. I've been at local actions with roadblocks and occupations, and been aware of violent ones at Sussex campus before. Probably not on the same scale though I admit that.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

I feel sorry for all the unmasked kids who are going to get nicked after they followed the lead of the committed activists.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't know how many parents would be happy to see their kid smashing up glass windows with concrete blocks,


How many parents do you know are happy to see their kids start their working lifes some 40k in debt?


> I guess a lot would agree that they should go on a peaceful demonstration.


'peaceful' never stopped anyone in their tracks, students have protersted peacefully over fees etc for the past 20 years, and lost/been ignored every time. 


> If someone had been killed by that fire extinguisher yesterday then things could be very different today.


but they weren't, were they, so it's irrelevant.



> That type of violent protest is a highly risky strategy that is just as likely to damage cause than help it


to repeat, the only people it will alienate are the people least likely to be on their side anyway, and whose help is least useful - your new-found bourgeois tory chums in the south


----------



## madzone (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't know how many parents would be happy to see their kid smashing up glass windows with concrete blocks, I guess a lot would agree that they should go on a peaceful demonstration. If someone had been killed by that fire extinguisher yesterday then things could be very different today. That type of violent protest is a highly risky strategy that is just as likely to damage cause than help it.


 
I would have been proud if that had been any of my kids yesterday. Define 'violence' anyway.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 11, 2010)

Those violent ones aren't real football fans students.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> I would have been proud if that had been any of my kids yesterday. Define 'violence' anyway.


 
Beating the shit out of a window. Windows are people, too.


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> Yeah, that's what I'd like to see. What I fear I will see is 'power back to Labour'.
> 
> 
> As dissent at the cuts increases labour will presumably re-position themselves in such a way as to look like they are the natural channel for that dissent. I'd like to think people's memories weren't so short, but that would be wishful thinking.



Millitant protests this early on will also help make the anti-cuts movement less palatable to Labour, though.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I feel sorry for *all the unmasked kids *who are going to get nicked after they followed the lead of the committed activists.


 
I thought it was quite brave of them, actually. Not that I condone violence, mind.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> yeah they're still basically swappies though , lindsey german and some others are still involved and for all i know the swp themselves may also be involved. i thought german etc split from the swappies anyway? god knows i cant keep track


i know what you mean,. it's a political 'East enders' after you've missed a crucial episode!
I _think_ their CC got German back on board, but they've all dumped the WESPECK peroject....


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

it seems that, in this case as in so many others, the 'committed activists' were actually following the lead of ordinary, pissed-off students.


----------



## Flanflinger (Nov 11, 2010)

dennisr said:


> Clearly not - given s/he probably supports the fella who just bought the results of the last election with his tax-free cash (Ashcroft)



Listen up. I spent more time locked up in police cells as a youth than most on here. I spent time in a detention centre where just looking the wrong way at a screw earnt you a good kicking. I've done porridge and seen it all in my 52 years. One thing I did learn is you can't beat the system. As for voting, labour everytime since 79. It's a shitty world out there, so learn to live with it and look after number one.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

Random said:


> Millitant protests this early on will also help make the anti-cuts movement less palatable to Labour, though.


fine - that means sooner or later, Labour will face a choice of growing a pair or cutting themslef off from their core support - again. 
frankly, screw labour - when were they last _really_ for The Workers?


----------



## ExtraRefined (Nov 11, 2010)

editor said:


> So do you think that unless someone pays tax you they have no legitimate right to have a say in how the country is run?


 
Votes should be weighted according to income tax paid. That should end the moaning about tax dodges from the well off.


----------



## madzone (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Listen up. I spent more time locked up in police cells as a youth than most on here. I spent time in a detention centre where just looking the wrong way at a screw earnt you a good kicking. I've done porridge and seen it all in my 52 years. One thing I did learn is you can't beat the system. As for voting, labour everytime since 79. It's a shitty world out there, so learn to live with it and look after number one.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

Random said:


> it seems that, in this case as in so many others, the 'committed activists' were actually following the lead of ordinary, pissed-off students.


 
Typcial, whip them up and then step back.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Listen up. I spent more time locked up in police cells as a youth than most on here. I spent time in a detention centre where just looking the wrong way at a screw earnt you a good kicking. I've done porridge and seen it all in my 52 years. One thing I did learn is you can't beat the system. As for voting, labour everytime since 79. It's a shitty world out there, so learn to live with it and look after number one.


well, bully for you, so how about stuffing your worthless, defeatist and conservative (note; small 'c') worldview up your arse? The fact you were a petty crim hardly makes you a political guru.


----------



## the button (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Listen up. I spent more time locked up in police cells as a youth than most on here. I spent time in a detention centre where just looking the wrong way at a screw earnt you a good kicking. I've done porridge and seen it all in my 52 years. One thing I did learn is you can't beat the system. As for voting, labour everytime since 79. It's a shitty world out there, so learn to live with it and look after number one.



Mum?


----------



## revlon (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Listen up. I spent more time locked up in police cells as a youth than most on here. I spent time in a detention centre where just looking the wrong way at a screw earnt you a good kicking. I've done porridge and seen it all in my 52 years. One thing I did learn is you can't beat the system. As for voting, labour everytime since 79. It's a shitty world out there, so learn to live with it and look after number one.


 
are you norman stanley fletcher?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

ExtraRefined said:


> Votes should be weighted according to income tax paid. That should end the moaning about tax dodges from the well off.


 
oh chrisrt, the idiots really are up and about, some pondlife who wants to drag us back to pre-1832


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 11, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> i knwo what you mean,. it's a political 'East enders' after you've missed a crucial episode!
> I _think_ their CC got German back on board, but they've all dumped the WESPECK peroject....


 
whose clare solomon involved with?


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> How many parents do you know are happy to see their kids start their working lifes some 40k in debt?
> 
> 'peaceful' never stopped anyone in their tracks, students have protersted peacefully over fees etc for the past 20 years, and lost/been ignored every time.
> 
> ...



It makes it much harder for anti-fee politicans make the case if they start to get assoicated with militancy.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

the button said:


> Mum?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Typcial, whip them up and then step back.


 
Bit like the Lib Dems then.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It makes it much harder for anti-fee politicans make the case if they start to get assoicated with militancy.


 
Militancy   Oh noez!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> whose clare solomon involved with?


 
the ruc? expelled from swp earlier in year, president of ulu, likes writing on her hand, ujs have just called for her resignation


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I guess they pay VAT on Rizzla and Cider, _not that you'd catch me smoking or drinking, both pursuits of the feckless with which I'll have no truck_.
> 
> I _hope for the sake of my unpricipled and dishonest party_, that the trouble yesterday will have hurt the student's case.
> 
> ...



Just thought I'd edit your post to include the bits you obviously missed out due to some oversight, or typo, or lack of time, or inability to tell the truth.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 11, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> i know what you mean,. it's a political 'East enders' after you've missed a crucial episode!


 
Yep exactly


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It makes it much harder for anti-fee politicans make the case if they start to get assoicated with militancy.


wtf are you on?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 11, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> the ruc? expelled from swp earlier in year, president of ulu, likes writing on her hand, *ujs have just called for her resignation*



Royal ulster constabulary?   

 ujs as in the union of jewish students? oy vey ...


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> wtf are you on?


 
I think moon means being seen as militant is a distinct disadvantage.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> I think moon means being seen as militant is a distinct disadvantage.


yes, far better to doff your cap to your superiors and accept your subservient status, that's the way to bring about change......


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 11, 2010)

Lol. so everyone fighting the poll tax should have just paid the tax then, oh noez we're breaking the law !!


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It makes it much harder for anti-fee politicans make the case if they start to get assoicated with militancy.


 
"make the case"...

Your argument is *exactly* the same one trotted out for 20 odd years that has left students in this mess.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Listen up. I spent more time locked up in police cells as a youth than most on here. I spent time in a detention centre where just looking the wrong way at a screw earnt you a good kicking. I've done porridge and seen it all in my 52 years. *One thing I did learn is you can't beat the system.* As for voting, labour everytime since 79. It's a shitty world out there, so learn to live with it and look after number one.



You didn't try hard enough.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Royal ulster constabulary?
> 
> ujs as in the union of jewish students? oy vey ...


see what i mean? Now Pickman's is snared up in it. i swear, all I have to do is to chuck Phil mitchell into the mix right now and the whole gthread will be in utter confusion


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> whose clare solomon involved with?


god only knows!


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 11, 2010)

Aside from the throwing of a fire extinguisher casing from the roof (which was a fucking stupid thing to do), looked like a top day out from the news.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> yes, far better to doff your cap to your superiors and accept your subservient status, that's the way to bring about change......


 
Well, I've never said that. I don't doff my cap to the man but nor do I don a balaclava, either.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Aside from the throwing of a fire extinguisher casing from the roof (which was a fucking stupid thing to do), looked like a top day out from the news.


 
Oh come on, there was a fire on the ground, the fire extinguisher was just being passed swiftly down to assist.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> I think moon means being seen as militant is a distinct disadvantage.


 
sHOULD EVERYONE fighting the poll tax have just paid the poll tax then and shut up? After all they broke the law !


----------



## madzone (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Well, I've never said that. I don't doff my cap to the man but nor do I don a balaclava, either.


 
Oh. Do we have to wear balaclavas? I might not be able to participate in any direct action after all. No-one looks good in a balaclava.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 11, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Oh come on, there was a fire on the ground, the fire extinguisher was just being passed swiftly down to assist.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Oh come on, there was a fire on the ground, the fire extinguisher was just being passed swiftly down to assist.


 
Funny, thankfully we can joke about it as it didn't kill someone.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Royal ulster constabulary?
> 
> ujs as in the union of jewish students? oy vey ...


respect: the unity coalition


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 11, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Aside from the throwing of a fire extinguisher casing from the roof (which was a fucking stupid thing to do), looked like a top day out from the news.


 
The lads and lasses done brilliant (apart from the eejit with fire extinguisher, obv).


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> Oh. Do we have to wear balaclavas? I might not be able to participate in any direct action after all. No-one looks good in a balaclava.


 
Even with a bobble on top?


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> I think moon means being seen as militant is a distinct disadvantage.


 
There may be occasions when this is a valid point...when you are making a perfectly reasonable, and easy to accomodate, request for something to be slightly changed at no real cost (political or financial) to those making the decisions.

This ain't that occasion though is it?


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

Student debt isn't like other debt, I repay student loans, but only when I’m in work. The new proposals mean you won't repay them until you are on over 21k which is an improvement on the current system that affects me. 

The main thing that is unfair about it is that people previous haven't had to pay back any money for their education.

Young people are facing high property prices, having to repay student loans and a life without the types of pensions that baby boomers have enjoyed.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

chilango said:


> There may be occasions when this is a valid point...when you are making a perfectly reasonable, and easy to accomodate, request for something to be slightly changed at no real cost (political or financial) to those making the decisions.
> 
> This ain't that occasion though is it?


 
It might for instance make it harder for a Labour MP to attend a future anti-fees protest if they think they could be associated with violence.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Student debt isn't like other debt, I repay student loans, but only when I’m in work. The new proposals mean you won't repay them until you are on over 21k which is an improvement on the current system that affects me.
> 
> The main thing that is unfair about it is that people previous haven't had to pay back any money for their education.
> 
> Young people are facing high property prices, having to repay student loans and a life without the types of pensions that baby boomers have enjoyed.


 
Whose fault is that?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It might for instance make it harder for a Labour MP to attend a future anti-fees protest if they think they could be associated with violence.


 
So what?


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It might for instance make it harder for a Labour MP to attend a future anti-fees protest if they think they could be associated with violence.


 
Good.


----------



## rasputin (Nov 11, 2010)

Been reflecting on who might be the main winners and losers yesterday.

Some thoughts:


*Losers*

Aaron Porter and the NUS – he’s been whinging almost constantly on Twitter, and on Newsnight last night, and again on breakfast TV this morning.  By his own reckoning, he thinks the NUS lost control of their message and that public support for students has been damaged. 

David and Simon Reuben – the billionaire brothers who actually own Millbank Tower, along with its shiny new pile of broken glass.  Presumably they (or their insurers) will have to fork out for new windows, though I guess that’s pretty trivial compared to what they lost when Lehman Brothers went down.  (They were also the landlords of Lehman’s old computer centre in docklands, and apparently are also on the hook for millions in investments that they’ll never see again.  Aaah.)


*Winners*

The boys and gals who got their smashfest, obviously, with hardly anyone getting badly hurt.

Clare Solomon, ULU President.  Was apparently one of the people that got into Millbank Tower yesterday.  Came across very well on TV last night in front of Jeremy Paxman and again this morning, in her red and black.  Very articulate, made Aaron Porter look a bit of a twat. 

Metropolitan Police.  But yes.  Surely someone has noticed they have their own agenda on budget cuts?  As well as still smarting over the stick they took over Ian Tomlinson’s death and their tactics at the G20.  This is one case where I'll take conspiracy over cock-up.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

madzone said:


> Oh. Do we have to wear balaclavas? I might not be able to participate in any direct action after all. No-one looks good in a balaclava.


I would have to agree. They don't look good, they itch and are hard to explain away in court. Better a hood, and shades.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Funny, thankfully we can joke about it as it didn't kill someone.


 
<TC, Laughing like a hyena>


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It might for instance make it harder for a Labour MP to attend a future anti-fees protest if they think they could be associated with violence.


 
Why is this a bad thing?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It might for instance make it harder for a Labour MP to attend a future anti-fees protest if they think they could be associated with violence.


 
Why the concern over those poor labour MPs? you lot have been going on for the last 6 months about how everything is labours fault


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

TopCat said:


> I would have to agree. They don't look good, they itch and are hard to explain away in court. Better a hood, and shades.


 
What is the anarchist look this season?


----------



## e19896 (Nov 11, 2010)




----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> What is the anarchist look this season?


 
Well I stand almost alone on this but I prefer decent black leather shoes, tailored trousers, a nice jumper and a woolen overcoat. The shoes _must_ be highly polished.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Student debt isn't like other debt, I repay student loans, but only when I’m in work. The new proposals mean you won't repay them until you are on over 21k which is an improvement on the current system that affects me.
> 
> The main thing that is unfair about it is that people previous haven't had to pay back any money for their education.


The main thing is that it will deter loads of working class kids from going to uni. the less affluent your background, the less likely you are to stomach that sort of debt. a huge step back in time.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Funny, thankfully we can joke about it as it didn't kill someone.


 
Unlike the public sector cuts which you defend and support which will kill.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It might for instance make it harder for a Labour MP to attend a future anti-fees protest if they think they could be associated with violence.


oh noes! how will we cope without all those useless, gutless Nu Labour sheep?


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Student debt isn't like other debt, I repay student loans, but only when I’m in work. The new proposals mean you won't repay them until you are on over 21k which is an improvement on the current system that _affects me_.



Me me fucking me. 



moon23 said:


> If they expect other people to pay for their education they need to argue the net benefit to society is worth paying for it out of general education. For a long time they have allowed the debate to be framed in terms of individual benefit from education in terms of salary. Whilst the debate stays framed in those arguments they will lose.



Who's 'they' - you seem to be the one 'framing the debate that further education is about individual benefit if anything.

One minute you're saying young people are faced with loads of debt:



moon23 said:


> The main thing that is unfair about it is that people previous haven't had to pay back any money for their education.
> 
> Young people are facing high property prices, having to repay student loans and a life without the types of pensions that baby boomers have enjoyed.



... then the next you seem to be saying that students need to be making the case that their further education is of benefit to society coming from general taxation.

Frankly, you're all over the place... fucking liberal.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

e19896 said:


>


 
I would recommend a font colour that stands out easily, this is very hard to read.


----------



## ymu (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There has been direct action and violence against tution fees in the past. The real problem is that a lot more people are attending University these days. *The international league tables are dominated by US universities that are able to charge a lot more in fees to raise funds.* There is an argument that the social good that having an educated population brings benefits everyone, this is the case that needs to be made to ensure the greater funding from general taxation for Universities.


This is an outrageous lie. Given the population sizes, those league tables are much more dominated by British universities than US ones. We have 30 of the top 200 universities in the world (we're only 1% of the world population, which would give us just 2 in the top 200 if all else were equal), and 6 that regularly appear in the top ten of various different rankings (Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, King's, Imperial, LSE).

Per capita, our university system outperforms the US by quite a long way. With 5 times the UK population, they'd need 150 of the top 200 to be at the same level.


----------



## Flanflinger (Nov 11, 2010)

e19896 said:


>



Anarchists protesting they want more help from the Goverment???????????

I reckon the guy at the fronts employment potential is about zero now.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> So what?


 
Well if I was running an anti-fee campaign getting the government's opposition on board would be an obvious strategy. A bit tricky as Labour commissioned the Browne review but I should imagine if it's framed as a means of splitting the Coalition and attacking the Lib Dems then it could be sold to the party.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 11, 2010)

Dim the background by 50%, some of the words are unreadable - white on white


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 11, 2010)

Who cares what labour says? You don't even like labour, why do you keep going on about them, do you think they need your advice seeing as you're now argueing everything is their fault? if someone like tony benn or john mcdonnell turned up to these protests it might increase their popularity!


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Anarchists protesting they want more help from the Goverment???????????.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Anarchists protesting they want more help from the Goverment???????????
> 
> I reckon the guy at the fronts employment potential is about zero now.


 
They are statist anarchists obviously.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 11, 2010)

Graphic design fail


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well if I was running an anti-fee campaign getting the government's opposition on board would be an obvious strategy.



Good job you're not then. Isn't it?


----------



## dennisr (Nov 11, 2010)

ymu said:


> This is an outrageous lie. Given the population sizes, those league tables are much more dominated by British universities than US ones. We have 30 of the top 200 universities in the world (we're only 1% of the world population, which would give us just 2 in the top 200 if all else were equal), and 6 that regularly appear in the top ten of various different rankings (Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, King's, Imperial, LSE).
> 
> Per capita, our university system outperforms the US by quite a long way. With 5 times the UK population, they'd need 150 of the top 200 to be at the same level.



not the only one - I've noticed he's already tried to introduce the "blame the baby boomers" bull. The bollox is simply conveying to us the latest set of lies from the establishment - its all he ever does.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> oh noes! how will we cope without all those useless, gutless Nu Labour *sheep?*



I hate that term "sheep" or "sheeple". Shows a distinct lack of imagination.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Typcial, whip them up and then step back.


 
Which is the exact opposite of what the post you were resposnding to actually said; is this dishonesty some sort of lib dem affliction or is it all your own work?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## dennisr (Nov 11, 2010)

"I've done porridge"

ohhhhhhh, ark at him


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 11, 2010)

MOON said:
			
		

> Student debt isn't like other debt, I repay student loans, but only when I’m in work. The new proposals mean you won't repay them until you are on over 21k which is an improvement on the current system that affects me.
> 
> The main thing that is unfair about it is that people previous haven't had to pay back any money for their education.
> 
> Young people are facing high property prices, having to repay student loans and a life without the types of pensions that baby boomers have enjoyed.



i ask again - whose fault is that exactly?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> They are statist anarchists obviously.


 
christ do you ever think for yourself ! you lib dems are as bad as the sparts!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It might for instance make it harder for a Labour MP to attend a future anti-fees protest if they think they could be associated with violence.


 
who gives a fuck? never wanted the fuckers on a demonstration in the first place


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Funny, thankfully we can joke about it as it didn't kill someone.


 
could joke about it if it had


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> I hate that term "sheep" or "sheeple". Shows a distinct lack of imagination.


still sums up that useless bunch of timeserving clones, tho'.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Student debt isn't like other debt, I repay student loans, but only when I’m in work. The new proposals mean you won't repay them until you are on over 21k which is an improvement on the current system that affects me.
> 
> The main thing that is unfair about it is that people previous haven't had to pay back any money for their education.
> 
> Young people are facing high property prices, having to repay student loans and a life without the types of pensions that baby boomers have enjoyed.


 
No the main thing that is unfair is that education, as you have pointed out yourself, is a social good, which we should all contribute towards according to our means.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well if I was running an anti-fee campaign getting the government's opposition on board would be an obvious strategy. A bit tricky as Labour commissioned the Browne review but I should imagine if it's framed as a means of splitting the Coalition and attacking the Lib Dems then it could be sold to the party.


 
if you were running an anti-fee campaign, it'd last about 10 minutes.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> who gives a fuck? never wanted the fuckers on a demonstration in the first place


 
In future, you could organise a screening process where only the right type of people go on demos.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> I hate that term "sheep" or "sheeple". Shows a distinct lack of imagination.


 
I hate that cliché "shows a distinct lack of imagination". It shows an -oh


----------



## ymu (Nov 11, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> The main thing is that iot will deter loads of working class kids from going to uni. the less adffluent your background, the less likely you are to stomach that sort of debt. a huge step back in time.


Not just that, but as far as I can work out, the majority of graduates in the UK are employed in the public sector. About 26% of public sector jobs are graduate jobs compared to just 6% in the private sector - and the public sector accounts for around 30% of all jobs.

There's a serious shortage of capacity in my field (public sector medical research), in large part because as soon as anyone gets trained up they get offered twice as much pay by the pharmaceutical industry. It's the same problem right across the public sector - without the same sort of job security, pensions and flexibility that used to be part of the bargain, but with the same lower salaries that these concessions bought, it's hard to find reasons to stay there.

Loading people up with debt that will cost them 9% of their salary to pay back is going to make it even harder for the public sector to recruit and retain skills and experience. Which is, of course, a fringe benefit for those who want the public sector to disappear - and the pharmaceutical industry would just love those pesky independent scientists to go away - but it's a fucking disaster for the rest of us.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Anarchists protesting they want more help from the Goverment???????????
> 
> I reckon the guy at the fronts employment potential is about zero now.



I will train him up and give him a good job.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well if I was running an anti-fee campaign getting the government's opposition on board would be an obvious strategy.


oh ffs. The PLP are FUCK ALL use to us, and it's overwhelmingly in their interest to use the cuts situation to hurt the condems anyway.
SCREW LABOUR. SCREW PARLIAMENT.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> In future, you could organise a screening process where only the right type of people go on demos.


you'd be out for a start


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 11, 2010)

Anyone got clips of Clare Soloman? Always used to utterly detest her - full on swappie of the worst kind. Has she changed somewhat in the last 7 or so years?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

gawkrodger said:


> Anyone got clips of Clare Soloman? Always used to utterly detest her - full on swappie of the worst kind. Has she changed somewhat in the last 7 or so years?


 
the current london student has an embarrassing picture of her in a meeting with nick clegg with some guff scrawled on her hand.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Anarchists protesting they want more help from the Goverment???????????
> 
> I reckon the guy at the fronts employment potential is about zero now.


with comments as cringeworthily stupid as this, i'm surprised yours is any higher


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Anarchists protesting they want more help from the Goverment???????????
> 
> I reckon the guy at the fronts employment potential is about zero now.


 i don't.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> you'd be out for a start


 
I'm sure you're sure I'm in need of re-educating, comrade. 

Ah, the elitist far left. What unbridled joy you bring to our lives.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> I'm sure you're sure I'm in need of re-educating, comrade.


 you're wrong.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Anarchists protesting they want more help from the Goverment???????????
> 
> I reckon the guy at the fronts employment potential is about zero now.


 
i hear simon cowell's got in touch with them and wants them to form a band.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> you're wrong.


 
Yes, everything I know is wrong. Thank you for making me see the error of my ways.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Yes, everything I know is wrong. Thank you for making me see the error of my ways.


if you say so. i just don't see why you'd be a credit to any demonstration worthy of the name.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 11, 2010)

I went to London and all I got was this lousy blister.

*ahem* Off topic I know, but a warning to those going on demos in the future - don't think a march across the capital is a good time to break in a new pair of trainers.

Anyway, in light of the news coverage, I wish I'd have made a sign yesterday that read 'I don't condone Aaron Porter'. What a predictable tool.

We got there very late due to an abysmal coach journey and the heaviest traffic known to humankind. Who the fuck decides to go via Warwick when travelling from Stoke? We managed to tag onto the very, very end of the march, but by the time we reached Millbank officials were telling us the demo was called off and we should turn around and go home. Which we didn't. But we did turn off and go across Lambeth Bridge to wait in the cold for 90+ minutes for our coach to eventually pick us up again. Then we spent 2 hours at a standstill in Chelsea traffic. Got home just before midnight.

12 hours on a coach for 90 minutes of marching - I'd do it all again tomorrow (well, once my blister is better) because to show support is important. </idealistic>


----------



## love detective (Nov 11, 2010)

gawkrodger said:


> Anyone got clips of Clare Soloman? Always used to utterly detest her - full on swappie of the worst kind. Has she changed somewhat in the last 7 or so years?


 
I thought she was pretty bad to be honest on newnight - only looked good as she had that prick porter next to her

she's counterfire now no?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> if you say so. i just don't see why you'd be a credit to any demonstration worthy of the name.


 
Unlike your good self, comrade. 

I must learn to instill hatred in my flabby heart, give up the way of the pacifist and throw shapes, poses and the rest on my next demo. That way, I will have truly arrived.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Unlike your good self, comrade.
> 
> I must learn to instill hatred in my flabby heart, give up the way of the pacifist and throw shapes, poses and the rest on my next demo. That way, I will have truly arrived.


 
Just try to be effective eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2010)

love detective said:


> I thought she was pretty bad to be honest on newnight - only looked good as she had that prick porter next to her
> 
> she's counterfire now no?


 Yes she is, and as i noted the other day it's that lot who are now getting the call from the bbc every time, not the swp. The contacts rees and german made apparently on behalf of the stwc are being worked very hard right now.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Listen up. I spent more time locked up in police cells as a youth than most on here. I spent time in a detention centre where just looking the wrong way at a screw earnt you a good kicking. I've done porridge and seen it all in my 52 years. One thing I did learn is you can't beat the system. As for voting, labour everytime since 79. It's a shitty world out there, so learn to live with it and look after number one.


 
So although the Tories are at the levers of power and making attacks on the wider population in order to protect their own wealth and their capital cash cow you suggest that, in order for the working class to defend themselves they should act like - Tories!? 

You're pretty naive for a person over fifty.


----------



## love detective (Nov 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Yes she is, and as i noted the other day it's that lot who are now getting the. From the bbc every time, not the swp. The contacts rees and german made apparently on behalf of the astwc are being worked very hard right now.


 
It was clear from the get go of counterfire that they were aiming to monopolise that arena - their founding/starting statement could have pretty much been 'please let us on the telly'


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Just try to be effective eh?


 
I shall change the system through love, vibes and a cracking leafleting campaign.


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> I shall change the system through love, vibes and a cracking leafleting campaign.


 
The time for talking is over. Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> In future, you could organise a screening process where only the right type of people go on demos.


if there's a point, you're guaranteed to miss it, aren't you?


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

The only people who ever seriously propose screening and policing demos are those who want to make sure no militancy happens.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> if there's a point, you're guaranteed to miss it, aren't you?


 
I see... no points... here.

I see the ususal posturing from a minority here who seek to alienate and vilify those that don't see eye to eye with them.

I am not in favour of protesting in their particular style. And as a result, I am now told I should not be on any more demos.

Your own elitism is in danger of eclipsing the elitism you claim to despise.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 11, 2010)

The Boris approach... only wants the nicest and most ordely type of protesters in Parliament Square!


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

stephj said:


> The Boris approach... only wants the nicest and most ordely type of protesters in Parliament Square!


 
I'm sure if those EDL idiots were kicking off there would be outcry, no?


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2010)

Tsk.

It's not about the morality of violence.

Its about strategy and tactics.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> I'm sure if those EDL idiots were kicking off there would be outcry, no?


 
Because of their targets and motivations you muppet. See the difference?


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> I see... no points... here.
> 
> I see the ususal posturing from a minority here who seek to alienate and vilify those that don't see eye to eye with them.
> 
> ...


 
I don't mind you and your ilk coming on demos. I remember well how to deal with your liberalism. I will make sure I am behind you with the police in front. Then we throw rocks at the police. They charge beating the likes of you over the head thus radicalising you in an instant. I step aside pissing myself with laughter.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> I'm sure if those EDL idiots were kicking off there would be outcry, no?


have you been at the whacky baccy?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

TopCat said:


> I don't mind you and your ilk coming on demos. I remember well how to deal with your liberalism. I will make sure I am behind you with the police in front. Then we throw rocks at the police. They charge beating the likes of you over the head thus radicalising you in an instant. I step aside pissing myself with laughter.


 
I have been thrown to the ground by the police on a few demos; I shall not stoop to their level.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> have you been at the whacky baccy?


 
Automatically generated dummy reply


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2010)

It's nice to be posting on a thread with Jesus.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It's nice to be posting on a thread with Jesus.


 
Someone nail the fucker to a cross and we can get on with the discussion/glee/falling about laughing.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It's nice to be posting on a thread with Jesus.


 
If you let Jesus into your life, he may take away some of that anger, butchers


----------



## cantsin (Nov 11, 2010)

story said:


> Oh okay, if you say so. Once again I bow out, since I don't have the requisite reading or references.


 
(don't worry about it - this kind of stuff always send Butchers a bit loony I think,doesn't know whether he's coming or going )


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 11, 2010)

"Please Mrs T, don't make us pay poll tax - we'll all sit down in a circle, hit a tamberine and pray for you."


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> I have been thrown to the ground by the police on a few demos; I shall not stoop to their level.


 





eta: too late!


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Someone nail the fucker to a cross and we can get on with the discussion/glee/falling about laughing.


 
Nice.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 11, 2010)

Look at me everybody! Me! Look!


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


>


 
You folk all seem to think alike, dontcha? Will there be room for individuality post revolution?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 11, 2010)

Student_Teacher said:


> I was at the NUS march yesterday.  The mach started off brilliantly, atmosphere was buzzing, and everybody seemed to be enjoying themselves.  The vast majority of people there, marched, rallied, and then went home. They didn't disappear off because they were bored as somebody suggested earlier, but because we had said what we had come to say, made our point, and followed the plan.  I'm strongly opposed to such a drastic rise in fees, but I got that accross with chants and banners, not smashing up buildings, abusing police officers who were only doing their job, or setting fires all over London.
> Considering how excited I was about both how the march had gone(during the arranged times, not what happened afterwards), and my first ever visit to London, I came away feeling dissapointed, deflated and embarrassed.  That was caused by such a small minority of the people who were there, and it has completely undermined what everybody else had done on the day.  The head of my student union at Teesside University Laurie Wheatman was on the phone to the radio; when asked how long it was going to take us to get home, she commented that we had been on the bus for an hour and a half, and were still not yet out of central London.  His response to that, was that it was a hold up that we ouselves had caused.  This was an unfair and untrue comment to make.  Teesside University were amongst the peacefull protesters, hence us all being on the bus at the planned time, not being detained by the police, and I for one really resent being lumped in with the students who behaved in that disgusting way.


 
Fuck off out of teesside you pompous fucking pleb.


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

Go on, start a string of thinly veiled threads about being persecuted


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> I see... no points... here.
> 
> I see the ususal posturing from a minority here who seek to alienate and vilify those that don't see eye to eye with them.
> 
> ...


oh jesus, i'm fully in faviour of anti-fuckwit elitism any day!
If you go back and actually read the point that started off your bizarre intervention,l it concerned whther it mattered if labour MPs were there and involved or npt, since that parliasmnetary stooge-in-training Moon23 seems to think it does. my response, and picky's was 'who cares if they are nor not?' i.e. 'fuck Labour'. 
it's got FUCK ALL to do wigth 'allowing you on cdfemoes, you doofus! jesus, such _attention-seeking_.....it really isn't all abourt you, however much you clearly wish it were!


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Nice.


 
And necessary.


----------



## poului (Nov 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Fuck off out of teesside you pompous fucking pleb.


 
I would like to agree with this comment.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 11, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Someone nail the fucker to a cross and we can get on with the discussion/glee/falling about laughing.


 
He puts himself up on the cross all the bloody time.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 11, 2010)

To bear your own cross is one thing, but climbing up it and hammering in the nails seems a step too far.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> Look at me everybody! Me! Look!


 
Ah, the Collective is out in force. Shout down those who dare deviate from their path of righteousness.

Funny how not one of you can actually justify why violence should play a part in your political outlook.

Bloodthirsty baying mobs are not the sole preserve of the type that gathers on a sex offenders doorstep, then. How naive of me 

I shall continue to protest as I wish, the rest of you can pose for your 15 secs of fame for the tabloids and play right into their hands.

Just remember, you're a teeny weeny minority of fringe loons, no different from EDL loons. Both of you are intolerant as fuck.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Random said:


> Go on, start a string of thinly veiled threads about being persecuted


 
Go on, continue running with the pack


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> oh jesus, i'm fully in faviour of anti-fuckwit elitism any day!
> If you go back and actually read the point that started off your bizarre intervention,l it concerned whther it mattered if labour MPs were there and involved or npt, since that parliasmnetary stooge-in-training Moon23 seems to think it does. my response, and picky's was 'who cares if they are nor not?' i.e. 'fuck Labour'.
> it's got FUCK ALL to do wigth 'allowing you on cdfemoes, you doofus! jesus, such _attention-seeking_.....it really isn't all abourt you, however much you clearly wish it were!


 
You lie.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 11, 2010)

Who are 'the Collective'?... we should be told! Praps you and DB could compile a list for us?


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> no different from EDL loons


 
I don't want to intrude on private grief, but just as an aside - do you REALLY believe this?


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 11, 2010)

I'm sure someone is!


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Funny how not one of you can actually justify why violence should play a part in your political outlook.


 Militancy has been defended again and again at length. But you just jerk off into your usual stance of "I'm right because people disagree with me." FFS, stand up for yourself and give  a proper argument rather than just becoming an ostrich.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> To bear your own cross is one thing, but climbing up it and hammering in the nails seems a step too far.


 
If you think he's bad now you're really not going to like him after saturday...


----------



## Belushi (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> You folk all seem to think alike, dontcha? Will there be room for individuality post revolution?


 
The only thing that appears to be uniting everyone is the idea that you're a self-pitying prick.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> You lie.


go read the fucking thread again you narcissistic clown!


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

stephj said:


> Who are 'the Collective'?... we should be told! Praps you and DB could compile a list for us?


 
Collective, vultures, hyenas, jackals... you get the scent of blood and you pile in, all the time laughing about me having the temerity to question your tactics.

I've seen it a million times over, again and again. No wonder you people are so dismissed. There will never, ever be a revolution because you refuse to entertain the fact that not everyone sees or thinks like you.


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> If you think he's bad now you're really not going to like him after saturday...


 
What's happening then?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Belushi said:


> The only thing that appears to be uniting everyone is the idea that you're a self-pitying prick.


 
Rather be that than a parroting moron.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 11, 2010)

IF they are going to push prosecutions it could and should be counter-productive to the state... 'nice kids' shocker bs.... Hopefully the student body would mobilise in support..
Having said that there were only 600 at the student protest re Police Brutality last night in Dublin, which tbh I thought was disappointing after having over 40,000 at their original protest, which proportionally was larger than London...
Feck me its gonna cost the state a fortune to jail them... and they should get into Open University for free...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2010)

Random said:


> What's happening then?


 
He shall be risen.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Collective, vultures, hyenas, jackals... you get the scent of blood and you pile in, all the time laughing about me having the temerity to question your tactics.
> 
> I've seen it a million times over, again and again. No wonder you people are so dismissed. There will never, ever be a revolution because you refuse to entertain the fact that not everyone sees or thinks like you.



This is just silly.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 11, 2010)

Sometimes, if everyone else thinks you're a nob, perhaps the problem isn't everyone else.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 11, 2010)

fogbat said:


> Sometimes, if everyone else thinks you're a nob, perhaps the problem isn't everyone else.


 
wise words


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Collective, vultures, hyenas, jackals... you get the scent of blood and you pile in, all the time laughing about me having the temerity to question your tactics.
> 
> I've seen it a million times over, again and again. No wonder you people are so dismissed. There will never, ever be a revolution because you refuse to entertain the fact that not everyone sees or thinks like you.


 
How do you suppose Stalin dealt with those types?


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> How do you suppose Stalin dealt with those types?


 
Sang kumbaya.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 11, 2010)

fogbat said:


> Sometimes, if everyone else thinks you're a nob, perhaps the problem isn't everyone else.


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Funny how not one of you can actually justify why violence should play a part in your political outlook.
> 
> Bloodthirsty baying mobs are not the sole preserve of the type that gathers on a sex offenders doorstep, then. How naive of me
> 
> I shall continue to protest as I wish, the rest of you can pose for your 15 secs of fame for the tabloids and play right into their hands.



*coughs politely*



chilango said:


> Tsk.
> 
> It's not about the morality of violence.
> 
> Its about strategy and tactics.


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

When you posted that, chilango, all jer heard was the collactive baying of a pack of laughing vultures.


----------



## the button (Nov 11, 2010)

Random said:


> When you posted that, chilango, all jer heard was the collactive baying of a pack of laughing vultures.



It's a trojan horse at the thin end of the slippery wedge that leads to the death camps.


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Ah, the Collective is out in force. Shout down those who dare deviate from their path of righteousness.
> 
> Funny how not one of you can actually justify why violence should play a part in your political outlook.
> 
> ...


 


Random said:


> When you posted that, chilango, all jer heard was the collactive baying of a pack of laughing vultures.



Thing is, unless he and moon23 etc are holding something back they don't have a tactical/strategical argument that holds water...so they fall back on moralism.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 11, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


>


 
You're a nob, too


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Unlike your good self, comrade.
> 
> I must learn to instill hatred in my flabby heart, give up the way of the pacifist and throw shapes, poses and the rest on my next demo. That way, I will have truly arrived.


 
you still haven't left?


----------



## Student_Teacher (Nov 11, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> they didn't undermine anything, they underlined it.


 
I just think that the amount of damage caused is going to have such a negative impact.  There was little chance of us changing anythng anyway, without creating chaos. Students have a bad enough reputation as it is.  The was it's being shown in the media, is that all students behaved like that, which means those of us who protested peacefully may as well not have been there, because the message we gave, has been stamped out by all of the violence.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

TopCat said:


> I don't mind you and your ilk coming on demos. I remember well how to deal with your liberalism. I will make sure I am behind you with the police in front. Then we throw rocks at the police. They charge beating the likes of you over the head thus radicalising you in an instant. I step aside pissing myself with laughter.


 
ah yes! baton fodder


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Still not swayed but then I'm a nob etc, so what do I know?

Apologies for not going with the flow; I guess it's not in my nature.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Collective, vultures, hyenas, jackals... you get the scent of blood and you pile in, all the time laughing about me having the temerity to question your tactics.
> 
> I've seen it a million times over, again and again. No wonder you people are so dismissed. There will never, ever be a revolution because you refuse to entertain the fact that not everyone sees or thinks like you.


without your self-made victim's mantle, you'd be nothing, wouldn't you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> To bear your own cross is one thing, but climbing up it and hammering in the nails seems a step too far.


 
he's less bearing his own cross than boring the rest of us.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 11, 2010)

How's about ignoring the attention seeking disrailers hey?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Still not swayed but then I'm a nob etc, so what do I know?
> 
> Apologies for not going with the flow; I guess it's not in my nature.


 
more of a knob, in my book.


----------



## Student_Teacher (Nov 11, 2010)

smokedout said:


> bloody students


 
May I ask what you think is wrong with students?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 11, 2010)

Student_Teacher said:


> I just think that the amount of damage caused is going to have such a negative impact.  There was little chance of us changing anythng anyway, without creating chaos. Students have a bad enough reputation as it is.  The was it's being shown in the media, is that all students behaved like that, which means those of us who protested peacefully may as well not have been there, because the message we gave, has been stamped out by all of the violence.


i think people could see clearly in the news was that it was just normal students who were involved in the direct action rather than a singled out group of troublemakers. people will see the genuine outrage and anger and will perhaps feel that they share it more.
the message has not been stamped out, it's been shouted out. a peaceful protest would have hardly been noticed.
what violence are you talk about? there were a handful of minor injuries and most of those were students.


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

Student_Teacher said:


> The was it's being shown in the media, is that all students behaved like that, which means those of us who protested peacefully may as well not have been there, because the message we gave, has been stamped out by all of the violence.


Student spokespeople across the board have been getting more air time due to this millitancy, and the message of 'stop the cuts' is certainly getting out there. If what you mean is that people who you don't agree with are getting noticed, then well you'll just have to put up with this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

anyways, some eejit's fessed up to organising the bloody thing: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...tudent-fees-protest-thugs-must-be-punished.do


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Still not swayed but then I'm a nob etc, so what do I know?
> 
> Apologies for not going with the flow; I guess it's not in my nature.


 
Are you that chap I've seen driving through red traffic lights?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

Student_Teacher said:


> May I ask what you think is wrong with students?


 
like any other load of people, there's decent people and wankers among students. although you do find a higher proportion of wankers among law students than those studying other disciplines.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Student_Teacher said:


> I just think that the amount of damage caused is going to have such a negative impact.  There was little chance of us changing anythng anyway, without creating chaos. Students have a bad enough reputation as it is.  The was it's being shown in the media, is that all students behaved like that, which means those of us who protested peacefully may as well not have been there, because the message we gave, has been stamped out by all of the violence.


 
Good luck to you. You're posting on a pro-violence thread, so I don't think you're going to win any converts. 

In fairness to the shouties; they're all armchair warriors, their youth long slipped by, they've had to conform, conform, conform and as such they are consumed with self loathing. They could only dream of possessing the vitality of your cause. But being cynical, decaying elders they are too tainted by their disappointments and if they could steal your fire, they would stamp it out immediately and replace it with their own noxious conflagration.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 11, 2010)

Student_Teacher said:


> I just think that the amount of damage caused is going to have such a negative impact.  There was little chance of us changing anythng anyway, without creating chaos. Students have a bad enough reputation as it is.  The was it's being shown in the media, is that all students behaved like that, which means those of us who protested peacefully may as well not have been there, because the message we gave, has been stamped out by all of the violence.


Do you honestly think that the media would be covering anything at all about student fees if you'd have all had a nice march and then gone home?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 11, 2010)

Student_Teacher said:


> I just think that the amount of damage caused is going to have such a negative impact.  There was little chance of us changing anythng anyway, without creating chaos. Students have a bad enough reputation as it is.  The was it's being shown in the media, is that all students behaved like that, which means those of us who protested peacefully may as well not have been there, because the message we gave, has been stamped out by all of the violence.


 
How terrible for you. People angry and wanting to fight back against attacks on them from the monied class puts you in a bad light? Perhaps stay home and curl your hair instead next time.


----------



## ymu (Nov 11, 2010)

Student_Teacher said:


> I just think that the amount of damage caused is going to have such a negative impact.  There was little chance of us changing anythng anyway, without creating chaos. Students have a bad enough reputation as it is.  The was it's being shown in the media, is that all students behaved like that, which means those of us who protested peacefully may as well not have been there, because the message we gave, has been stamped out by all of the violence.


You'll learn.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Random said:


> Are you that chap I've seen driving through red traffic lights?


 
Can't drive


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> In fairness to the shouties; they're all armchair warriors, their youth long slipped by, they've had to conform, conform, conform and as such they are consumed with self loathing. They could only dream of possessing the vitality of your cause. But being cynical, decaying elders they are too tainted by their disappointments and if they could steal your fire, they would stamp it out immediately and replace it with their own noxious conflagration.


 
Yet more content-free posting. Sure of your arguments?


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 11, 2010)

For what its worth, a lot of us were pleasantly suprised.


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> anyways, some eejit's fessed up to organising the bloody thing: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...tudent-fees-protest-thugs-must-be-punished.do


 
poor old revo, trying to claim credit and all the paper keeps saying is anarchists, anarchists anarchists


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

Random said:


> Yet more content-free posting. Sure of your arguments?


 
content-free = no arguments.


----------



## Ungrateful (Nov 11, 2010)

chilango said:


> Thing is, unless he and moon23 etc are holding something back they don't have a tactical/strategical argument that holds water...so they fall back on moralism.


 
What do you mean by 'moralism'? Aren't having good principles vital for any radical action and goal. Usually it is the middle managers who go on about 'moralism' as if acting on just and fair principles or identifying attractive aims had nothing to do with them. The problem with Moon23 and Jer Babyllondon (and the the Sun, David Clegg and Nick Cameron), is precisely the inadequacy and inconsistency of their moral positions.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

Random said:


> poor old revo, trying to claim credit and all the paper keeps saying is anarchists, anarchists anarchists


 
anarchist federation?  couldn't organise a meeting about defeating the trots without the trots winning the argument


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

Guido has just launched a £1000 reward for anyone who provides information on the thug that threw that fire extinguisher. Lets hope they catch them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Guido has just launched a £1000 reward for anyone who provides information on the thug that threw that fire extinguisher. Lets hope they catch them.


 
let's hope not, eh


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Good luck to you. You're posting on a pro-violence thread, so I don't think you're going to win any converts.


 
what violence?


----------



## dylans (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Funny how not one of you can actually justify why violence should play a part in your political outlook.


 

Because it is effective. The very fact that this thread is 37 pages long and growing shows something of the impact of violent direct action. If yesterdays march had been a good natured stroll from A to B it would have merited a single column in a newspaper if they were lucky. 

Because civil disobedience is justified, morally, politically and strategically. 

Morally because it is in response to a widespread act of violence against the population of this country for the sole benefit of the rich. Violence against the symbols of power is an act of self defence. Politically because after betrayal after betrayal by our "elected representatives"  the streets are all we have left. 

Politically because it is the only thing that is taken seriously, non violent, legal, well behaved protest will be ignored and that is simply not an option for millions of people who are facing a future of misery and poverty as a result of these attacks.  Strategically because by invading the Tory headquarters yesterdays demonstration has helped to shake the cynicism and apathy and defeatism of many people (including myself) who have been demoralised into inaction by the belief that there is no stomach in the country for a fightback against these blatant anti working class attacks. 

For all the above reasons I make no apologies for applauding yesterdays action and I hope for more.


----------



## Student_Teacher (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It will be easy to portray these protestors as immature yobs now they have started smashing stuff.


 
That's why I'm so riled about it, I went and said my bit, made my point, then came home, but I may aswell not have bothered, alongside the other 50,000 odd students who were also peaceful, because we're getting no credit or coverage.  Not only that, but it's assumed that we were all behaving like that, which isn't fair.


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

Student_Teacher said:


> That's why I'm so riled about it, I went and said my bit, made my point, then came home, but I may aswell not have bothered, alongside the other 50,000 odd students who were also peaceful, because we're getting no credit or coverage.  Not only that, but it's assumed that we were all behaving like that, which isn't fair.


 You really think 'your point' would have been taken up by the media if not for the militant protestors?


----------



## Belushi (Nov 11, 2010)

Student_Teacher said:


> That's why I'm so riled about it, I went and said my bit, made my point, then came home, but I may aswell not have bothered, alongside the other 50,000 odd students who were also peaceful, because we're getting no credit or coverage.  Not only that, but it's assumed that we were all behaving like that, *which isn't fair*.


 
You sound like one of the kids you're meant to be teaching.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 11, 2010)

Look, you were never going to get a sympathetic hearing in the media, or peacefully change the minds of the current government. Can you understand that?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> what violence?



You mean who's pro-violence? Try and quote properly if you wish to have your say.

Read the thread again, or better still, read dylans post above.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

Student_Teacher said:


> That's why I'm so riled about it, I went and said my bit, made my point, then came home, but I may aswell not have bothered, alongside the other 50,000 odd students who were also peaceful, because we're getting no credit or coverage.  Not only that, but it's assumed that we were all behaving like that, which isn't fair.


 
life's not fair


----------



## dylans (Nov 11, 2010)

Student_Teacher said:


> That's why I'm so riled about it, I went and said my bit, made my point, then came home, but I may aswell not have bothered, alongside the other 50,000 odd students who were also peaceful, because we're getting no credit or coverage.  Not only that, but it's assumed that we were all behaving like that, which isn't fair.


 
If the demonstration had been peaceful the entire demonstration would have been ignored. I don't want to "make my point and go home" I want to win. To do that we will have to fight and that doesn't mean a stroll in the park.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Random said:


> You really think 'your point' would have been taken up by the media if not for the militant protestors?


 
Pretty sure there was coverage of the protests before the revolutionaries kicked off...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> If the demonstration had been peaceful the entire demonstration would have been ignored.


 yeh, like every other student demo is


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2010)

Student_Teacher said:


> I went and said my bit, made my point, then came home, but I may aswell not have bothered


 
You've just summed up 20 years of student protests that have led to the current position.

It'd be worth listening to the views here of those who have been there and done that to avoid repeating the same mistakes.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> If the demonstration had been peaceful the entire demonstration would have been ignored. I don't want to "make my point and go home" I want to win. To do that we will have to fight and that doesn't mean a stroll in the park.


 
You a student dylans? You on yesterdays protest?


----------



## Student_Teacher (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Under the Coalition proposals if you graduate and don't get graduate-level job with above-average salary, you don't have to pay anything. Even if you never make a payment, the debt gets cancelled eventually. Also, the poorest third of students will pay *less* under the Browne proposals than they do now, making the proposals more progressive than the status quo.
> 
> Personally I think it was stupid to sign a coalition agreement that didn't allow Lib Dem MPs to vote against a proposal to raise fees.


 
It's not just that though, the amount that we will have to pay back, bearing in mind the interest will still be adding on if we are employed or not, it's that by the look of things, the extra money we'll br earning over non graduates, will be going into paying back our fees. The length of time it will take to pay it back will be longer than ever, and it will take years to feel the benefit of our increased earnings.  I went to Uni because my wages as a teaching assistant wern't enough to get a foot on the property ladder, is things go as proposed, I'll be in the same position, with a shedload of debt to boot.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> You a student dylans? You on yesterdays protest?


 
cos obviously it was only students on the demo yesterday  no one else from higher education would turn out about this sort of thing


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> You mean who's pro-violence? Try and quote properly if you wish to have your say.
> 
> Read the thread again, or better still, read dylans post above.


 you talk about there being violence but it was just a few windows being smashed


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 11, 2010)

Hordes of feral mobsters rampaged through jer's imagination.


----------



## dylans (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> You a student dylans? You on yesterdays protest?


 
I'm the only person in my family to go to university and I would like the same for my son.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 11, 2010)

Student_Teacher said:


> That's why I'm so riled about it, I went and said my bit, made my point, then came home, but I may aswell not have bothered, alongside the other 50,000 odd students who were also peaceful, because we're getting no credit or coverage.  Not only that, but it's assumed that we were all behaving like that, which isn't fair.


 
But you can't dictate how others act when on a demonstration. Demonstrators who opt for all out civil disobedience don't piss and moan about the spineless wonders who don't want to break a fingernail so what gives you the right to sneer at their form of protest?


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 11, 2010)

> The head of my student union at Teesside University Laurie Wheatman was on the phone to the radio; when asked how long it was going to take us to get home, she commented that we had been on the bus for an hour and a half, and were still not yet out of central London. His response to that, was that it was a hold up that we ouselves had caused. This was an unfair and untrue comment to make.



Untruthful and woefully ignorant of London geography. Even if you were leaving via Viccy coach station, that Millbank was closed for a couple of hours wouldn't have impacted your slow crawl out of town during the rush hour.



> The very fact that this thread is 37 pages long



Probably about 3 pages if you take out all the 'WOE IS ME!! I AM TEH OPPRESSED!! HEAR ME CRY OUT IN THE DARKNESS' posts from jer.


----------



## A. Spies (Nov 11, 2010)

> I'm strongly opposed to such a drastic rise in fees, but I got that accross with chants and banners,



Do you think that your planned day out and slow march across london would've been as dramatic though? At least this came across a bit more empowered and less cowed. Stuff like this makes it seem less inevitable that big things are just going to happen and those they effect are all going to stay within well defined boundries and hope that someone listens.

Like others have said the message they sent out from the roof was spot on, this isn't just a rise in fees it's a full on assault on society, particularly the poorest and the disabled - if this spreads a feeling of uncontrollability and empowerment among other protests and groups I think it's marginally a good thing. It's good to show that you're *fucking angry* and it's good to see the police embarrassed.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 11, 2010)

Don't worry Student_Teacher, moon23 is a Lib Dem and here to help you!


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> you talk about there being violence but it was just a few windows being smashed


 
I said this thread is pro-violence, as in advocating violence as a means to achieve their political goals.

I also stated earlier that I am against violence being used in these circumstances.

I fully support the demo, otherwise. I just think it was rash to do what they did.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 11, 2010)

Jer

Aren't you from Ireland?  Yesterdays events hardly count as political violence.  A few smashed windows a couple of bloody noses and a few individuals allegedly behaving in a reckless manner with a fire extinguisher.  It is hardly the Troubles?

Much more severe violence is meeted out to protestors in every country in the world every year, certainly in Britain and Ireland.  Look at the G20, Look at the Gardai's latest attack on some students who were sitting in the road.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Probably about 3 pages if you take out all the 'WOE IS ME!! I AM TEH OPPRESSED!! HEAR ME CRY OUT IN THE DARKNESS' posts from jer.


 
Alternatively, why not cherry pick and remove the usual baiting posts from the usual urbanistas whenever I happen to offer my opinions? You'd probably reduce it to about 20 pages. It is flattering how a few of you appear to hang on my every utterance, mind.


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2010)

Student_Teacher said:


> I went to Uni because my wages as a teaching assistant wern't enough to get a foot on the property ladder, is things go as proposed, I'll be in the same position, with a shedload of debt to boot.



There's no "if" about it.

That's already the situation, and has been for some time, for many graduates (and many qualified, experienced teachers well into their careers).


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> I said this thread is pro-violence, as in advocating violence as a means to achieve their political goals.


 Yes, the kerb stones on this thread are painted red and black


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> I said this thread is pro-violence, as in advocating violence as a means to achieve their political goals.
> 
> I also stated earlier that I am against violence being used in these circumstances.
> 
> I fully support the demo, otherwise. I just think it was rash to do what they did.


 
Are people actually "advocating" violence? or rather are they choosing not to to condemn it, but accept that (at times) it achieves things?


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

chilango said:


> Are people actually "advocating" violence? or rather are they choosing not to to condemn it, but accept that (at times) it achieves things?


 Some people are advocating violent direct action, others advocating millitancy, others soberly admitting that it can be a good idea. But to jer this just dissolves into a welter of baying for blood. I think he has difficulty seeing people as individuals.


----------



## Flanflinger (Nov 11, 2010)

dylans said:


> I'm the only person in my family to go to university and I would like the same for my son.



So if your son wants a new toy will you be expecting others to pay for it ?


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 11, 2010)

> I went to Uni because my wages as a teaching assistant wern't enough to get a foot on the property ladder, is things go as proposed, I'll be in the same position, with a shedload of debt to boot.



HA! I went to uni in the 1990s, and despite having earned a lot, I've never been in a position to get onto the 'property ladder' on my own income. Missed that boat in 1997 and it's never been back since.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 11, 2010)

jaysus.. the times must be changing when Billy Bragg is turning against the lilydems..

Billy Bragg: Lib Dems have failed democracy, not students 



> Those lining up to condemn the actions of students at Millbank as contrary to the traditions of democracy should be reminded it is the Liberal Democrats who have failed to live up to those traditions, not the students.............
> 
> The students laid down the first challenge to the coming cuts. How long will it be before they are joined by nurses, teachers, firemen and public sector workers? And perhaps by the same policemen who confronted them.


----------



## dylans (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> So if your son wants a new toy will you be expecting others to pay for it ?


 
Education isn't a toy it's a right. If you want to follow the line that sees education as a privilage (of the rich) then at least be consistent and demand the abolishment of all free state education. 

If you fail to see that an educated population is of national importance then by all means advocate a policy of education only for the rich and suggest that working class people know their place and stay in the factory because that is exactly what the tories have in mind. 

 I will reserve the right to think you are a cunt.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

eoin_k said:


> Jer
> 
> Aren't you from Ireland?  Yesterdays events hardly count as political violence.  A few smashed windows a couple of bloody noses and a few individuals allegedly behaving in a reckless manner with a fire extinguisher.  *It is hardly the Troubles*?
> 
> Much more severe violence is meeted out to protestors in every country in the world every year, certainly in Britain and Ireland.  Look at the G20, Look at the Gardai's latest attack on some students who were sitting in the road.


 
Yes, it is not anything like the Troubles and I wouldn't insult anyone who has suffered as a result of said Troubles by attempting to compare them and yesterday.

And I'm certainly not condoning Garda or police brutality; having been on the receiving end a couple of times. I just don't buy into physical confrontation unless it's absolutely the only option. And I believe there were plenty of non violent actions yesterday.


----------



## ymu (Nov 11, 2010)

Student_Teacher said:


> That's why I'm so riled about it, *I went and said my bit, made my point, then came home*, but I may aswell not have bothered, alongside the other 50,000 odd students who were also peaceful, because we're getting no credit or coverage.  Not only that, but it's assumed that we were all behaving like that, which isn't fair.


 
You are aware that 2 million people did exactly that seven and a half years ago? You're also, presumably, aware that the UK went ahead and got involved in Iraq anyway?

This isn't about polishing your halo, it's about real lives which will be devastated by these cuts and people screwed over for generations to come. If all you can think of to post about is how much you disagree with those who got a tad irate and did things you personally wouldn't, then why the fuck did you bother going on the march in the first place? You should be delighted that it all kicked off whatever your views on political violence. It means that this time there is enough anger to possibly get shit changed. Assuming that's what you actually want, of course.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 11, 2010)

I think the issue is this:



> I went to Uni because my wages as a teaching assistant wern't enough to get a foot on the property ladder, is things go as proposed, I'll be in the same position, with a shedload of debt to boot.



Not 'Because I believe free university education is a right' but 'I want to buy a house'.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> I said this thread is pro-violence, as in advocating violence as a means to achieve their political goals.
> 
> I also stated earlier that I am against violence being used in these circumstances.


no-one's "advocating violence" more like simply refusing to condemn it


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Yes, it is not anything like the Troubles and I wouldn't insult anyone who has suffered as a result of said Troubles by attempting to compare them and yesterday.
> 
> And I'm certainly not condoning Garda or police brutality; having been on the receiving end a couple of times. I just don't buy into physical confrontation unless it's absolutely the only option. And I believe there were plenty of non violent actions yesterday.



Why do you think physical confrontation is not the only option now, after all that's happened? (that's not a rhetorical question, btw)



ymu said:


> You are aware that 2 million people did exactly that seven and a half years ago? You're also, presumably, aware that the UK went ahead and got involved in Iraq anyway?
> 
> This isn't about polishing your halo, it's about real lives which will be devastated by these cuts and people screwed over for generations to come. If all you can think of to post about is how much you disagree with those who got a tad irate and did things you personally wouldn't, then why the fuck did you bother going on the march in the first place? You should be delighted that it all kicked off whatever your views on political violence. It means that this time there is enough anger to possibly get shit changed. Assuming that's what you actually want, of course.


 
Seconded.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Good luck to you. You're posting on a pro-violence thread, so I don't think you're going to win any converts.
> 
> In fairness to the shouties; they're all armchair warriors, their youth long slipped by, they've had to conform, conform, conform and as such they are consumed with self loathing. They could only dream of possessing the vitality of your cause. But being cynical, decaying elders they are too tainted by their disappointments and if they could steal your fire, they would stamp it out immediately and replace it with their own noxious conflagration.


 and you wonder why people rip you to pieces when you post braindamaged shite like this?


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> I just don't buy into physical confrontation unless it's absolutely the only option. And I believe there were plenty of non violent actions yesterday.


It doesn't have to be the only option, just a useful option.


----------



## the button (Nov 11, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> and you wonder why people rip you to pieces when you post braindamaged shite like this?



Just thought I'd get an early "boo-hoo" in about using braindamaged as a term of abuse.


----------



## Student_Teacher (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Yeah, played right into their hands, didn't they? Once again the reasons for the protest will be ignored in favour of salacious coverage of the violence.
> 
> Well done, dickheads.


 
Well said!!!


----------



## Crispy (Nov 11, 2010)

At least you got some media interest at all.


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

I don't see how anyone can say that the reasons for the protest got _less_ coverage bcause of the occupation.


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2010)

Student_Teacher said:


> Well said!!!


 
But that's patent bollocks.

This is getting tonnes of covereage. Lots and lots about the reasons too.

Let me quote the BBC at you:



> the emotional drama of an old-fashioned student demo turning ugly provided pictures which shunted the story of a protest march against tuition fees from a few paragraphs on page 17 to the front page of every paper.
> 
> In that sense, violence works: questions in Parliament; media debate; water-cooler conversations. A few broken windows have prompted tens of thousands of words on the fairness of university funding proposals


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 11, 2010)

And if you actually look throughthe national press, there's a fair amount of coverage of why people were/are so pissed off, and clearly stating links to the wider cuts issue as a whole.



Which there wouldn't have been if there'd been a column of page 13


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 11, 2010)

I think student teacher should organise the next 'protest' where everyone can gather round peacefully and sing hymns to jer on his cross.


----------



## Yossarian (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> .....they're all armchair warriors, their youth long slipped by, they've had to conform, conform, conform...They could only dream of possessing the vitality of your cause. But being cynical, decaying elders they are too tainted by their disappointments...



Jer appears to have forgotten that he's 40.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 11, 2010)

Yeah, looking at the national press there are a host of students getting op-ed pieces, especially on the web, getting a strong message out that this isn't just about the student cuts, it's the thin end of a wedge. But then someone who went protesting because they won't be able to buy a house probably isn't really into the 'bigger picture'.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

the button said:


> Just thought I'd get an early "boo-hoo" in about using braindamaged as a term of abuse.


fair enough


----------



## audiotech (Nov 11, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> whose clare solomon involved with?



Her interview can be seen at counterfire.

http://www.counterfire.org/index.ph...lomon-defends-student-resistance-on-newsnight


----------



## revol68 (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Listen up. I spent more time locked up in police cells as a youth than most on here. I spent time in a detention centre where just looking the wrong way at a screw earnt you a good kicking. I've done porridge and seen it all in my 52 years. One thing I did learn is you can't beat the system. As for voting, labour everytime since 79. It's a shitty world out there, so learn to live with it and look after number one.


 
Like The Clash said



> Now every cheap hood strikes a bargain with the
> world
> And ends up making payments on a sofa or a girl
> Love 'n' hate tattooed across the knuckles of his hands
> Hands that slap his kids around 'cause they don't understand how



Now fuck off.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> no-one's "advocating violence" more like simply refusing to condemn it


 
I am.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> Her interview can be seen at counterfire.
> 
> http://www.counterfire.org/index.ph...lomon-defends-student-resistance-on-newsnight


 
Clue is in the groups site it's hosted on.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> no-one's "advocating violence" more like simply refusing to condemn it


 
Sorry but no, I advocate political violence in some circumstances.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I am.


 
Seconded.

"Hospital closures kill more than car bombs ever will".


----------



## rekil (Nov 11, 2010)

Urban just mentioned on Sky. Hello Kay you ghastly hack.


----------



## the button (Nov 11, 2010)

Meanwhile, occupation underway at Manchester University: -

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=433804&l=50d3e7ef8d&id=106855322672422

Reports differ as to whether they're in the chancellor's office or the finance department.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 11, 2010)

Probably both, it's all main building stuff. I recognise a couple of those rascals from 2009's occupation


----------



## editor (Nov 11, 2010)

copliker said:


> Urban just mentioned on Sky.


 What did they say?!


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 11, 2010)

copliker said:


> Urban just mentioned on Sky. Hello Kay you ghastly hack.


 
'What is an Urban?' will be her enlightening question...


----------



## revol68 (Nov 11, 2010)

I was watching The Wright Stuff this morning and despite the constant need to reassert that they can't support the "violence", it was pretty damn sympathetic, especially the people calling in. The facts are without the "violence" kicking off this would never have become such an issue. There was even a wee glint in your man Wright's eye when saying he couldn't support the violence but maybe it should be expected when government attacks peoples conditions.

Also I had never watched it before as I assumed it was retarded shite but it's actual less reactionary than most of those types of shows, which is kinda depressing when you think about it.


----------



## Onket (Nov 11, 2010)

http://teneleventen.wordpress.com/ 

Dunno if this has been posted already, I've not read all 41 pages.

It's a petition to stop the witch-hunt of the students based on a couple of broken windows.


----------



## la ressistance (Nov 11, 2010)

saw this on twitter
http://nov10.wordpress.com/

 thought someone might find it useful.


----------



## greenfield (Nov 11, 2010)

Jenny Jones of the Green Party (and Met Police Authority) condemns "the actions of a violent minority". It's on the GPEW website, so I suppose it's an official Green Party position. 

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2010-11-11-jenny-jones-tuition-fees-protest.html


----------



## rekil (Nov 11, 2010)

editor said:


> What did they say?!


 
She showed a screenie of a thread from the Announcements forum about the demo, and read a post along the lines of hope it kicks off.  Might be showed again. Careful now.


----------



## the button (Nov 11, 2010)

greenfield said:


> Jenny Jones of the Green Party (and Met Police Authority) condemns "the actions of a violent minority". It's on the GPEW website, so I suppose it's an official Green Party position.
> 
> http://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2010-11-11-jenny-jones-tuition-fees-protest.html



Young Greens spokesgreen a *bit* better: -



> Obviously we abhor violence against people, but the events at Millbank were a totally understandable response to pent up anger of young people who feel they are being jilted at every turn. Many of the protesters at millbank were younger college and sixth form students worried they will be priced out of university by a trebling of fees. Hundreds of people went inside the building and thousands more were cheering from the courtyard. This was a spontaneous action uniting thousands of ordinary students."
> 
> "What happened yesterday generated momentum in the student movement that must be harnessed if these cuts are to be defeated and the movement esclated. We fully support direct action, occupations and other activities that utilise sensible tactics to show the Government we will not accept higher fees, and we will not accept cuts to higher education funding.



http://younggreens.greenparty.org.uk/node/219


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I am.


 


TopCat said:


> Sorry but no, I advocate political violence in some circumstances.


 


revol68 said:


> Seconded.
> 
> "Hospital closures kill more than car bombs ever will".


 
Me too. Especially after wearing down my soles on too many ineffectual a - b with speeches shenanigans.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2010)

the button said:


> Young Greens spokesgreen a *bit* better: -
> 
> 
> 
> http://younggreens.greenparty.org.uk/node/219


 
They need to talk about the wider cuts, not focus on themselves.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 11, 2010)

Can we have brief summaries when people slap up links please?


----------



## Balbi (Nov 11, 2010)

They're going with what they know for starters. I reckon the Manc. Uni occupation will be the first of a few.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 11, 2010)

the button said:


> Meanwhile, occupation underway at Manchester University: -
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=433804&l=50d3e7ef8d&id=106855322672422
> 
> Reports differ as to whether they're in the chancellor's office or the finance department.


 From the Manchester occupation: 


> Students at Manchester University have peacefully occupied the John Owens building and are lobbying the finance board over the coalition attack on higher education.
> We are demanding that the university opens its books so that we know where the cuts will fall, how many voluntary redundancies have already been made and to highlight the fact that the vice chancellor is paid 20 times the average salary. The financial director has denied any cuts are planned
> despite the fact that voluntary redundancies have been announced and the
> combined studies department has already been cut. We are here to support lecturers and administrative staff who will be losing there jobs. To oppose the rise in tuition fees that will price out most working class students. And to oppose the privatisation of our universities. ends


*latest:*


> Manchester occupation- 3 people are going in to negotiate the demands. The finance board are barricaded in a finance meeting.


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Nov 11, 2010)

Student_Teacher said:


> I just think that the amount of damage caused is going to have such a negative impact.  There was little chance of us changing anythng anyway, without creating chaos. Students have a bad enough reputation as it is.  The was it's being shown in the media, is that all students behaved like that, which means those of us who protested peacefully may as well not have been there, because the message we gave, has been stamped out by all of the violence.



No, it was very important that there were 50,000 peaceful protesters backing up the direct action. Your presence wasn't wasted at all. 

Most of the people I work with are really not known for their tolerance of student protests (mostly people who worked their way up or did aprenticeships) and & no-one has outright condemned yesterday and quite a few have been supportive.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Sorry but no, I advocate political violence in some circumstances.


 so do I, and i was rush posting, but what I was trying to say in response to jer's pious handwringing was that "there is a difference between saying an elite strike force should get together and have as big a ruck as possible, just for lolz" (which I wouldn't) and standing by those who did it after, and saying they weree justified (which I do).


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I am.


I do - in some, even many circs, but I was responding to Jer's one man campaign to demonise the protesters, by pointing out he was wildly misrepresenting and exaggerating the circs. silly me, I should have just ignored the attengtion-seeking twat


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 11, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> I do - in some, even many circs, but I was responding to Jer's one man campaign to demonise the protesters, by pointing out he was wildly misrepresenting and exaggerating the circs.* silly me, I should have just ignored the attengtion-seeking twat*



^^^ this


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> so do I, and i was rush posting, but what I was trying to say in response to jer's pious handwringing was that "there is a difference between saying an elite strike force should get together and have as big a ruck as possible, just for lolz" (which I wouldn't) and standing by those who did it after, and saying they weree justified (which I do).


 
I merely put forth the kerrrazy notion that violence is not a clever option. No piety or wringing of hands, I assure you.


----------



## Onket (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> I merely put forth the kerrrazy notion that violence is not a clever option. No piety or wringing of hands, I assure you.


 
And lots of people don't agree.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

AKA pseudonym said:


> ^^^ this


 
Perhaps you could point out where I demonised the protesters in this case, ta ever so muchly


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Onket said:


> And lots of people don't agree.


 
What; here or outside urban?


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> let's hope not, eh


 
What? You don't want the idiot who threw a fire extinguisher from several stories into a crowd caught? Do you condemn his actions?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> What; here or outside urban?


 
Both.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Both.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
And lots of people support the student protest without resorting to any violence.

But who is right?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Perhaps you could point out where I demonised the protesters in this case, ta ever so muchly


why bother....
go back chasing the shadows n disrailing
over n out


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

The problem with justifying political violence and destruction of property is that it might be used by people who disagree with your cause. I wonder how people on this board would feel if a bunch of right-wing thugs smashed up a union office or broke the windows of their own parties office.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> I merely put forth the kerrrazy notion that violence is not a clever option. No piety or wringing of hands, I assure you.


jer, you're incapable of making a post that doesn't read like someone simultaneously scrambling for the moral highest ground and hanging the sign 'martyr' round their neck


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 11, 2010)

no it isn't


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

AKA pseudonym said:


> why bother....
> go back chasing the shadows n disrailing
> over n out


 
So you can't show my alleged demonising of the protesters, then? Thought as much.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> And lots of people support the student protest without resorting to any violence.
> 
> But who is right?


 
Violence and non-violence both play a part. Following one or other route exclusively is simply limiting; your apparent dichotomy ('who is right') is a false one.

Lous MacNeice


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

AKA pseudonym said:


> ^^^ this


yes, yes, I know


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> jer, you're incapable of making a post that doesn't read like someone simultaneously scrambling for the moral highest ground and hanging the sign 'martyr' round their neck


 
And it would appear that some can't take my posts without reading all sorts of stuff into them, either


----------



## Onket (Nov 11, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> no it isn't


 
This^


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The problem with justifying political violence and destruction of property is that it might be used by people who disagree with your cause. I wonder how people on this board would feel if a bunch of right-wing thugs smashed up a union office or broke the windows of their own parties office.


 
Nobody's justifying violence as being good in itself. Aren't you supposed to be the logical and rigorous one who reads popper and stuff?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> And lots of people support the student protest without resorting to any violence.
> 
> But who is right?


 
Fight!


----------



## Onket (Nov 11, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> no it isn't


 
Yes it is.


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> And lots of people support the student protest without resorting to any violence.
> 
> But who is right?


 Who on this thread is 'resorting to violence'? Is this more of that 'internet brutality'?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> So you can't show my alleged demonising of the protesters, then? Thought as much.



Whats the point, waste of bandwith innit...
I never argue with a fool, observers can find it hard to know who's who...

sigh... maybe we can get back on topic soon... it aint all about you...
 x


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

Student_Teacher said:


> That's why I'm so riled about it, I went and said my bit, made my point, then came home, but I may aswell not have bothered, alongside the other 50,000 odd students who were also peaceful, because we're getting no credit or coverage.  Not only that, but it's assumed that we were all behaving like that, which isn't fair.


 
Sadly the media encourages this type of violence by giving the people who commit it so much coverage. Why should someone who throws a lump of concrete get themselves interviewed on the news rather than someone like yourself who attends peacefully?  

It’s very sad that this type of political violence is deemed by some to be justifiable because it attracts media attention. Incidentally Terrorist work on the same principle of thriving on the media coverage for their atrocities.

Hopefully those who caused this trouble will be arrested and charged and the vast majority of coherent and sensible demonstrators will be able to influence government policy.


----------



## Santino (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> And lots of people support the student protest without resorting to any violence.
> 
> But who is right?



There's only one way to find out...


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 11, 2010)

> Incidentally Terrorist work on the same principle of thriving on the media coverage for their atrocities



No they don't. Nice demonstration of the doublethink of linking legitimate political protest with terrorism tho. Fucking scum libdem cunt.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 11, 2010)

Or not fight, obviously.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

Random said:


> Nobody's justifying violence as being good in itself. Aren't you supposed to be the logical and rigorous one who reads popper and stuff?


 
I'm not saying anyone has justified political violence, just pointing out why it's stupid to do so. I would say political violence is only good as a means to an ends in very extreme circumstances e.g. Fascist invasion, against a Dictatorship.  Rioting over having to cover some of the costs of your own higher education is not a legitimate course of action. I suspect hardly any of those involved haven’t even bothered with trying to engage with the political system.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Sadly the media encourages this type of violence by giving the people who commit it so much coverage. Why should someone who throws a lump of concrete get themselves interviewed on the news rather than someone like yourself who attends peacefully?
> 
> It’s very sad that this type of political violence is deemed by some to be justifiable because it attracts media attention. Incidentally Terrorist work on the same principle of thriving on the media coverage for their atrocities.
> 
> Hopefully those who caused this trouble will be arrested and charged and the vast majority of coherent and sensible demonstrators will be able to influence government policy.


 
_"What do we want? Moderate change. When do we want it? No hurry."_


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Sadly the media encourages this type of violence by giving the people who commit it so much coverage. Why should someone who throws a lump of concrete get themselves interviewed on the news rather than someone like yourself who attends peacefully?
> 
> It’s very sad that this type of political violence is deemed by some to be justifiable because it attracts media attention. Incidentally Terrorist work on the same principle of thriving on the media coverage for their atrocities.
> 
> Hopefully those who caused this trouble will be arrested and charged and the vast majority of coherent and sensible demonstrators will be able to influence government policy.


 
Who threw this 'concrete' moonie?  It is a figment of yours & Skys vivid imagination.  A typically dishonest way to put forward an argument.  And then you equate them with tyerrorists too!  Marvellous.  two more sentences and we'd be back to the enemy withni.

One person throwing a fire extinguisher no more negates the rest of the occupiers' activities any more than the occupiers' activities negated Stundet_Teacher marching peacefully. Blame the root causes for the violence - Tory attcks and their lickspittal backers, the Lying Liberal Democrats who are busy breaking every promise they made. They are inflicting far more violence upon people than that demo ever could.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 11, 2010)

> Why should someone who throws a lump of concrete get themselves interviewed on the news rather than someone like yourself who attends peacefully?




Moon23 no one threw concrete that was Sky News being retarded and unable to judge between the descent on a newspaper and concrete blocks.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> What? You don't want the idiot who threw a fire extinguisher from several stories into a crowd caught? Do you condemn his actions?


 
No and No. Plus you are making sexist assumptions. It could have been a bird that passed it down.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 11, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> No they don't. Nice demonstration of the doublethink of linking legitimate political protest with terrorism tho. Fucking scum libdem cunt.



This.


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm not saying anyone has justified political violence, just pointing out why it's stupid to do so. I would say political violence is only good as a means to an ends in very extreme circumstances e.g. Fascist invasion, against a Dictatorship.  Rioting over having to cover some of the costs of your own higher education is not a legitimate course of action. I suspect hardly any of those involved haven’t even bothered with trying to engage with the political system.


 
How about when the 'democractically elected' government goes back on its specific pledges? When it makes a mockery of that 'democracy'?  Whatever the issue, that is behaving in a dictatorial way, so, by your own argument, political violence is justified.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The problem with justifying political violence and destruction of property is that it might be used by people who disagree with your cause. I wonder how people on this board would feel if a bunch of right-wing thugs smashed up a union office or broke the windows of their own parties office.


 
We would organise and then go batter the fuck out of them.


----------



## rekil (Nov 11, 2010)

editor said:


> What did they say?!


Busy and can't watch anymore to see if they show that bit again. I was half listening the first time but I think she was going on about sites which had advertised the protest in advance. A couple of screenies from some facebook group and one from this place shown. 



kyser_soze said:


> 'What is an Urban?' will be her enlightening question...









 'A real urbans yesterday', in Sky's new flaming torch font.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> No they don't. Nice demonstration of the doublethink of linking legitimate political protest with terrorism tho. Fucking scum libdem cunt.


 
I'm not linking legitimate political demonstration with terrorism, I’m linking acts of political violence to terrorism and then only with regard to this sole aspect of seeking media attention through their extreme behaviour.  

I have been highly critical in the past with ACPO linking legitimate protest to domestic extremism and terrorism, and remain so.


----------



## belboid (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I have been highly critical in the past with ACPO linking legitimate protest to domestic extremism and terrorism, and remain so.


 even tho that is exactply what you are doing.  No surprise


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Whats the point, waste of bandwith innit...
> I never argue with a fool, observers can find it hard to know who's who...
> 
> sigh... maybe we can get back on topic soon... it aint all about you...
> x


 
No it's not about me in the slightest - I leave that to a few obsessives here - but I wish you'd back up your accusations; I have said I support the protesters last night, I just don't hold with any violence, however little. The few violent protesters were not representative of the majority of those on the demo. I fail to see how this "demonises" them


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 11, 2010)

TopCat said:


> No and No. Plus you are making sexist assumptions. It could have been a bird that passed it down.


i see what you did there..


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Incidentally Terrorist work on the same principle of thriving on the media coverage for their atrocities.



Terrorists now!


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 11, 2010)

copliker said:


> Busy and can't watch anymore to see if they show that bit again. I was half listening the first time but I think she was going on about sites which had advertised the protest in advance. A couple of screenies from some facebook group and one from this place shown.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Not everyone on Urban is Irish, you know. It just feels that way sometimes.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm not linking legitimate political demonstration with terrorism, I’m linking acts of political violence to terrorism and then only with regard to this sole aspect of seeking media attention through their extreme behaviour.
> 
> I have been highly critical in the past with ACPO linking legitimate protest to domestic extremism and terrorism, and remain so.


 
The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were terrorism, "our" government are terrorists and the only thing they listen to is force, be it riots, general strikes, occupations and so on.

Get off your fucking cloud and pick a side you liberal cunt, or rather I should point out that you already have picked a side, that of the state.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Idris2002 said:


> Not everyone on Urban is Irish, you know. It just feels that way sometimes.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Get off your fucking cloud and pick a side you liberal cunt, or rather I should point out that you already have picked a side, that of the state.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Get off your fucking cloud and pick a side you liberal cunt, or rather I should point out that you already have picked a side, that of the state.



Go revol!


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

Hocus Eye. said:


> _"What do we want? Moderate change. When do we want it? No hurry."_


i thought it was "when do we want it? IN DUE COURSE!"


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> No it's not about me in the slightest - I leave that to a few obsessives here - but I wish you'd back up your accusations; I have said I support the protesters last night, I just don't hold with any violence, however little. The few violent protesters were not representative of the majority of those on the demo. I fail to see how this "demonises" them



last time for the hard of thinking... you have made the most posts on this thread and imo and others you have brought nothing of interest to the thread...
keep banging your one person drum.... plenty in the real world who post here think you is wrong...
go figure?
ARGGGHHHHHH i never ignore posters but u sure are coming close.. do me a favour and just ignore me please.. you seem to be good at ignoring anyones opinions so should come easy...
xoxoxo
Now what was the topic/ thread about again?


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


>


 
Before you can have shades of grey, you need two things - BLACK and WHITE.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

You do have a point here belboid, I am very unhappy the Lib Dems did not stipulate that the coalition was formed on the basis that all electoral pledges should be honoured. Activists like myself did not work hard only to see promises broken. 

  However the Lib Dems do not have a majority within the government, so I think it’s reasonable that the majority parties e.g. Conservatives viewpoint is the one that dominates. To this extent I do not think the government can be said to have specifically broken it’s pledge.
What I am pleased about is that the Lib Dems have had the courage to sit around the table and improve upon the Browne report (that Labour commissioned and the Tories would implement in full) recommendations to ensure they are more progressive. 

Only having to repay fees if you earn over £21K means those on low incomes will not have to struggle as a result of their education. It’s not too dissimilar to a graduate tax really. I’m also pleased there will be more help for students from the poorest backgrounds.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You do have a point here belboid, I am very unhappy the Lib Dems did not stipulate that the coalition was formed on the basis that all electoral pledges should be honoured. Activists like myself did not work hard only to see promises broken.
> 
> However the Lib Dems do not have a majority within the government, so I think it’s reasonable that the majority parties e.g. Conservatives viewpoint is the one that dominates. To this extent I do not think the government can be said to have specifically broken it’s pledge.
> What I am pleased about is that the Lib Dems have had the courage to sit around the table and improve upon the Browne report (that Labour commissioned and the Tories would implement in full) recommendations to ensure they are more progressive.
> ...


 

You wanker.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 11, 2010)

> However the Lib Dems do not have a majority within the government, so I think it’s reasonable that the majority parties e.g. Conservatives viewpoint is the one that dominates. To this extent I do not think the government can be said to have specifically broken it’s pledge.



Your scum collection of turncoats campaigned on a platform utterly opposed to what's happening with uni funding. You can expect this shit from the Tories, but I hope every single one of your councillors and MPs get kicked out over the next 5 years, and your scum party dies a death forever in British politics.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

revol68 said:


> The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were terrorism, "our" government are terrorists and the only thing they listen to is force, be it riots, general strikes, occupations and so on.
> 
> Get off your fucking cloud and pick a side you liberal cunt, or rather I should point out that you already have picked a side, that of the state.


 
I think it's a category error to define the invasions of Iraq & Afghanistan as terrorism as they were actions of a sovereign nation. They were however morally wrong and I opposed them at them at the time through the ballot box, through legitimate demonstration and other means. 

My instincts are for a liberal state with decentralised power. I'm certainly not all for the power of the state, unlike some of those who blanket oppose all cuts in public spending.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 11, 2010)

Play the ball, not the man please.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 11, 2010)

TopCat said:


> You wanker.


 
Indeed.


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Only having to repay fees if you earn over £21K means those on low incomes will not have to struggle as a result of their education. It’s not too dissimilar to a graduate tax really. I’m also pleased there will be more help for students from the poorest backgrounds.


The millitant students have made it clear this isn't just about the student fees issue, but also about the cuts. Which are lethal and therefore should be stopped using appropriate force.


----------



## ymu (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> What; here or outside urban?


Anyone who has had much experience of activism, on or off urban. 

I first got involved in activism with ISM, an organisation dedicated to strictly non-violent direct action in Palestine. They do not condemn political violence, because non-violence is a tactic, not an all encompassing philosophy. They use NVDA to try and open up space for those who have become disenfranchised from their own struggle by the extraordinary violence being used by both sides. Strict pacifists are welcome, but they'd get bloody short shrift if they started spouting off about their philosophy on activist time.

I very much doubt you've spent a second thinking about what constitutes violence and non-violence, or under what circumstances each is appropriate/necessary. Noone who had could come out with such santimonious misdirected bollocks.


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think it's a category error to define the invasions of Iraq & Afghanistan as terrorism as they were actions of a sovereign nation.


 There is such a thing as state terror. That's not a category error on your part, just an error.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think it's a category error to define the invasions of Iraq & Afghanistan as terrorism as they were actions of a sovereign nation. They were however morally wrong and I opposed them at them at the time through the ballot box, through legitimate demonstration and other means.



How much good did that do?



moon23 said:


> My instincts are for a liberal state with decentralised power. I'm certainly not all for the power of the state, unlike some of those who blanket oppose all cuts in public spending.



Don't be a berk. The power of the state is not diminished by cutting university funding or throwing people off benefits.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm not linking legitimate political demonstration with terrorism, I’m linking acts of political violence to terrorism and then only with regard to this sole aspect of seeking media attention through their extreme behaviour.
> 
> I have been highly critical in the past with ACPO linking legitimate protest to domestic extremism and terrorism, and remain so.


 
You're linking some windows being smashed, and an eejit dropping a fire extinguisher off a building, with people being blown up. You're equating occupying the Tories office with 7/7. 

Despite the glorious selection of words that can be used as invective in English, I can't begin to describe people like you.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Play the ball, not the man please.


 
I have tried, with _both hands_ but really. :0


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

AKA pseudonym said:


> last time for the hard of thinking... you have made the most posts on this thread and imo and others you have brought nothing of interest to the thread...
> keep banging your one person drum.... plenty in the real world who post here think you is wrong...
> go figure?
> ARGGGHHHHHH i never ignore posters but u sure are coming close.. do me a favour and just ignore me please.. you seem to be good at ignoring anyones opinions so should come easy...
> ...


 
I have stated my opinions, for what it's worth; and people like you have distorted them - don't blame me if your argument falls apart. As to whether it's interesting or not; that's up to the individual to work out. Frankly, I find it boring to have to explain what I've said a billion times over.


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> You're linking some windows being smashed, and an eejit dropping a fire extinguisher off a building, with people being blown up. You're equating occupying the Tories office with 7/7.
> 
> Despite the glorious selection of words that can be used as invective in English, I can't begin to describe people like you.


 moon was simply pointing out a particular similarity. I'm sure his next post was going to be about how smashing windows is also much like working in advertising.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 11, 2010)

Well, I suppose that windows get shattered when a bomb goes off.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Your scum collection of turncoats campaigned on a platform utterly opposed to what's happening with uni funding. You can expect this shit from the Tories, but I hope every single one of your councillors and MPs get kicked out over the next 5 years, and your scum party dies a death forever in British politics.


 
That's the nature of coalition politics, sometimes things you promised and want as part of your manifesto don't get enacted. It's better to work and try and make the proposals more progressive which is what the party has done. I'm proud of the work Lib Dem MPs have done in improving on the Browne review recomendations, even if I am dissapointed we didn't get elected and couldn't deliver our complete manifesto.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

ymu said:


> I very much doubt you've spent a second thinking about what constitutes violence and non-violence, or under what circumstances each is appropriate/necessary. Noone who had could come out with such santimonious misdirected bollocks.


 
And yet another comparing last night to something far more worthy. Sanctimonious, indeed.

This is not occupied Palestine, nor the 6 counties, nor Tibet etc etc.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> That's the nature of coalition politics, sometimes things you promised and want as part of your manifesto don't get enacted. It's better to work and try and make the proposals more progressive which is what the party has done. I'm proud of the work Lib Dem MPs have done in improving on the Browne review recomendations, even if I am dissapointed we didn't get elected and couldn't deliver our complete manifesto.


 
What it means is that if you side with the party of the ruling class, you get to preside over their attacks on everybody else. Well done.


----------



## Random (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> And yet another comparing last night to something far more worthy. Sanctimonious, indeed.
> 
> This is not occupied Palestine, nor the 6 counties, nor Tibet etc etc.


 One reason we're better off than in those countries is because we've been better at holding our political elite to ransom


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You do have a point here belboid, I am very unhappy the Lib Dems did not stipulate that the coalition was formed on the basis that all electoral pledges should be honoured. Activists like myself did not work hard only to see promises broken.
> 
> However the Lib Dems do not have a majority within the government, so I think it’s reasonable that the majority parties e.g. Conservatives viewpoint is the one that dominates. To this extent I do not think the government can be said to have specifically broken it’s pledge.
> What I am pleased about is that the Lib Dems have had the courage to sit around the table and improve upon the Browne report (that Labour commissioned and the Tories would implement in full) recommendations to ensure they are more progressive.


all of this totally ignores one key point; your party sold the students out and broke its' promises to them. Full stop.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Nov 11, 2010)

Wasn't they lucky with the weather! The only nice day in the week. We must have God on our side.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

Random said:


> One reason we're better off than in those countries is because we've been better at holding our political elite to ransom


 
And possibly because the UK isn't occupied, so no need for defending your turf, either.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> That's the nature of coalition politics, sometimes things you promised and want as part of your manifesto don't get enacted. It's better to work and try and make the proposals more progressive which is what the party has done. I'm proud of the work Lib Dem MPs have done in improving on the Browne review recomendations, even if I am dissapointed we didn't get elected and couldn't deliver our complete manifesto.


 
You do realise that a lot of students would have voted Lib-dem, don't you? Possibly even some for the first time. They won't be voting Lib-dem again.


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Why should someone who throws a lump of concrete get themselves interviewed on the news rather than someone like yourself who attends peacefully?



Why would they do the interview? that'd be really dumb...




moon23 said:


> It’s very sad that this type of political violence is deemed by some to be justifiable because it attracts media attention.



I don't think people are justifying because of the media attention (after all media attention is not the end goal of these things) but pointing out that such scenes do not "detract" from the attention a peaceful protest would allegedly get.





moon23 said:


> Hopefully those who caused this trouble will be arrested and charged



Me too.

Bankers, bosses and politicians in the slammer!


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> And possibly because the UK isn't occupied, so no need for defending your turf, either.


 
Look at the history of political protest in England from the time of Boudicea onwards. It's a long, long train. Hell, even tho it was self-interest, even the Magna Carta was a protest by the elite at the ruler.


----------



## grit (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think it's a category error to define the invasions of Iraq & Afghanistan as terrorism as they were actions of a sovereign nation


 
They seem to fit the dictionary definition of the word perfectly. The acts being perpetrated by a sovereign nation or a bunch of lads in a cave is irrelevant.

–noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

grit said:


> They seem to fit the dictionary definition of the word perfectly. The acts being perpetrated by a sovereign nation or a bunch of lads in a cave is irrelevant.
> 
> –noun
> 1.
> the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.


 

Apparently adding the concepts of _Sovereign_ and _Nation_ means you can kill who you want.


----------



## ymu (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> And yet another comparing last night to something far more worthy. Sanctimonious, indeed.
> 
> This is not occupied Palestine, nor the 6 counties, nor Tibet etc etc.


Oh ffs! I was not comparing the situation to Palestine you stupid little man. I was pointing out that the philosophy behind non-violence is a fuck of a lot deeper than your superficial sanctimonious wittering.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 11, 2010)

I am off home now.  May I just say to one and all how much I have enjoyed participating in the thread today. One Love.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Look at the history of political protest in England from the time of Boudicea onwards. It's a long, long train. Hell, even tho it was self-interest, even the Magna Carta was a protest by the elite at the ruler.


 
I'd hardly place last nights demo in such illustrious historical company but yes, I catch the drift.

People are understandably irked at yet another rubbish deal from yet another rubbish Govt but the time for violent revolution is long gone. We, allegedly, live in a democratic society - armed insurrection (I'm exaggerating here, in case it's not blindingly obvious) isn't going to kick off because of the unfairness of the present day. I could understand and be less... obstinate... if this country was Burma, or Zimbabwe or NK or anywhere were there is severe oppression and a need for absolute change.

That there is need for change here, I have no doubt. But it is not as severe as places where violent unrest would be expected.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 11, 2010)

moon - this is the legislation the shower of cunts your party has aligned with is introducing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/11/iain-duncan-smith-unveils-welfare-contract

Not working is 'sinful' apparently. A politician in 21st century Britain using the word 'sinful' in an unironic, utterly serious way. Yup, your little party certainly have to bend over.


----------



## Dovydaitis (Nov 11, 2010)

Random said:


> The millitant students have made it clear this isn't just about the student fees issue, but also about the cuts. Which are lethal and therefore should be stopped using appropriate force.


 
I was waiting for that. The whole thing yesterday was not only about fees but cuts to universities. They want to cut the arts, humanities and social sciences. My degree is an arts/humanities one so I will be directly affected by the cuts and due to my position I see how my department is running at the mo with tutors not being paid for all the hours they do as there isnt the money in the pot. Cuts will close unis and lead to unemployment.


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> I I could understand and be less... obstinate... if this country  Zimbabwe were there is severe oppression and a need for absolute change.



As an aside...

Oddly, in Zimbabwe there seems to be _less_ need/will for violent change as most peeps I spoke to there figure it's only a matter of time now before Mugabe pops his clogs so are preferring to hang on in there for the time being...


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

ymu said:


> Oh ffs! I was not comparing the situation to Palestine you stupid little man. I was pointing out that the philosophy behind non-violence is a fuck of a lot deeper than your superficial sanctimonious wittering.


 
Patronising. Hey look at me, I support Palestine - so therefore I'm a fuck more "real" than you.

Big deal. I support Palestine too. Last night's protests are a million miles away from Palestine. I think I know the difference between random street violence and the fight for freedom, silly.


----------



## grit (Nov 11, 2010)

revol68 said:


> I was watching The Wright Stuff this morning and despite the constant need to reassert that they can't support the "violence", it was pretty damn sympathetic, especially the people calling in. The facts are without the "violence" kicking off this would never have become such an issue. There was even a wee glint in your man Wright's eye when saying he couldn't support the violence but maybe it should be expected when government attacks peoples conditions.
> 
> Also I had never watched it before as I assumed it was retarded shite but it's actual less reactionary than most of those types of shows, which is kinda depressing when you think about it.


 
Giving that fucking pox of a show too much credit. They are the same cunts who delivered such lines as "Yes torture is ok because they are all trying to kill us"  earlier this week, I nearly spat out my coffee when I heard it.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

chilango said:


> As an aside...
> 
> Oddly, in Zimbabwe there seems to be _less_ need/will for violent change as most peeps I spoke to there figure it's only a matter of time now before Mugabe pops his clogs so are preferring to hang on in there for the time being...


 
The scars run deep there, it will not be an easy transition, that's for sure.


----------



## Dovydaitis (Nov 11, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> You do realise that a lot of students would have voted Lib-dem, don't you? Possibly even some for the first time. They won't be voting Lib-dem again.


 
yup. They have lost a hell of a lot of support. I wish Sheffield Hallam constituency all the best in their aim of unseating Clegg!


----------



## ymu (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Patronising. Hey look at me, I support Palestine - so therefore I'm a fuck more "real" than you.
> 
> Big deal. I support Palestine too. Last night's protests are a million miles away from Palestine. I think I know the difference between random street violence and the fight for freedom, silly.


Whoosh! 

Why do very few non-violent activists condemn political violence jer? Do you know? Do you care? Have you spent a second thinking about it?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 11, 2010)

Dovydaitis said:


> I was waiting for that. The whole thing yesterday was not only about fees but cuts to universities. They want to cut the arts, humanities and social sciences. My degree is an arts/humanities one so I will be directly affected by the cuts and due to my position I see how my department is running at the mo with tutors not being paid for all the hours they do as there isnt the money in the pot. Cuts will close unis and lead to unemployment.


 
Indeed. I believe all government funding to Arts/Humanities/Social Sciences is being withdrawn, along with a 60% cut to staffing funding. The universities will have no choice but to ask for the full amount of fees in order to still run these courses and to pay the lecturers. The first privately sponsored courses are being announced (the Morrisson's degree, for example), and the march towards critical thinking for the elites, vocational worker drone factories for the poor continues.


----------



## kyser_soze (Nov 11, 2010)

Time to start a free universities movement then. Get all the unemployed lecturers etc onto YouTube and stuff. As well as fighting the cuts.


----------



## chilango (Nov 11, 2010)

kyser_soze said:


> Time to start a free universities movement then. Get all the unemployed lecturers etc onto YouTube and stuff. As well as fighting the cuts.


 
I was just thinking that earlier...


----------



## audiotech (Nov 11, 2010)

'Why the Socialist Workers Party is bad for Britain.' 

Quack, quack.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> I think I know the difference between random street violence and the fight for freedom, silly.


you've certainly not shown that on this thread


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

ymu said:


> Whoosh!
> 
> Why do very few non-violent activists condemn political violence jer? Do you know? Do you care? Have you spent a second thinking about it?



I've spent a whole lifetime thinking about it. It's a very conflicting business. 

I'm not the enemy, btw.

But I am within reach, I suppose...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> No it's not about me in the slightest - I leave that to a few obsessives here - but I wish you'd back up your accusations; I have said I support the protesters last night, I just don't hold with any violence, however little. The few violent protesters were not representative of the majority of those on the demo. I fail to see how this "demonises" them


 
Strange that you would say that, because every protestor I spoke to yesterday held a similar opinion to most on here: that they fully supported the occupation, though did think the person who threw the extinguisher was a pillock. It's what I though too.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 11, 2010)

I'm not saying I'm Jesus. That's for other people to say...


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 11, 2010)

audiotech said:


> 'Why the Socialist Workers Party is bad for Britain.'
> 
> Quack, quack.


that has to be one of the most harebrained pieces of writing I've seen for years


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 11, 2010)

SpineyNorman said:


> Strange that you would say that, because every protestor I spoke to yesterday held a similar opinion to most on here: that they fully supported the occupation, though did think the person who threw the extinguisher was a pillock. It's what I though too.


 
Where did I say I opposed the occupation??????


----------



## revol68 (Nov 11, 2010)

to hear someone from Ireland comparing a few windows getting done in and a few placards thrown at police to real political violence is fucking hilarious, what are you some sort of west brit D4 cunt?


----------



## Belushi (Nov 11, 2010)

revol68 said:


> to hear someone from Ireland comparing a few windows getting done in and a few placards thrown at police to real political violence is fucking hilarious, what are you some sort of *west brit *D4 cunt?


 
Now you've gone too far


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Where did I say I opposed the occupation??????


 
Zionist


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> That's the nature of coalition politics, sometimes things you promised and want as part of your manifesto don't get enacted. It's better to work and try and make the proposals more progressive which is what the party has done. I'm proud of the work Lib Dem MPs have done in improving on the Browne review recomendations, even if I am dissapointed we didn't get elected and couldn't deliver our complete manifesto.



Oh, you're so realpolitik...or is that _neupolitik_?


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 11, 2010)

Kretinpolitik


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 11, 2010)

Better.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 11, 2010)

jer said:


> Where did I say I opposed the occupation??????


 
What exactly are you opposing then? You're not exactly making yourself clear. Nobody has said that they approved of the fire extinguisher, so what exactly are you disagreeing with?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

revol68 said:


> to hear someone from Ireland comparing a few windows getting done in and a few placards thrown at police to real political violence is fucking hilarious, what are you some sort of west brit D4 cunt?


 
i rarely agree with revol, but it's nail on head time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> So if your son wants a new toy will you be expecting others to pay for it ?


 
i for one want not a penny of the taxes i pay to go to paying for the healthcare for you and your family, now and hereafter.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

i see 41 cops were injured yesterday


----------



## pk (Nov 11, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i see 41 cops were injured yesterday


 
And I see you were not there yesterday.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

pk said:


> And I see you were not there yesterday.


 
sadly i can't be everywhere i'd want to be all the time


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Nov 11, 2010)

I was hoping that might be a decent member of the panel on tonight's Question Time - but there's not. They are all complete and utter fuckwits


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> I was hoping that might be a decent member of the panel on tonight's Question Time - but there's not. They are all complete and utter fuckwits


 
no surprise there then


----------



## Dan U (Nov 11, 2010)

quite a bit of new footage on C4 News, possibly making dibbles job a bit easier as its from the roof etc.

cover up kids


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

Dan U said:


> quite a bit of new footage on C4 News, possibly making dibbles job a bit easier as its from the roof etc.
> 
> cover up kids


 
yeh, as i was watching it i thought 'some people are going down cos of this film'


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Nov 11, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> no surprise there then


 
it's even more so tonight: Theresa May MP, Caroline Flint MP, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, Clive James and Douglas Murray


----------



## Balbi (Nov 11, 2010)

BBC piece on the protest includes Disco Dave and a member of the Whitechapel lot. Balanced


----------



## Thora (Nov 11, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i see 41 cops were injured yesterday


 


pk said:


> And I see you were not there yesterday.


 
He was probably out firebombing fascist pubs.

Oh, wait...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 11, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles


----------



## Ground Elder (Nov 11, 2010)

> cover up kids


Showed the footage to my 19 year old daughter today and her first comment was "Idiots! Why aren't they wearing masks?"


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 11, 2010)

The Telegraph has set up a shop a rioter bit on their website


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 11, 2010)

What do you win?


----------



## Santino (Nov 11, 2010)

gawkrodger said:


> The Telegraph has set up a shop a rioter bit on their website


 
That could be easily disrupted by some cheeky scampsters with access to a large-scale communications network.


----------



## grogwilton (Nov 11, 2010)

I slightly cheekily showed this to some kids at work today and the response was very positive towards the rioters.


----------



## killer b (Nov 11, 2010)

Santino said:


> That could be easily disrupted by some cheeky scampsters with access to a large-scale communications network.


 
my thoughts exactly...


----------



## revol68 (Nov 11, 2010)

Yeah 4chan could do something useful for once.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 11, 2010)

Santino said:


> That could be easily disrupted by some cheeky scampsters with access to a large-scale communications network.


 
I'm sure no one would be so infantile though.


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 11, 2010)

it's a thought which seems to be being echoed by a fair number of people on twitter and facebook


----------



## revol68 (Nov 11, 2010)

Would send a pretty impressive message to the cunts if it got hit with a DOS attack.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 11, 2010)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pic...4/Do-you-recognise-these-student-rioters.html


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 11, 2010)

Have we had a link to the statement by Goldsmiths UCU on here? 

http://transpont.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-cross-students-in-front-line.html



> 'We the undersigned wish to congratulate staff and students on the magnificent anti-cuts demonstration this afternoon. At least 50,000 people took to the streets to oppose the coalition government’s devastating proposals for education.
> 
> We also wish to condemn and distance ourselves from the divisive and, in our view, counterproductive statements issued by the UCU and NUS leadership concerning the occupation of the Conservative Party HQ.
> 
> ...


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 11, 2010)

If you know any of the individuals involved, email studentriots@telegraph.co.uk

That was:

studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk studentriots@telegraph.co.uk 

in case anyone missed it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 11, 2010)

I'd suggest sending them the picture of the real students causing this mess: 

http://www.gavinwhenman.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/david-cameron-bullingdon.jpg
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00417/Bullingdon_club_at__417769a.jpg


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 11, 2010)

Yay! Fab work to all those involved  - hopefully such manifestations of popular anger will spread throughout society in response to Bulllingdon vermin and their lib dem fags' attempts at total proletaricide. Every action taken against any aspect of the cuts regime is justified 100% and every action that in any way aids, abets, faciliates or excuses for any aspect of the cuts agenda is 100% wrong always.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 11, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'd suggest sending them the picture of the real students causing this mess:
> 
> http://www.gavinwhenman.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/david-cameron-bullingdon.jpg
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00417/Bullingdon_club_at__417769a.jpg



whacked that idea on my facebook


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 11, 2010)

Dan U said:


> whacked that idea on my facebook


 
If I can compose it in 140 characters I'll put it on twitter


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 11, 2010)

the daily telegraph grass-a-rioter game - just send random photo and any old name to this address - <linkl>

?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 11, 2010)

Went with "Help Telegraph identify students responsible for riots. http://is.gd/gWJJG & http://is.gd/gWJLB studentriots@telegraph.co.uk #justsayin"

Even found room for a hashtag. #proud


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 11, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> the daily telegraph grass-a-rioter game - just send random photo and any old name to this address - <linkl>
> 
> ?


 
Better still get the BNP list and use that as a selection to choose from.


----------



## killer b (Nov 11, 2010)

done. with vague enough info that hopefully someone might waste some time actually trying to follow it up.


----------



## grogwilton (Nov 11, 2010)

Done as VP did


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 11, 2010)

killer b said:


> done. with vague enough info that hopefully someone might waste some time actually trying to follow it up.


 
Actually, that's a good point. They're just going to delete the message when they open the first link. Still, it will piss them off if their inboxes are flooded with the same, especially if people get a new url for the images each time so they don't recognise them and therefore click and open them each time.


----------



## killer b (Nov 11, 2010)

i think the BNP list idea is a good one tbh - real people's names with real addresses who we don't mind being harassed by muckdigging journalists. it's win/win.


----------



## machine cat (Nov 11, 2010)

editor said:


> What did they say?!


 


copliker said:


> She showed a screenie of a thread from the Announcements forum about the demo, and read a post along the lines of hope it kicks off.  Might be showed again. Careful now.


 

Was in the pub when this was shown. There were clips from a facebook group and then an image of that thread with ska invita's post enlarged.

This was highlighted:



> heres hoping the students really kick off this time



No sound on the TV, only subtitles and I'm pretty sure they didn't actually say "Urban 75" they just used that post to highlight their "amazing discovery" that people might have talked about violence prior to the protest.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 11, 2010)

omg we are the vanguard lol.


----------



## where to (Nov 11, 2010)

For info: Aaron Porter's father is a cop.


----------



## ymu (Nov 11, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> Actually, that's a good point. They're just going to delete the message when they open the first link. Still, it will piss them off if their inboxes are flooded with the same, especially if people get a new url for the images each time so they don't recognise them and therefore click and open them each time.


I met someone who was fitted up for the poll tax riots - shown footage of himself chucking missiles. Charges dropped when he pointed out that he'd been in hospital that day under general anaesthetic. Perhaps we could do a DIY fit-up of some people with cast iron alibis ...


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Nov 11, 2010)

where to said:


> For info: Aaron Porter's father is a cop.


 
Wouldn't be a surprise. He got a mauling in Parliament today which will hopefully dent his political aspirations.


----------



## killer b (Nov 11, 2010)

Threshers_Flail said:


> Wouldn't be a surprise. He got a mauling today in Parliament today which will hopefully dent his political aspirations.


 
excellent. that's both sides hate his fucking guts then, the spineless shit.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 11, 2010)

where to said:


> For info: Aaron Porter's father is a cop.


 
Source?


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 11, 2010)

where to said:


> For info: Aaron Porter's father is a cop.


 
Source?


----------



## killer b (Nov 11, 2010)

sauce?


----------



## machine cat (Nov 11, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> Actually, that's a good point. They're just going to delete the message when they open the first link. Still, it will piss them off if their inboxes are flooded with the same, especially if people get a new url for the images each time so they don't recognise them and therefore click and open them each time.


 
Sent as an attachment under file name "index"

I also sent one of pedobear


----------



## creak (Nov 11, 2010)

Max Gogarty threw the fire extinguisher


----------



## killer b (Nov 11, 2010)

goody proctor threw the fire extinguisher!


----------



## grit (Nov 11, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> I'm sure no one would be so infantile though.


 
Half considering writing a little script to do this, but I'd want a fair amount of photos to use.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 11, 2010)

killer b said:


> goody proctor threw the fire extinguisher!


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 11, 2010)

copliker said:


> Busy and can't watch anymore to see if they show that bit again. I was half listening the first time but I think she was going on about sites which had advertised the protest in advance. A couple of screenies from some facebook group and one from this place shown.



That piece is now up on the Sky website btw...



(Ska - get ya royalties request in )


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 11, 2010)

Staff at a homeless organisation that I work with were right behind what happened yesterday.  They've already seen some effects of the recession and cuts, with increased homelessness and redudancies in their workforce


----------



## where to (Nov 11, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> Source?


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jun/20/nus-president-battle-fees-aaron-porter

Its informative only, not conclusive.  (That was yesterday).


----------



## rekil (Nov 11, 2010)

drcarnage said:


> Was in the pub when this was shown. There were clips from a facebook group and then an image of that thread with ska invita's post enlarged.
> 
> This was highlighted:
> 
> ...


It looked like here to me, it was something like 'here's a facebook post and here's a post from a website'. I saw SI's name and recognised those words from a post of his on the NUS thread in the announce forum, but like I said I wasn't paying that much attention and wasn't totally sure. Ta for clarifying.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 11, 2010)

killer b said:


> excellent. that's both sides hate his fucking guts then, the spineless shit.


 
Indeed. I saw him on Sky News and he had 'Desperate to be an MP' written all over him. I hope he ends up working in a call centre.


----------



## pk (Nov 11, 2010)

Thora said:


> He was probably out firebombing fascist pubs.
> 
> Oh, wait...


 
Wow, Thora, how are you sweetie?

Mmm, "firebombing". That rings a bell. I do recall setting fire to the net curtains of a pub many moons ago, but never "firebombed" anything.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 11, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> Indeed. I saw him on Sky News and he had 'Desperate to be an MP' written all over him. I hope he ends up working in a call centre.


 
He really does drip of wannabe politician, hideous little shit.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 11, 2010)

Interesting to see the early reaction to the tories. When they were last in power there was no internet and less chance for the people they were screwing over to get organised. Now they can get organised far better and faster and this is just the beginning of an outpouring of massive public anger.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 11, 2010)

revol68 said:


> He really does drip of wannabe politician, hideous little shit.


 
He's NUS president, I thought that was the point.

edit: balls


----------



## pk (Nov 11, 2010)

Way I see it, 21st century students can smash shit up and still think anarchist agitprop is for the cunts.

Smashing tory HQ was fun. But anarchists take no credit.

Most think extreme left wing class politics is a tired joke.

They're more empowered now than us old cunts ever were, and they don't need daft @ slogans to prove it.

Anarchism to these new generations of studenys is about as attractive as Scientology.

They'll take what they need and fuck the rest off. It's all good.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 11, 2010)

pk said:


> Way I see it, 21st century students can smash shit up and still think anarchist agitprop is for the cunts.
> 
> Smashing tory HQ was fun. But anarchists take no credit.
> 
> ...


 
You do have a point in there somewhere, it's true.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 11, 2010)

pk said:


> Way I see it, 21st century students can smash shit up and still think anarchist agitprop is for the cunts.
> 
> Smashing tory HQ was fun. But anarchists take no credit.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah cos there wasn't anarchist and socialist students in decisive roles in the march and the sacking of Tory HQ, furthermore if the kids can see through these cuts and attempt to make common cause with other sections being attacked by the tories then what are they doing but showing that socialism and anarchism are precisely organic products of proletarian struggle and not text book ideologies imposed by philosopher kings.

Now fuck off pk you ugly tedious cunt, I mean how fucking sad do you have to be to enter a discussion post the sacking of Tory HQ and use it as a cheap means of attacking anarchists and socialists, the very people who are most behind the actions of the students.

Go stick your head in the oven.


----------



## The39thStep (Nov 11, 2010)

pk said:


> Way I see it, 21st century students can smash shit up and still think anarchist agitprop is for the cunts.
> 
> Smashing tory HQ was fun. But anarchists take no credit.
> 
> ...


 
Expert in this area or just down with the kids Daddyo ?


----------



## Santino (Nov 11, 2010)

One mildly amusing point of view I heard (I forget where) is that this generation of student protesters are Thatcher's children, and therefore when they want something they think they'll get it if they make enough noise.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 11, 2010)

it's just his same old tedious anarcho baiting, he's pretty much got a chip on his shoulder cos he's too thick to argue politics and gets his arse handed to him on the political forums.

He's a sad man.


----------



## machine cat (Nov 11, 2010)

copliker said:


> It looked like here to me, it was something like 'here's a facebook post and here's a post from a website'. I saw SI's name and recognised those words from a post of his on the NUS thread in the announce forum, but like I said I wasn't paying that much attention and wasn't totally sure. Ta for clarifying.


 
Oh, it was definitely here,  they just didn't mention the name.


----------



## machine cat (Nov 11, 2010)

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Student-Protest-Violence-Discussed-On-Internet-Ahead-Of-London-Riots-Sky-News-Discovers/Article/201011215800468?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15800468_Student_Protest_Violence_Discussed_On_Internet_Ahead_Of_London_Riots%2C_Sky_News_Discovers

Here we are. 50 seconds in - slightly different format from what was shown when I first saw it (I could clearly see the thread title in the pub).


----------



## rekil (Nov 11, 2010)

drcarnage said:


> Oh, it was definitely here,  they just didn't mention the name.


 
Feckit sorry, I completely misread your post. Poor choice of words from me originally, I meant to add that the sitename wasn't mentioned explicitly, just a screenie shown, but had to go do something. As you were.


----------



## machine cat (Nov 11, 2010)

copliker said:


> Feckit sorry, I completely misread your post. Poor choice of words from me originally, I meant to add that the sitename wasn't mentioned explicitly, just a screenie shown, but had to go do something. As you were.


 
No worries. My shit writing is probably to blame.


----------



## treelover (Nov 11, 2010)

'Interesting to see the early reaction to the tories. When they were last in power there was no internet and less chance for the people they were screwing over to get organised. Now they can get organised far better and faster and this is just the beginning of an outpouring of massive public anger.' 

Smith and the banker Freud just introduced the most draconian welfare changes since the Victorian era, (so much so that Newsnight had images of the workhouse in its package on them)these will ultimately have much more of an effect and much deeper than the tuition fees, yet 70% of the public in a Ch4 poll support them ,some want to go futher, there just hasn't been a defence of welfare, etc to challenge these opinions, still isn't imo.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 11, 2010)

drcarnage said:


> http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Student-Protest-Violence-Discussed-On-Internet-Ahead-Of-London-Riots-Sky-News-Discovers/Article/201011215800468?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15800468_Student_Protest_Violence_Discussed_On_Internet_Ahead_Of_London_Riots%2C_Sky_News_Discovers
> 
> Here we are. 50 seconds in - slightly different format from what was shown when I first saw it (I could clearly see the thread title in the pub).



doesn't look like U75 to me and those words don't come up


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 11, 2010)

It is urban, and the quote is from Ska's post on the announce thread for the student protest.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 11, 2010)

here:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...s-10.11.10?p=11175746&viewfull=1#post11175746


----------



## tar1984 (Nov 11, 2010)




----------



## where to (Nov 11, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> doesn't look like U75 to me and those words don't come up


 
its post number 2:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/336307-NUS-protest-against-the-cuts-10.11.10

absolutely pathetic journalism.


----------



## rekil (Nov 11, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> doesn't look like U75 to me and those words don't come up


 
The earlier report had a clearer screenshot and didn't have the snazzy graphic jiggery pokery.


----------



## machine cat (Nov 11, 2010)

treelover said:


> 'Interesting to see the early reaction to the tories. When they were last in power there was no internet and less chance for the people they were screwing over to get organised. Now they can get organised far better and faster and this is just the beginning of an outpouring of massive public anger.'
> 
> Smith and the banker Freud just introduced the most draconian welfare changes since the Victorian era, (so much so that Newsnight had images of the workhouse in its package on them)these will ultimately have much more of an effect and much deeper than the tuition fees, *yet 70% of the public in a Ch4 poll support them ,some want to go futher, there just hasn't been a defence of welfare, etc to challenge these opinions, still isn't imo*.


 
That's not what I've been seeing. People who are normally apathetic or "hang-them-all-I won't-admit-to-voting-Tory-but-I-do" are really, really pissed off with what's going on. Everywhere I go - work, shops, pubs, people are talking about what happened yesterday and how they hate what the Government are doing. Yes, I'm young, but I've never seen such anger and awareness of politics than what I've seen in the past few weeks.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 11, 2010)

treelover said:


> 'Interesting to see the early reaction to the tories. When they were last in power there was no internet and less chance for the people they were screwing over to get organised. Now they can get organised far better and faster and this is just the beginning of an outpouring of massive public anger.'
> 
> Smith and the banker Freud just introduced the most draconian welfare changes since the Victorian era, (so much so that Newsnight had images of the workhouse in its package on them)these will ultimately have much more of an effect and much deeper than the tuition fees, yet 70% of the public in a Ch4 poll support them ,some want to go futher, there just hasn't been a defence of welfare, etc to challenge these opinions, still isn't imo.


 
Yeah the papers have spent years attacking the unemployed, single mums, the disabled and anyone who is on benefit, this hasn't happened to students for obvious reasons which is why I think it's great that a lot of the students were linking to the cuts issue as a whole, calling for unity with the struggles of public sector workers and unemployed groups, the point needs ramming home that an attack on any section of the working class is an attack on all and nothing more than a means of sewing division and shifting the focus away from opposing the cuts to pathetic bickering between various sections over who should feel the most wrath of the cuts.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 11, 2010)

Ska caused the violence against property. He should be waterboarded.


----------



## ymu (Nov 11, 2010)

where to said:


> its post number 2:
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/336307-NUS-protest-against-the-cuts-10.11.10
> 
> absolutely pathetic journalism.


 
The most pathetic bit being that, in trying to build an argument that it was seasoned anarchists plotting a riot on the web, the best they can come up with is  a third party comment "here's hoping the students really kick off this time" from a thread full of people bemoaning how weak student politics are these days and expecting no action from them.


----------



## treelover (Nov 11, 2010)

Dr, I meant the public support for the welfare cuts..


----------



## DRINK? (Nov 11, 2010)

To be fair thats one of the lamest riots I have ever seen, deaths = 0, police killed = 0, tanks = 0, gunshot wounds = 0, policeman with a dribbly nose = 1, smashed window = 1. This is marks and spencer type rioting, i want to see fucking pound stretcher type riots with poor kids and druggies burning cars and raiding banks and hurling petrol bombs and whores and mutants joining the students  and  another thing the riot should last at leat 5 days, not 20 mins before heading back to halls for hollyoaks, pot noodles and watered down beer.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 11, 2010)

Stoat Boy said:


> (which is why the majority of them seem to stay in the job for so long)


As I have repeatedly posted previously, there have been _lots_ of police officers who have simply been hanging on for their pensions for years.  That is getting worse and worse.  They are switching off earlier (the record I have met was with eight years service and already bemoaning the fact he had 22 to do before financial common sense allowed him to get out ... ) and there are more of them.  They are a potential source of problems though most simply disappear at every opportunity and do as little as possible (which has it's own downside).  There is _definitely_ major concern amongst police officers (and even more amongst PCSOs and members of police staff (the confusing title for civilian members of staff ...)) for their jobs, terms and conditions and pension rights (for which they pay 11% of their salary).


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 11, 2010)

Sky journalists are cunts.

Quote that one you fucks.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 11, 2010)

DRINK? said:


> To be fair thats one of the lamest riots I have ever seen, deaths = 0, police killed = 0, tanks = 0, gunshot wounds = 0, policeman with a dribbly nose = 1, smashed window = 1. This is marks and spencer type rioting, i want to see fucking pound stretcher type riots with poor kids and druggies burning cars and raiding banks and hurling petrol bombs and whores and mutants joining the students  and  another thing the riot should last at leat 5 days, not 20 mins before heading back to halls for hollyoaks, pot noodles and watered down beer.


 
early days, these kind of things are infectious, lets hope it spreads.

also don't knock pot noddles and hollyoaks they represent a universality between students and the unemployed that will be necessary to oppose the cuts.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> As I have repeatedly posted previously, there have been _lots_ of police officers who have simply been hanging on for their pensions for years.  That is getting worse and worse.  They are switching off earlier (the record I have met was with eight years service and already bemoaning the fact he had 22 to do before financial common sense allowed him to get out ... ) and there are more of them.  They are a potential source of problems though most simply disappear at every opportunity and do as little as possible (which has it's own downside).  There is _definitely_ major concern amongst police officers (and even more amongst PCSOs and members of police staff (the confusing title for civilian members of staff ...)) for their jobs, terms and conditions and pension rights (for which they pay 11% of their salary).


 
The sad thing is that these "bad cops" actually have more of a fucking clue about how the system works than a naive fuckwit like yourself who imagines the cops are out there to make society better, the old timers are jaded and cynical and are just looking out for themselves, you on the otherhand are an ideological mouthpiece for the cops and the system they are paid to uphold.


----------



## machine cat (Nov 11, 2010)

treelover said:


> Dr, I meant the public support for the welfare cuts..


 
I was referring to that too, as well as what happened yesterday.

Maybe it's because I work in a quango, drink in an "old man's pub" and shop at the market I am hearing the voice of the people who are or will be directly affected by the cuts. But there is a very strange atmosphere here (West Yorks) and even the people I work with (who actually have money) can see through the bullshit.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 11, 2010)

drcarnage said:


> I was referring to that too, as well as what happened yesterday.
> 
> Maybe it's because I work in a quango, drink in an "old man's pub" and shop at the market I am hearing the voice of the people who are or will be directly affected by the cuts. But there is a very strange atmosphere here (West Yorks) and even the people I work with (who actually have money) can see through the bullshit.


 
I have to agree.

In Northern Ireland the public sector cuts are going to be literally devastating, it is by far the biggest employer and a lot of people know they have a high chance of joining the dole queue.


----------



## killer b (Nov 11, 2010)

perhaps there should be a journalist's FAQ, seeing as they all seem to end up here when they're trying desparately to put a story together using only google and twitter hashtags?

1: fuck off and research it properly, twatface.

do we need anything else in there?


----------



## where to (Nov 11, 2010)

200 trots, anarchists and idiots according to Caroline Flint.  200 lol.  what a muppet.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 11, 2010)

editor said:


> Trespassing is a civil act, not a criminal one*.
> 
> *with some exceptions
> *http://www.desktoplawyer.co.uk/dtl/index.cfm?event=base:article&node=A76076BD34460


One of which is absolutely relevant in this case - s.68 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (as amended by s.59 Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003) : aggravated trespass where trespass on land is intended to intimidate people in lawful activity or to disrupt that lawful activity).  This would certainly apply to the privately owned land around and under the building.  Not sure without researching it if it would include being inside the buildings themselves (or if "inside" becomes part of "outside" if, as here, all the plate glass seperating it has been knocked out!).  Regardless of that there are ample means of removing people rampaging through buildings doing / threatening damage, etc.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 11, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> One of which is absolutely relevant in this case - s.68 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (as amended by s.59 Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003) : aggravated trespass where trespass on land is intended to intimidate people in lawful activity or to disrupt that lawful activity).  This would certainly apply to the privately owned land around and under the building.  Not sure without researching it if it would include being inside the buildings themselves (or if "inside" becomes part of "outside" if, as here, all the plate glass seperating it has been knocked out!).  Regardless of that there are ample means of removing people rampaging through buildings doing / threatening damage, etc.


 
No one gives a fuck you Capo bastard, the laws are self serving bullshit for the ruling class, wake up.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 11, 2010)

Criminal justice act.  Another steaming pile of shit right there.


----------



## treelover (Nov 11, 2010)

'I was referring to that too, as well as what happened yesterday.

Maybe it's because I work in a quango, drink in an "old man's pub" and shop at the market I am hearing the voice of the people who are or will be directly affected by the cuts. But there is a very strange atmosphere here (West Yorks) and even the people I work with (who actually have money) can see through the bullshit.'


thats my point, these people's voice is not being heard


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Yeah cos there wasn't anarchist and socialist students in decisive roles in the march and the sacking of Tory HQ, furthermore if the kids can see through these cuts and attempt to make common cause with other sections being attacked by the tories then what are they doing but showing that socialism and anarchism are precisely organic products of proletarian struggle and not text book ideologies imposed by philosopher kings.
> 
> Now fuck off pk you ugly tedious cunt, I mean how fucking sad do you have to be to enter a discussion post the sacking of Tory HQ and use it as a cheap means of attacking anarchists and socialists, the very people who are most behind the actions of the students.
> 
> Go stick your head in the oven.


 
So there is a minority of Anarchists and Socialist behind this violence?


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 11, 2010)

what violence?


----------



## revol68 (Nov 11, 2010)

moon23 said:


> So there is a minority of Anarchists and Socialist behind this violence?


 
No there is a minority of explicit socialists and anarchists who most likely also took part in the "violence" (violence isn't property destruction you fuckwit).

Also being a student or education worker or infact anyone concerned about the effect of these cuts on the working class is not mutually exclusive from being an anarchist or a socialist.

Are you autistic or something?


----------



## ymu (Nov 11, 2010)

treelover said:


> 'I was referring to that too, as well as what happened yesterday.
> 
> Maybe it's because I work in a quango, drink in an "old man's pub" and shop at the market I am hearing the voice of the people who are or will be directly affected by the cuts. But there is a very strange atmosphere here (West Yorks) and even the people I work with (who actually have money) can see through the bullshit.'
> 
> ...


 
I don't think that was his point though.


----------



## machine cat (Nov 11, 2010)

treelover said:


> thats my point, these people's voice is not being heard


 
They are though.

Maybe not in the media, but in the workplace,the schools, shops and the pubs. The people are scared and angry and they can see through the bullshit. You live in South Yorks right? You should be able to see the same thing that I am in Leeds, Halifax and Huddersfield.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 11, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> Remember, photos don't always tell the whole story.


Indeed they don't.  Which is why there will be a detailed investigation, gathering together all sources of information and trying to trace people identified as having a specific role in a particular significant part of the overall incident - perhaps a particular assault, theft or incident of serious damage - and then tracking them through all the other footage until they are found in a nice full-face shot from which they can be identified.  Which, in the case of the stylishly dressed is not going to be particularly difficult ...

Personally I don't think there should be a major reactive investigation here - yes there have definitely been some serious criminal offences which merit enquiries to trace principal offenders and put them before the courts (and perhaps some effort to idenitify agitators if any such did exist and stir things up from the initial burning of placards and pushing and shoving (which continued for good thirty or forty minutes at the time I posted on the day) ... but in the big scheme of things not many that are worth that degree of effort.

Sadly the comments by the Commissioner (especially his saying it was an "embarassment" for the Met) and the schizophrenic media coverage (now slagging the police off for not being robust enough having spent the G20 aftermath slagging them off for being too robust ...) suggest that this will not be the case and there will be a massive investigation.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 11, 2010)

some people love to be hated eh?


----------



## moon23 (Nov 11, 2010)

revol68 said:


> The sad thing is that these "bad cops" actually have more of a fucking clue about how the system works than a naive fuckwit like yourself who imagines the cops are out there to make society better, the old timers are jaded and cynical and are just looking out for themselves, you on the otherhand are an ideological mouthpiece for the cops and the system they are paid to uphold.


 
You sound like a 16 year old kid. Detective-boy is the sort of person you want in your police, someone who is prepared to actualy has an understanding of the law and is prepared to explain it to people on a forum.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Indeed they don't.  Which is why there will be a detailed investigation, gathering together all sources of information and trying to trace people identified as having a specific role in a particular significant part of the overall incident - perhaps a particular assault, theft or incident of serious damage - and then tracking them through all the other footage until they are found in a nice full-face shot from which they can be identified.  Which, in the case of the stylishly dressed is not going to be particularly difficult ...


 
fuck off you ehtically challenged cunt, you have the heart and soul of a fucking legal text book, you are a disgusting human being.

at the risk of invoking Goodwin's laugh you are exactly the sort of cunt whose response to the Holocaust would be to make sure it it was done in a legal manner.

There's a class war being waged right now that everyone can see and you're spouting legalese bullshit, the language of the elites who are shamelessly using the financial crisis to attack the most vulnerable and poor in society.

Isn't it about time you develop a semblance of a fucking mind and made an actual decision about what is right and wrong rather than what is legal?


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You sound like a 16 year old kid. Detective-boy is the sort of person you want in your police, someone who is prepared to actualy has an understanding of the law and is prepared to explain it to people on a forum.


 
No I sound like someone who has a fucking clue how the real world works and how the government isn't some neutral if slightly flawed institution for all our benefit.

Have you ever been on the dole for any significant amount of time, ever had to do the double or any other small time fiddle in order to pay the electric and get groceries?

By the way you discuss shit on here I doubt you even know anyone who has.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Nov 12, 2010)

600 in control.. 60.000.000 of us.. fucks sake..


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

Frankie Jack said:


> 600 in control.. 60.000.000 of us.. fucks sake..


 
aye pity there are too many detective boys and moon23 wankers in that 60million.


----------



## revlon (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> One of which is absolutely relevant in this case - s.68 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (as amended by s.59 Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003) : aggravated trespass where trespass on land is intended to intimidate people in lawful activity or to disrupt that lawful activity).  This would certainly apply to the privately owned land around and under the building.  Not sure without researching it if it would include being inside the buildings themselves (or if "inside" becomes part of "outside" if, as here, all the plate glass seperating it has been knocked out!).  Regardless of that there are ample means of removing people rampaging through buildings doing / threatening damage, etc.


 
'inside' does now come under aggravated trespass. Those on the roof wouldn't/shouldn't be charged with aggravated trespass. Apart from the guy who threw the fire extinguisher. He should be executed with death, obviously.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

DP


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Ska caused the violence against property. He should be waterboarded.


 
Can it be noted Moon23 was critical


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 12, 2010)

You wouldn't know the inside of your own head moon.


----------



## ymu (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Can it be noted Moon23 was critical


 


You do deserve some credit for the good natured way you deal with all the crap thrown at you here, I'll give you that.

But if you could start responding to posts and not just regurgitating party briefings, that'd be grand. 


_<notes that m/Moon23 can't seem to work out if he has a capital in his own username. Typical Lib Dem fence-sitting. Pfft>_


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

nick h. said:


> It's intriguing that the police were so hopeless. Was it deliberate? Maybe they wanted to show what happens when they don't use G20 tactics? They're hoping the press and politicians will ask them to get back to their old tricks next time - lots more officers, everyone suited up, horses etc.


They have been told in no uncertain terms (through public opinion, media coverage, political pressure, an official HMIC Report (Adapting to Protest) and everything else) that they had moved too far into controlling protest, to the point where it was too intrusive and was preventing lawful protest.

They have (as you would no doubt hope) responded to that and (I think quite rightly) moved back to a position where they focus on _facilitating_ protest and they do not intervene unless there is a clear and genuine need to do so.  Unfortunately that means that sometimes by the time the grounds are clear enough there is no opportunity to actually prevent significant damage.  I think we saw the thirty or forty minutes where there was the stand-off outside Millbank, with the little bonfire of placards and a bit of pushing and shoving as being tolerated as being genuine protest ... but then when the windows started to be kicked in it was too late to prevent a major problem with the protestors in the building.  

I have been trying to persuade the media today that they shouldn't be so hysterical and that, as a society, we need to accept that if we want genuine right to protest we will have to accept that sometimes a few windows will get broken.  That said, there are a couple of questions that the police need to ask themselves: firstly did they gather all available open source (or other) intelligence suggesting that things may kick off / involve elements other than the (I am sure) totally genuine student organisers who they had judged to represent minimal threat; secondly, did they identify, and deploy sufficient resources to, potential targets like Millbank on the route and thirdly (and perhaps most importantly) how come the reinforcements were not immediately available when it did kick off.  There may or may not be legitimate explanations for any or all of these questions - so much else was going on simultaneously which simply hasn't been reported that it is impossible to know whether other priorities had been identified too.  

I certainly don't think that, overall, it was a "failure" by the police - yes, the occupation of the building should not have been allowed and could have gone so horribly wrong - but what we saw was, to my mind, a far more appropriate policing response to protest that what we have seen in _some_ aspects of G20 and other events.

I think there are probably some officers (including many who got hurt ...) who would hope that what happened means the pendulum will swing back again to the G20 approach.  Personally I hope it doesn't.  With the exception of the building occupation, the policing of the protest overall was something the Met should be proud of, not embarassed about.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

ymu said:


> You do deserve some credit for the good natured way you deal with all the crap thrown at you here, I'll give you that.
> 
> But if you could start responding to posts and not just regurgitating party briefings, that'd be grand.


 
Ok I’ll try, would hate to disappoint.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Can it be noted Moon23 was critical


 
a coward like yourself will always side with power.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> You wouldn't know the inside of your own head moon.


 
Fair comment.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> They have been told in no uncertain terms (through public opinion, media coverage, political pressure, an official HMIC Report (Adapting to Protest) and everything else) that they had moved too far into controlling protest, to the point where it was too intrusive and was preventing lawful protest.
> 
> They have (as you would no doubt hope) responded to that and (I think quite rightly) moved back to a position where they focus on _facilitating_ protest and they do not intervene unless there is a clear and genuine need to do so.  Unfortunately that means that sometimes by the time the grounds are clear enough there is no opportunity to actually prevent significant damage.  I think we saw the thirty or forty minutes where there was the stand-off outside Millbank, with the little bonfire of placards and a bit of pushing and shoving as being tolerated as being genuine protest ... but then when the windows started to be kicked in it was too late to prevent a major problem with the protestors in the building.
> 
> ...


 
Any chance of answering my post about developing something resembling a fucking heart and mind and deciding on the actual rights and wrongs in the dispute over the cuts rather than mouthing off legalistic bullshit?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

where to said:


> i can't help but wonder the same.  225 officers deployed today.
> 
> Tory cuts to policing imminent, Tory HQ trashed by very poorly policed protest.  you've got to wonder.


You'd find a conspiracy in an empty room, wouldn't you ...


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You'd find a conspiracy in an empty room, wouldn't you ...


 
aye and your mates would shoot it in the head 6 times for being a bit swarthy and you'd be straight on here to justify it.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> a coward like yourself will always side with power.


 
I don't always side with power, I think you make quick judgement.


----------



## gawkrodger (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Personally I don't think there should be a major reactive investigation here


 
To be fair to the rozzers, none of us expected anything of interest to occur either! 

The whole 'oh there was anarchists trying to organise a bloc before hand' rubbish - there's one on every demo in London and almost always has fuck all impact


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't always side with power, I think you make quick judgement.


 
you do, especially when superficially opposing it, they need arseholes like your as loyal opposition.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Any chance of answering my post about developing something resembling a fucking heart and mind and deciding on the actual rights and wrongs in the dispute over the cuts rather than mouthing off legalistic bullshit?


 
In this post of which you are so critical, detective-boy mentions _"I have been trying to persuade the media today that they shouldn't be so hysterical and that, as a society, we need to accept that if we want genuine right to protest we will have to accept that sometimes a few windows will get broken."_. Consider that detective-boy might be exactly the sort of person you would want making this case.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

where to said:


>


Powerful image.  Thought provoking question.


----------



## where to (Nov 12, 2010)




----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> In this post of which you are so critical, detective-boy mentions _"I have been trying to persuade the media today that they shouldn't be so hysterical and that, as a society, we need to accept that if we want genuine right to protest we will have to accept that sometimes a few windows will get broken."_. Consider that detective-boy might be exactly the sort of person you would want making this case.


 
no his concern is about policing the protests it says nothing about whether he thinks the protesters are right to oppose this wave of attacks on the working class?


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> you do, especially when superficially opposing it, they need arseholes like your as loyal opposition.


 
What do you mean loyal opposition? Crickey you haven't discovered that i'm paid a retainer by the establishement have you?


----------



## treelover (Nov 12, 2010)

in this particular case DB posted a very balanced and reasoned view and you just screamed abuse


----------



## ymu (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> They have been told in no uncertain terms (through public opinion, media coverage, political pressure, an official HMIC Report (Adapting to Protest) and everything else) that they had moved too far into controlling protest, to the point where it was too intrusive and was preventing lawful protest.
> 
> They have (as you would no doubt hope) responded to that and (I think quite rightly) moved back to a position where they focus on _facilitating_ protest and they do not intervene unless there is a clear and genuine need to do so.  Unfortunately that means that sometimes by the time the grounds are clear enough there is no opportunity to actually prevent significant damage.  I think we saw the thirty or forty minutes where there was the stand-off outside Millbank, with the little bonfire of placards and a bit of pushing and shoving as being tolerated as being genuine protest ... but then when the windows started to be kicked in it was too late to prevent a major problem with the protestors in the building.
> 
> ...


 
I don't really disagree with much of that - the parts that are available for me to agree/disagree with anyway - apart from the bolded bit. This is the same propaganda the coalition and their stenographers in the media have been trying. I'm not saying it's conscious on your part, but there was no 'element' other than the normal crowd you'd expect on a demo like that. There are very few masked up people in the footage - it's obvious that they're not experienced at this sort of thing, and that they're not being advised by anyone who is experienced at this sort of thing.

Whilst I think it's true that noone particularly expected this demo to kick off, it should have been obvious that there was a high risk just because it is a demo about the cuts. The police have been using this in their anti-cuts message for weeks - _you'll need us when the riots start_ - but utterly failed to pick up on a public mood that said it was going to happen sooner or later.

The idea that it was outside provocateurs behind this is not going to gain any traction. It's just not credible.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> and how is it 'disgusting' to occupy a building? tis legitimate protest!


There is a difference between occupying a building and disrupting it's routine activity and smashing it up, nicking stuff, terrorising the staff, etc.  One may well be legitimate.  The other most definitely isn't.  Ordinary people going about their lawful business are entitled not to be terrified for their safety.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> What do you mean loyal opposition? Crickey you haven't discovered that i'm paid a retainer by the establishement have you?


 
loyal opposition is those that claim to oppose it but whose opposition is so ineffectual and pathetic that it only serves to bolster it by never questioning it's central assumptions and conditions.

loyal opposition will march against the Iraq War and talk about what a criminal act it is and how many people will die because of it and yet they will applaud the police arresting anyone who actually takes a stand who engages in direct action, so much as smashes a window.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Having seen how pointless peaceful protest was in 2003, it just makes sense.


It raises valid questions about the coverage of very significant, but peaceful, protest about issues by the media and the notice taken of them by politicians.  _They_ should be held up to scrutiny as to why people feel the need to commit serious disorder to gain meaningful attention.


----------



## killer b (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Ordinary people going about their lawful business are entitled not to be terrified for their safety.


 
anyone with a soul who worked there would've got masked up and joined in. in fact, maybe that's who all the masked people were?


----------



## revlon (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> They have been told in no uncertain terms (through public opinion, media coverage, political pressure, an official HMIC Report (Adapting to Protest) and everything else) that they had moved too far into controlling protest, to the point where it was too intrusive and was preventing lawful protest.
> 
> They have (as you would no doubt hope) responded to that and (I think quite rightly) moved back to a position where they focus on _facilitating_ protest and they do not intervene unless there is a clear and genuine need to do so.  Unfortunately that means that sometimes by the time the grounds are clear enough there is no opportunity to actually prevent significant damage.  I think we saw the thirty or forty minutes where there was the stand-off outside Millbank, with the little bonfire of placards and a bit of pushing and shoving as being tolerated as being genuine protest ... but then when the windows started to be kicked in it was too late to prevent a major problem with the protestors in the building.
> 
> ...


 
where was smellie when we need him? We should be told


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> There is a difference between occupying a building and disrupting it's routine activity and smashing it up, nicking stuff, terrorising the staff, etc.  One may well be legitimate.  The other most definitely isn't.  Ordinary people going about their lawful business are entitled not to be terrified for their safety.


 
what like those on benefits being threatened routinely by baying rich cunts on the lunch time and evening news? like the people of Iraq and Afghanistan who had shock and awe rained down upon them whilst peaceful legal protest in this country did nothing to stop it.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

editor said:


> So do you think that unless someone pays tax you they have no legitimate right to have a say in how the country is run?


To be fair it is the natural conclusion to the old "No taxation without representation" line ...


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

ymu said:


> I don't really disagree with much of that - the parts that are available for me to agree/disagree with anyway - apart from the bolded bit. This is the same propaganda the coalition and their stenographers in the media have been trying. I'm not saying it's conscious on your part, but there was no 'element' other than the normal crowd you'd expect on a demo like that. There are very few masked up people in the footage - it's obvious that they're not experienced at this sort of thing, and that they're not being advised by anyone who is experienced at this sort of thing.
> 
> Whilst I think it's true that noone particularly expected this demo to kick off, it should have been obvious that there was a high risk just because it is a demo about the cuts. The police have been using this in their anti-cuts message for weeks - _you'll need us when the riots start_ - but utterly failed to pick up on a public mood that said it was going to happen sooner or later.
> 
> The idea that it was outside provocateurs behind this is not going to gain any traction. It's just not credible.


 
I think it will have some traction e.g. with Sky news picking up on Urban and the Facebook groups. Face it they won't need much evidence to confirm what they are looking to confirm. Of course there were some organised people there, you could see some flags and masks. There would have been some student trot groups about as well.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

Got to love DB's tagline "Ignoring the Collective" like he's some sort of rebel, aye you are ignoring the interests of the collective as you pander to the ruling elite.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

killer b said:


> anyone with a soul who worked there would've got masked up and joined in. in fact, maybe that's who all the masked people were?


 
exactyl, at the very least anyone other than a lackey bastard would be thinking "great, out early, watch this ruckus for a bit and then go for a pint".


----------



## where to (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It raises valid questions about the coverage of very significant, but peaceful, protest about issues by the media and the notice taken of them by politicians.  _They_ should be held up to scrutiny as to why people feel the need to commit serious disorder to gain meaningful attention.


 
and in the meantime?  (because they can be scrutinised all you want, its not going to change fuck all.  we know who owns and controls the media and what their objectives are.  reporting on boring protests which they don't support isn't part of their agenda and never will be).


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

where to said:


> and in the meantime?  (because they can be scrutinised all you want, its not going to change fuck all.  we know who owns and controls the media and what their objectives are.  reporting on boring protests which they don't support isn't part of their agenda and never will be).


 
Write to your MP, vote in the next election etc etc.

Whatever you do don't do anything illegal that would be WRONG!


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It raises valid questions about the coverage of very significant, but peaceful, protest about issues by the media and the notice taken of them by politicians.  _They_ should be held up to scrutiny as to why people feel the need to commit serious disorder to gain meaningful attention.


 
 Quite, there needs to be more debate within the media about whether they focus enough on peaceful forms of protests. Politicians also have to consider whether one consequence of not listening to peaceful protest is that forms of protest will get more violent. 

What worries me is that so many people think this is a legitimate form of political engagement, perhaps in this day and age people are just not prepared to commit the time to joining a party and actually having to have serious debates about issues. Instead they just want to keep shouting and having a tantrum until they get their own way.

These student protests are very different from say anti-war, suffragettes or black civil rights. They are essentially motivated largely by self-interest. They think they shouldn’t have to cover the cost of their own education directly but rather it should be shouldered collectively.


----------



## ymu (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think it will have some traction e.g. with Sky news picking up on Urban and the Facebook groups. Face it they won't need much evidence to confirm what they are looking to confirm. Of course there were some organised people there, you could see some flags and masks. There would have been some student trot groups about as well.


 
Sky couldn't find anything better than this thread to quote - a thread which is full of disparaging remarks about students and very much not an attempt to organise them. Any serious journalist looking to run that story themselves would soon realise that there was nothing behind it. It's a 10 second google, ffs! Journalists can be shit, but they're not all that sloppy.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Write to your MP, vote in the next election etc etc.
> 
> Whatever you do don't do anything illegal that would be WRONG!


 
You don't get immediate results from writing to an MP or voting, it takes a significant amount of time and effort to build a political movement through legitmate means. I fear you would rather turn to violence as a means to your own political ends.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

ymu said:


> Sky couldn't find anything better than this thread to quote - a thread which is full of disparaging remarks about students and very much not an attempt to organise them. Any serious journalist looking to run that story themselves would soon realise that there was nothing behind it. It's a 10 second google, ffs! Journalists can be shit, but they're not all that sloppy.


 
I agree it's not much, but that's all Sky need to create their narrative.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Quite, there needs to be more debate within the media about whether they focus enough on peaceful forms of protests. Politicians also have to consider whether one consequence of not listening to peaceful protest is that forms of protest will get more violent.
> 
> What worries me is that so many people think this is a legitimate form of political engagement, perhaps in this day and age people are just not prepared to commit the time to joining a party and actually having to have serious debates about issues. Instead they just want to keep shouting and having a tantrum until they get their own way.
> 
> These student protests are very different from say anti-war, suffragettes or black civil rights. They are essentially motivated largely by self-interest. They think they shouldn’t have to cover the cost of their own education directly but rather it should be shouldered collectively.


 

actually fuckwit it was the people who sacked the Tory HQ who were making the pint that the fee's issue is only a small part of the wider cuts. Infact Sky News even read out a press release from a group occupying the roof who stated they stand in solidarity with all public sector workers, the disabled and those on benefits who are being attacked by these cuts.

I'd imagine the sort of ruthlessly self interested prick who is only concerned for their own being above all else doesn't go risking arrest smashing up Tory HQ, they were most likely back on the buses with their packed lunch and weak lemon drink.


----------



## ymu (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I agree it's not much, but that's all Sky need to create their narrative.


Since when did anyone take Sky seriously though? If the BBC run with it ... then we have the perfect opportunity to expose the lazy hacks for what they are.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You don't get immediate results from writing to an MP or voting, it takes a significant amount of time and effort to build a political movement through legitmate means. I fear you would rather turn to violence as a means to your own political ends.


 
it never changes anything you cretin.

I get the impression your happy to see families evicted onto the streets, the unemployed being unable to feed themselves or their kids and the marketisation of university education, not to mention thousands of Iraqi's and Afghans slaughtered before you'd ever get off your smug sanctimonious arse and actually do something.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

Interesting articule here, lot's of good points. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that  for 54.2% of students this will equate to 9% a year being taken from earnings over £21,000 for 30 years after graduate. It is really a form of graduate tax. It's fair in the sense that those working class people on low incomes who didn't go to University don't have to contribute to those who benefit from it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/07/scrap-tuition-fees-we-have


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

ymu said:


> Since when did anyone take Sky seriously though? If the BBC run with it ... then we have the perfect opportunity to expose the lazy hacks for what they are.


 
I worry that far too many people do take it seriously. To be fair I was watching Sky for the footage as they were going the extra mile milk every ounce of excitement from it.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

there we go, the loyal opposition pushing the agenda of the rich.

Also you overlook the effect of marketisation and the production of a two tier education system. If you think things will stop with this increase in fees you are as big an idiot as those who thought the introduction of tuition fees would be the end of it over 10 years ago.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> it never changes anything you cretin.
> 
> I get the impression your happy to see families evicted onto the streets, the unemployed being unable to feed themselves or their kids and the marketisation of university education, not to mention thousands of Iraqi's and Afghans slaughtered before you'd ever get off your smug sanctimonious arse and actually do something.



How would you even know what I have or haven't done?


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> there we go, the loyal opposition pushing the agenda of the rich.
> 
> Also you overlook the effect of marketisation and the production of a two tier education system. If you think things will stop with this increase in fees you are as big an idiot as those who thought the introduction of tuition fees would be the end of it over 10 years ago.


 

We allready have a two tier education system, only now those on the lower tier are being miss-sold.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> How would you even know what I have or haven't done?


 
well since you are arguing that direct action, occupation and property damage are not appropriate forms of political engagement I'm assuming you would have little time for those who did such things in defence of the working class, be they here or in Iraq.

like I keep saying you are the loyal opposition, you say you are opposed to things but aren't prepared to do what it takes to actually stop them, instead you watch attack after attack on the working class by the rich and console yourself with the fact you are a good honest liberal. It's the kind of attitude only afforded to either the idiotic (which I don't think you are) or the very comfortable who are never on the sharp end of the attacks.


----------



## pk (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> aye and your mates would shoot it in the head 6 times for being a bit swarthy and you'd be straight on here to justify it.


 
Not often I'd agree with revol68, but he's hit the nail on the head right here.

Detective Boy, you used to be useful. Not anymore.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> actually fuckwit it was the people who sacked the Tory HQ who were making the pint that the fee's issue is only a small part of the wider cuts. Infact Sky News even read out a press release from a group occupying the roof who stated they stand in solidarity with all public sector workers, the disabled and those on benefits who are being attacked by these cuts.
> 
> I'd imagine the sort of ruthlessly self interested prick who is only concerned for their own being above all else doesn't go risking arrest smashing up Tory HQ, they were most likely back on the buses with their packed lunch and weak lemon drink.


 
Anyone with half a brain can see that smashing up the political headquarters of a democratic party within  a western democracy is not a very sensible course of action. There is nothing self-interested about the vast majority of protestors who had their say in a reasonable manner.  We are not talking about people fighting against a tyranny or denied democratic participation. We are discussing modest cuts resulting from a global crisis and a major sovereign debt problem and whether those who benefit from education should pay for it or whether the public as a collective whole should pay for it.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Isn't it about time you develop a semblance of a fucking mind and made an actual decision about what is right and wrong rather than what is legal?


You cannot have a society in which right and wrong can properly be defined without a sound understanding of what is legal.  The role of the law (and especially it's independence) in our society is absolutely central.  I suggest you go and study some constitutional law ...


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

revlon said:


> 'inside' does now come under aggravated trespass.


Thanks.  Could have gone either way on case law and I haven't had the need to read up on it since the ASB Act took "open air" out.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> well since you are arguing that direct action, occupation and property damage are not appropriate forms of political engagement I'm assuming you would have little time for those who did such things in defence of the working class, be they here or in Iraq.



They are not appropriate forms of political engagement when political avenues are open to pursue. I think for instance in opposition dictatorship occupation they are valid. 

I suspect you would not be so happy if the EDL were the ones storming Millbank.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Any chance of answering my post about developing something resembling a fucking heart and mind and deciding on the actual rights and wrongs in the dispute over the cuts rather than mouthing off legalistic bullshit?


I think the proposed changes to university fees, and much else, are wrong.  Just because I don't post about my views on political issues you shouldn't assume what my views are, or that I have none.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

The problem is you believe in democracy like a naive fuckwit.

You imagine these cuts are a necessary evil as we are all in this big democratic society together equally. We aren't and these cuts are a form of class warfare, the democratic institutions are fuck all but the managing and executive wings of capitalism and thankfully more and more people are copping on to this fact whilst idiot liberals like you do your best to paper over the gaping cracks with pathetic hand wringing.

A million people marched against the war on Iraq and still the slaughter went a head, what use if the rule of law there, what use is the supposed democratic institutions? 

Democracy is a sham, a mask for class rule.


----------



## ymu (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Interesting articule here, lot's of good points. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that  for 54.2% of students this will equate to 9% a year being taken from earnings over £21,000 for 30 years after graduate. It is really a form of graduate tax. It's fair in the sense that those working class people on low incomes who didn't go to University don't have to contribute to those who benefit from it.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/07/scrap-tuition-fees-we-have


I did a thread where the calculations came out at 3% per year with a graduate tax (although I was suggesting adding this to employer's NI contributions - same numbers apply).

 The key difference is that there is no interest with a graduate tax. Just as NI is PAYG, so is a graduate tax - this year's tax pays for this year's students.

You can't dress this up as fair. It's not. It can be done much cheaper and in a way that actively encourages those from poorer backgrounds to go to university whilst actively discouraging those who are destined to earn a fortune regardless of qualifications.

It's just not defensible that a graduate going into the City will be able to pay off their entire loan with their first year's bonus, when graduates in the public sector will be paying out 9% of their incomes for most of their working lives.

The majority of graduates in the UK are employed by the public sector (26% vs 6%, and the public sector is about 30% of jobs). Their employer has paid for their training - why should they have to pay it back? They're already accepting significantly lower wages than they could get in the private sector, with few of the perks that used to make that worthwhile. This just makes it even harder for the public sector to recruit and retain talent because it will make it virtually impossible for many people to stay in the public sector - student loan repayment of 9%, pay freezes, pension contributions increasing.

Doctors will manage. Police will manage. They're both obscenely highly paid in public sector terms. Nurses won't manage (it is now compulsory for nurses to have a degree). Teachers won't manage. Social workers won't manage. Researchers won't manage. Administrators won't manage.

I don't know if you believe half the shit you spout, but if you've got an ounce of humanity left in you, do some actual research into what this will do to us as an economy. Look at Cameron's trade delegation to China, look at the US call centres competing on price with Indian call centres, the pay deflation for the bottom 90% in the West whilst workers in ASEAN are receiving record pay rises and rudimentary welfare states, and and see if you can work out where we're headed.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You cannot have a society in which right and wrong can properly be defined without a sound understanding of what is legal.  The role of the law (and especially it's independence) in our society is absolutely central.  I suggest you go and study some constitutional law ...





I don't he/she grasps the point of legal independence. Your adherence to upholding the law and understanding it is seen as a partisan act rather than say being a servant of the legislative body that is democratically elected (albeit not yet with the great new AV system)


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> They are not appropriate forms of political engagement when political avenues are open to pursue. I think for instance in opposition dictatorship occupation they are valid.
> 
> I suspect you would not be so happy if the EDL were the ones storming Millbank.


 
What like voting for a party opposed to the fee's...

that worked out well.

Only a cynic or a cretin believes in the sham of bourgeois democracy, I'm still at odds as to what one of those you are.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't he/she grasps the point of legal independence. Your adherence to upholding the law and understanding it is seen as a partisan act rather than say being a servant of the legislative body that is democratically elected (albeit not yet with the great new AV system)


 
It is a partisan act, the legal system is not neutral it reflects and upholds the values and needs of the ruling classes or more specifically capitalism.

I think it's you that doesn't grasp the class basis of society.


----------



## ymu (Nov 12, 2010)

These are the calculations from the other thread.



> It's very hard to get an average, but HEFCE figures suggest that it costs about £7,300/year to educate the average student. Let's call it £25k per student before living costs.
> 
> They can't live on thin air, so let's add £5k/year for living expenses.
> 
> ...


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> no his concern is about policing the protests it says nothing about whether he thinks the protesters are right to oppose this wave of attacks on the working class?


Actually it says everything about my view of the role of protest in society, and how we, as a society should approach it, _whether_ or not I (or any other individual) actually supports any particular cause.  I _absolutely_ believe in the right of freedoms of speech, association, etc. that combine to provide the freedom to protest.  I believe that that should be _lawful_ protest (primarily because of the impact it has on _individuals_ when serious criminal offences are involved).  But there should certainly be tolerance (by society) of minor criminal acts in the course of protest.  And I would include broken windows, grafitti, etc. in that, certainly on State buildings.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

Go read some Marx and join us in the 19th century at  least, though there is something rather charmingly quaint about you and Detective Boys wide eyed belief in Parliamentary Democracy and the legal system.

It's the economy stupid.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

treelover said:


> in this particular case DB posted a very balanced and reasoned view and you just screamed abuse


It's how it usually starts.  What I _actually_ post usually gets lost in the spittle ...


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Actually it says everything about my view of the role of protest in society, and how we, as a society should approach it, _whether_ or not I (or any other individual) actually supports any particular cause.  I _absolutely_ believe in the right of freedoms of speech, association, etc. that combine to provide the freedom to protest.  I believe that that should be _lawful_ protest (primarily because of the impact it has on _individuals_ when serious criminal offences are involved).  But there should certainly be tolerance (by society) of minor criminal acts in the course of protest.  And I would include broken windows, grafitti, etc. in that, certainly on State buildings.


 

This is the difference you believe the fundamental structures and power relations are fair and only need tinkering with around the edges, I on the other hand understand the whole thing to be a racket, a instrument of class rule central to the exploitation and oppression of the vast majority.

History and reality is on my side, legal textbooks and ideology is on yours.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

ymu said:


> It's just not credible.


It was a question, not a statement of fact.

But it is perfectly credible.  And you have no more grounds for saying it _didn't_ happen than I would have for saying it did (if that had, in fact, been what I had done).

(The claim by the Sussex University guy to have "masterminded" the thing, which is notable for it's emphasis that he didn't go into the building, tends to suggest that there may well be some degree of organisation.  The distinct difference between the heavily masked / hooded individuals filmed kicking windows and gaining entry contrasts significantly with the entirely unmasked individuals pictured subsequently ...)


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's how it usually starts.  What I _actually_ post usually gets lost in the spittle ...


 
I know what you post and I'm calling it for what it is liberal apologism for a deepening class war on the poor.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> what like those on benefits being threatened routinely by baying rich cunts on the lunch time and evening news? like the people of Iraq and Afghanistan who had shock and awe rained down upon them whilst peaceful legal protest in this country did nothing to stop it.


Like all sorts of things.  As I just pointed out, just because I don't post an opinion on every political issue does not mean I do not have one.  Nor does it mean that it would be what you expected.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

where to said:


> and in the meantime?


Things like we saw yesterday will happen.


----------



## pk (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Yeah cos there wasn't anarchist and socialist students in decisive roles in the march and the sacking of Tory HQ, furthermore if the kids can see through these cuts and attempt to make common cause with other sections being attacked by the tories then what are they doing but showing that socialism and anarchism are precisely organic products of proletarian struggle and not text book ideologies imposed by philosopher kings.
> 
> Now fuck off pk you ugly tedious cunt, I mean how fucking sad do you have to be to enter a discussion post the sacking of Tory HQ and use it as a cheap means of attacking anarchists and socialists, the very people who are most behind the actions of the students.
> 
> Go stick your head in the oven.


 
And of course here I will disagree with revolting68...

Firstly, never insult an oven. It's a good device for making bread and delicious cakes.

Secondly, no, there were NOT anarchist and socialist "students" in decisive roles in the march.

You can not be serious in trying to wrestle some form of victory from the students that have showed up wearing Abercrombie and Fitch sweaters and designer sneakers, just kicking in windows because they were outnumbering the cops?

When will deluded people like you get it into your heads that just because a bunch of people are angry enough it does NOT automatically become an "anarchist" thing?

And a little reality check as if it were needed, the Tory HQ was not "sacked".

Sorry to burst your little Coca Cola bubble, but it seems the Tory HQ was functioning perfectly adequately throughout the protests, and remains functioning as we speak.

Nothing and nobody was "sacked" at all. They just hid in their open plan glass ceilings until all the fuss went away, probably posting on Facebook and Twitter as it happened.

I'm happy to think that these "kids" went along with the humiliating smashy-smashy in support of others exposed to draconian cuts to essential services, but if you think they did that hand on heart supporting the anarchists, you're seriously fucking deluded my diminutive little Irish friend.

The only "organic products of proletarian struggle" most of these lads and lasses know about are the organic range of products available at Waitrose, and no doubt a good few will have consumed the Israeli slave labour produce on the train down from Peterborough before showing up.

You are tragically convinced that "anarchists and socialists" were behind this mercifully corpse-free demo, and this demonstrates to me the level of your Scientologific belief in an old-ass system of protest that simply is not relevant any more.

The truth of it is this - they don't want to pay stupid fees, and they simply smashed shit up for kicks.

To do such a thing does NOT mean they will be waving your fucking laughable outdated anarcho flags, as if they even mean anything these days anyway.

I'm on their side. Not yours.

And I will not fuck off. And I am not considered ugly by any conventional means testing of female litmus indicators, the like of which your dwarfish arse will never know.

Though I will give you tedious. 

I'll admit I'm like a dog with a stubborn bone when the mood takes me. I blame the coffee. 

Either way, you ain't likely to win, revol68, because you are the yappy little chihuahua to my solid gold labrador. I look upon you with piteous eyes, not even worthy of barking at. 

Enjoy what's left of your revolutionary fantasy, shame you won't be invited to the big party when it happens. You have been useful though, so thanks for that.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Like all sorts of things.  As I just pointed out, just because I don't post an opinion on every political issue does not mean I do not have one.  Nor does it mean that it would be what you expected.


 
I don't need to know any of your other political positions because your naive stance regarding the state and your inability to grasp it's class nature frames and structures all other content.

Just like I don't need to know the in's and out's of theology to know it is fundamentally wrong based as it is on a foundation of imaginary beings.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Whatever you do don't do anything illegal that would be WRONG!


I quite specifically _haven't_ said that, have I?  I have distinguished between things which are illegal but which do not have significant negative impacts on _individuals_ which I have said I believe should be tolerated from time to time as an inevitable adjunct to a proper right to protest and _serious_ criminal offences (such as serious assault, looting, arson) which cannot be tolerated because of the impact they have on innocent _individuals_ who are entitled to be protected by the law and by the State (in the form of the police) (and which, I would argue, undermine protest causes)


----------



## pk (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I think the proposed changes to university fees, and much else, are wrong.  Just because I don't post about my views on political issues you shouldn't assume what my views are, or that I have none.


 
You wouldn't have the balls to protest unless someone gave you permission. You are not a free man. I feel sorry for you.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

pk said:


> And of course here I will disagree with revolting68...
> 
> Firstly, never insult an oven. It's a good device for making bread and delicious cakes.
> 
> ...


 

there were red and black flags and socialist banners all over the building, the group who occupied the roof released a press release stating they were in solidarity with all public sector workers and all those being attacked by the cuts and that the cuts are nothing more than an attack on the working class.

you are a clown.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> What worries me is that so many people think this is a legitimate form of political engagement, perhaps in this day and age people are just not prepared to commit the time to joining a party and actually having to have serious debates about issues.


Again the politicians need to look at what they do and how they do it and ask why people don't want to engage.  I personally choose to keep myself informed about what is happening in the world and engage in thought about it and discussion about it with friends.  Many people simply do not (for a variety of reasons).  Young people in particular need to be engaged in debating the issues in a manner which is relevant and user-friendly to them.  Times have changed.  Politicial practices and procedures have not.  

(By the way, whilst the students obviously have some self-interest in this issue, I think you do them a disservice if you think it is _entirely_ self-interest.  There is a _major_ issue for our whole society and future.  And costs have always (until recently) been covered by the State collectively in the past.)


----------



## pk (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> there were red and black flags and socialist banners all over the building, the group who occupied the roof released a press release stating they were in solidarity with all public sector workers and all those being attacked by the cuts and that the cuts are nothing more than an attack on the working class.
> 
> you are a clown.


 
Aye. Fashionistas, they love it, they might even end up in the Daily Standard, just hoping their parents might understand them

Sorry but no - fail. People were burning banners, and a few people were dressed in black, it's winter, get a grip.

A couple of twats spraying @ logos does not an anarchist protest make. You won't be taking credit for a balls-out protest by UNMASKED students even if ten of you were there.

Trying to brand a protest like this, you remind me of the parasitical Socialist Worker twats, here's a wake up call, nobody gives a fuck about YOUR agenda...

Let's see some photos of majority anarchist organisation behind this event, or it didn't happen outside of your dreams. 
The students don't need the likes of you to know which way the wind blows. Get used to it.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Democracy is a sham, a mask for class rule.


There are serious problems with it, yes.  I believe the class war is a distraction today.  Wealth inequality (regardless of class - there are plenty of working class Essex lads with _far_ too much wealth thanks to Thatcher's approach to the city ...) is the issue that concerns me most.  I have seen little in _any_ developed society to suggest a sound (and credible) model for addressing it. 

But democracy is _far, far_ better than dictatorship (of any colour).


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> ... though there is something rather charmingly quaint about you and Detective Boys wide eyed belief in Parliamentary Democracy and the legal system.


As there is something charmingly naive in your wide-eyed belief that there is some readily available alternative structure which is better ...


----------



## pk (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> There are serious problems with it, yes.  I believe the class war is a distraction today.  Wealth inequality (regardless of class - there are plenty of working class Essex lads with _far_ too much wealth thanks to Thatcher's approach to the city ...) is the issue that concerns me most.  I have seen little in _any_ developed society to suggest a sound (and credible) model for addressing it.
> 
> But democracy is _far, far_ better than dictatorship (of any colour).


 
What "democracy" are you talking about? You think we live in a democracy now? Fuck off.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

pk said:


> Aye. Fashionistas, they love it, they might even end up in the Daily Standard, just hoping their parents might understand them
> 
> Sorry but no - fail. People were burning banners, and a few people were dressed in black, it's winter, get a grip.
> 
> ...


 
I never said Anarchists or Socialists did organise the riot, they were however a part of it, something so blatantly true I don't know why I'm even saying it again.

As for the kids dressing well, maybe you just know the wrong type of anarchists and socialists and their mates but the ones I know are actually pretty hipsterish, long gone are the days of Class War and Black Bomber jackets with red and black pins.

Believe me I'd love to think that all the rampaging was done by non anarchists and socialists but the simple fact is that it isn't true, which at the same time isn't to say that most of the students kicking off were anarchists or socialists.

Regardless this is a pointless argument, whether or not these people go to bed with a big red and black teddy bear or a copy of Nuts and a Pot Noodle I couldn't give a fuck, what is important is supporting their actions, defending their actions and looking to build on these actions in order to be successful not only in fighting fees but the whole raft of cuts aimed at attacking the working classes, anarchists and socialists should naturally aim towards this too and certainly not at simply selling newspapers or trying to throw themselves up as some sort of leadership.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> As there is something charmingly naive in your wide-eyed belief that there is some readily available alternative structure which is better ...


 
ofcourse there isn't an alternative structure, the whole point is that only through struggle and resistance can we actually come together in order to produce not just the space and conditions for such an alternative but the social relations that can sustain it.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> There are serious problems with it, yes.  I believe the class war is a distraction today.  Wealth inequality (regardless of class - there are plenty of working class Essex lads with _far_ too much wealth thanks to Thatcher's approach to the city ...) is the issue that concerns me most.  I have seen little in _any_ developed society to suggest a sound (and credible) model for addressing it.
> 
> But democracy is _far, far_ better than dictatorship (of any colour).


 
Well if you had an understanding of Class that didn't come out of the fucking Beano or Sun you might understand why class is fundamental.

I'm not being a dick here, you should really give Marx a read, or failing that download some audio lectures of Chomsky on class struggle.


----------



## pk (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> I never said Anarchists or Socialists did organise the riot, they were however a part of it, something so blatantly true I don't know why I'm even saying it again.
> 
> As for the kids dressing well, maybe you just know the wrong type of anarchists and socialists and their mates but the ones I know are actually pretty hipsterish, long gone are the days of Class War and Black Bomber jackets with red and black pins.
> 
> ...


 
I'll agree, this isn't even a pointless argument... it's not even an argument at all. I agree with broadly all your socialist principles, you know that by now.

As long as there isn't some ugly old-arse dinosaur movement handing out leaflets to the new generation who could not give a flying fuck for the old ways, it's all good.

I was there watching the demo for a while. It felt good. And that is all I came here to say. 
I have hope for the future, because it does not belong to the fucking Tories, thats for sure.



It's just a shame about the silly cunt lobbing the extinguisher at the cops. 
Gave the tabloid press an excuse to brand everyone as cunts, when they were merely "opportunists", as they were ideologically supposed to be according to Thatcher.
Still, looks like there's a good close-up of him in the papers today, he must be shitting it not just from impending jail time but from the political backlash from normal people...


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 12, 2010)

'maybe you just know the wrong type of anarchists and socialists and their mates but the ones I know are actually pretty hipsterish'

hipster_ish_?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> ofcourse there isn't an alternative structure, the whole point is that only through struggle and resistance can we actually come together in order to produce not just the space and conditions for such an alternative but the social relations that can sustain it.


The "struggle and resistance" would be far more effective if it actually engaged with the _vast_ majority of ordinary citizens (way too many of whom can't even be bothered to vote ...  ).  Marketed in the way it has been marketed it will remain a minority interest, no matter how important it's message.  Keep doing the same things the same ways and you will keep getting the same results.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> I'm not being a dick here, you should really give Marx a read, or failing that download some audio lectures of Chomsky on class struggle.


I've read lots of stuff.  I don't believe that constant reference to it helps engage the vast majority of people.  And principles don't help us (whoever the "us" are suggesting any particular principles) work out how to achieve them - all that is for sure is that we will probably never get anywhere if we expect to do it in a big bang.  We need to work incrementally, making a difference where possible to improve our society.  And we need to take the majority of the population with us.


----------



## pk (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> As there is something charmingly naive in your wide-eyed belief that there is some readily available alternative structure which is better ...


 
There is a readily available structure that is better. Get used to it. It is happening before your very eyes, you myopic twat.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The "struggle and resistance" would be far more effective if it actually engaged with the _vast_ majority of ordinary citizens (way too many of whom can't even be bothered to vote ...  ).  Marketed in the way it has been marketed it will remain a minority interest, no matter how important it's message.  Keep doing the same things the same ways and you will keep getting the same results.


 
Well the students actions seemed pretty damn popular, getting thousands of students to even get up in the morning suggests that there is a growing anger and frustration and hopefully like the student occupation this will translate into militant direct action that ignores the hand wringing loyal opposition of MP's, Union leaders and all the rest of the play by the(eir) rules brigade. 

If the wider working class takes up the baton your mates on the force could be in for quite a ride, of course youse could redeem your whore souls somewhat and refuse to act against the working class, though I really really don't see that happening.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I've read lots of stuff.  I don't believe that constant reference to it helps engage the vast majority of people.  And principles don't help us (whoever the "us" are suggesting any particular principles) work out how to achieve them - all that is for sure is that we will probably never get anywhere if we expect to do it in a big bang.  We need to work incrementally, making a difference where possible to improve our society.  And we need to take the majority of the population with us.


 
Neither do I, I'm suggesting you read it so you have a better means of grasping the motives of the cuts and wider social forces at play and most importantly why you're approach to these issues is flawed.


----------



## pk (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I've read lots of stuff.  I don't believe that constant reference to it helps engage the vast majority of people.  And principles don't help us (whoever the "us" are suggesting any particular principles) work out how to achieve them - all that is for sure is that we will probably never get anywhere if we expect to do it in a big bang.  We need to work incrementally, making a difference where possible to improve our society.  And we need to take the majority of the population with us.


 
I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you that the people directly opposing the draconian new "laws" by any means necessary are acting in *your* favour too??

After all, on a copper's wage, it's not as if YOUR son or daughter will ever be able to attend university is it? No, that is only available for your bosses kids, as of now.

Unfair, isn't it?

You can toe the party line all you like, as if anyone gives a fuck, but one day you will be grateful for someone opposing the system when it benefits YOU.

It won't be long now either, will it, eh Grandad?


----------



## A. Spies (Nov 12, 2010)

> in opposition dictatorship occupation they are valid.



If were were under Franco or Hitler a sit down protest or an office occupation with a bit of property damage would probably be morally justifiable. Maybe even a few law enforcement agents with cuts but that's probly pushing it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 12, 2010)

pk said:


> Most think extreme left wing class politics is a tired joke.



Oh really? How many have you asked?

When I was living by Queen Mary's Uni and frequented the same bar as many there were plenty of aspiring marxists in there.


----------



## Santino (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It is really a form of graduate tax. It's fair in the sense that those working class people on low incomes who didn't go to University don't have to contribute to those who benefit from it.



You really are astoundingly economically illiterate. You're like a lamb.


----------



## madzone (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I've read lots of stuff.  I don't believe that constant reference to it helps engage the vast majority of people.  And principles don't help us (whoever the "us" are suggesting any particular principles) work out how to achieve them - all that is for sure is that we will probably never get anywhere if we expect to do it in a big bang.  We need to work incrementally, making a difference where possible to improve our society.  And we need to take the majority of the population with us.


 
Are you going to be affected by the cuts?  There isn't _time _to 'work incrementally'.


----------



## madzone (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Anyone with half a brain can see that smashing up the political headquarters of a democratic party within  a western democracy is not a very sensible course of action. There is nothing self-interested about the vast majority of protestors who had their say in a reasonable manner.  We are not talking about people fighting against a tyranny or denied democratic participation. We are discussing modest cuts resulting from a global crisis and a major sovereign debt problem and whether those who benefit from education should pay for it or whether the public as a collective whole should pay for it.



Modest cuts??


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 12, 2010)

National Day of Mourning Declared for Windows of Millbank Tower


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 12, 2010)

> Anyone with half a brain can see that smashing up the political headquarters of a democratic party within a western democracy is not a very sensible course of action. There is nothing self-interested about the vast majority of protestors who had their say in a reasonable manner. We are not talking about people fighting against a tyranny or denied democratic participation. We are discussing modest cuts resulting from a global crisis and a major sovereign debt problem and whether those who benefit from education should pay for it or whether the public as a collective whole should pay for it.



Anyone with half a brain can tell that it's going to be BOTH that are going end up paying for it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 12, 2010)

this thread's gone boring


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> it never changes anything you cretin.
> 
> I get the impression your happy to see families evicted onto the streets, the unemployed being unable to feed themselves or their kids and the marketisation of university education, not to mention thousands of Iraqi's and Afghans slaughtered before you'd ever get off your smug sanctimonious arse and actually do something.



What - as in using your vote ( as oposed to kicking off into a bit of pointless random thuggery and vandalism )?


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2010)

madzone said:


> Modest cuts??


 
its moonie.  being unable to count is as normal as being a lying little shit for him and his cohorts.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 12, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> this thread's gone boring


 
Call someone a cunt. It feels good.


----------



## Santino (Nov 12, 2010)

*occupies thread*


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Nov 12, 2010)

It's only a matter of time before it moves on into that - belloid's edging up to it


----------



## belboid (Nov 12, 2010)

dont misspell my name you farking cunt!


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 12, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Call someone a cunt. It feels good.



What happened to "play the ball not the man"?


----------



## Crispy (Nov 12, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> What happened to "play the ball not the man"?


 
Oh that's boring. Far more fun to lock on to familiar enemies and let the bile flow.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 12, 2010)

*cracks knuckles*


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

pk said:


> Secondly, no, there were NOT anarchist and socialist "students" in decisive roles in the march.
> 
> You are tragically convinced that "anarchists and socialists" were behind this mercifully corpse-free demo, and this demonstrates to me the level of your Scientologific belief in an old-ass system of protest that simply is not relevant any more.
> 
> ...


sorry, but you are 100% wrong. Revolution, AFED (I am inflormed) and other groupings certainly played a key role in the protest, and in entering millbank. The press releases; the flags; the fact that people kniown for their presence in radical left groupings were co-ordinatiung insiode...that's more than enough proof. This may not have been a military raid exercised with Prussian precision, but that's not the point.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Marketed in the way it has been marketed it will remain a minority interest, no matter how important it's message.  Keep doing the same things the same ways and you will keep getting the same results.


I've got a horrible feeling you happen to be right here.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> ofcourse there isn't an alternative structure, the whole point is that only through struggle and resistance can we actually come together in order to produce not just the space and conditions for such an alternative but the social relations that can sustain it.


 
I assume you don't mean the roof of Millbank tower is where we should find the space and start forming social relations?  Can we at least get some chai to drink and perhaps a tee pee?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 12, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Oh that's boring. Far more fun to lock on to familiar enemies and let the bile flow.


 what if you don't have any? the only thing i want to call a cunt at the mo is my cat cos i have just stepped barefoot in something that came out of her.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 12, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> what if you don't have any? the only thing i want to call a cunt at the mo is my cat cos i have just stepped barefoot in something that came out of her.


 
You'll need to step in shit every day for ten years to really work up the right amount of rage


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

belboid said:


> its moonie.  being unable to count is as normal as being a lying little shit for him and his cohorts.


 
A return to 2006 spending levels as a percentage of GDP is relatively modest overall; the overall expenditure will still be increasing as the economy & population increases. The reason the cuts will be felt hard in *certain* areas is because the largest chunk of spending on the NHS & Education are being ring-fenced.

For example Leeds council announced 3,000 job loses. That sounds very shocking 1 in 6 workers as the media reports. In reality this is over four years so the figure is 750 staff a year. Leeds city council’s annual turnover of staff is not much less then that so most job losses will be a result of jobs not being replaced. 

I don't ideologicaly want to see a reduction in public expenditure, apart from perhaps in some areas of IT, UKBA, MOD, the Civil Service and Quango, but I do think the current defecit level is not sustainable and don't have faith we can simply spend our way out of it by incurring even higher levels of debt. At some point the debt becomes a problem you have to deal with.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 12, 2010)

lies


----------



## laptop (Nov 12, 2010)

_Financial Times_ diary column today:




			
				Pink'un said:
			
		

> It is outrageous that extremists have exploited a groundswell of public concern to wreak mindless damage. But never mind Tory attacks on the welfare state. Did you see the havoc that student protesters caused?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 12, 2010)

"jobs not being replaced" still means more people on the dole and a heavier workload for those lucky enough to cling on to their jobs you dopey cunt.

There. I called someone a cunt.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

One question about the protest why did people have F**K Fee banners? This self-censorship seems bizzare.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Nov 12, 2010)

21000 views, can I just say hello to the coppers, editors, jorno, MPs who are happening to view our forum?


----------



## chilango (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> A return to 2006 spending levels as a percentage of GDP is relatively modest overall; the overall expenditure will still be increasing as the economy & population increases. The reason the cuts will be felt hard in *certain* areas is because the largest chunk of spending on the NHS & Education are being ring-fenced.
> 
> For example Leeds council announced 3,000 job loses. That sounds very shocking 1 in 6 workers as the media reports. In reality this is over four years so the figure is 750 staff a year. Leeds city council’s annual turnover of staff is not much less then that so most job losses will be a result of jobs not being replaced.
> 
> I don't ideologicaly want to see a reduction in public expenditure, apart from perhaps in some areas of IT, UKBA, MOD, the Civil Service and Quango, but I do think the current defecit level is not sustainable and don't have faith we can simply spend our way out of it by incurring even higher levels of debt. At some point the debt becomes a problem you have to deal with.



Cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 12 billion (says Brown) and rising.

Amount saved by cuts 6 billion (says Osborne)

So clearly, its not spending on education, welfare etc that is causing the problem...


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 12, 2010)

Shouldn't we be in some way incriminating ourselves so it isn't a complete waste of time for them?


----------



## Santino (Nov 12, 2010)

If there are journalists reading, I am looking for a job as a cricket correspondent or tv/film critic. PM me.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 12, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Shouldn't we be in some way incriminating ourselves so it isn't a complete waste of time for them?


 
Easy for you to say, as one of the ringleaders


----------



## the button (Nov 12, 2010)

fogbat said:


> Easy for you to say, as one of the ringleaders



Shut it, butterfingers, or you might drop *another* fire-extinguisher.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

pk said:


> There is a readily available structure that is better.


Strange how you never actually lay out what it is, eh?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 12, 2010)

fogbat said:


> Easy for you to say, as one of the ringleaders


 
I'll get off with it though, with being Whitehall's favourite rent boy.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> We are discussing modest cuts resulting from a global crisis and a major sovereign debt problem and whether those who benefit from education should pay for it or whether the public as a collective whole should pay for it.


*MODEST CUTS??? *What fucking planet are you on you tory cretin?


----------



## revlon (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You cannot have a society in which right and wrong can properly be defined without a sound understanding of what is legal.  The role of the law (and especially it's independence) in our society is absolutely central.  I suggest you go and study some constitutional law ...


 
trouble is most coppers have a very limited and rudimentary knowledge of the law. 

What they do have (and what you continue to show here) is the misunderstanding that their actions are lawful because they are police officers.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

madzone said:


> Are you going to be affected by the cuts?


I have already lost 30% of my current turnover due to a contract with a local authority being prematurely terminated. 

I have also noticed significant reductions in business (from the private sector over the last 2 years, now from the public sector).  Security and training, areas in which I now work, are always prone to be the first to go ...

So please don't imply that I am somehow insulated from the effects of what is happening.  

(And before you wade in about my gold-plated pension, because I left the police with just over 20 years service I am (a) only entitled to half a pension (the first 20 years provide 50%, the last 10 years the other 50%) and (b) not entitled to receive it until I am 60 (which is ten years away, nine years more than would have been my 30 year anniversary of joing when, if I'd stayed and just marked time, would have enabled me to retire on a full pension payable immediately - it has been estimated that my leaving early cost me £300k if I live till I'm seventy).)


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 12, 2010)

Recently there has been an article in the paper wishing students should grow up, 'we have to get respectable with good jobs' etc nonsense - the journalist described his limp and non committed journey on the liberal left during his youth. SO!! I banged off a letter to the letters page and I will let you all know if it is published;

*Anarchic Protest*

Barry Nelson (“Turning Left”, Echo 12.11.10) only offers paean & apologia for capitalism – he has compromised politics. His life’s work is adapting to capitalism.

This is not substantial argument, it is merely self fulfilling prophecy.

Parliamentary democracy, ie. Elective dictatorship, maybe the system we have, and we only got that relatively recently through long hard struggle – they never GAVE it to us. But it does not mean that there is not a better way.

Nelson promotes capitalism, its wars, oppressions, inequalities and divisions, however we should be against this anti intellectual conservative nonsense, and for imaginative & creative agency that the students displayed, for they are part of our future.

The great & sadly deceased E.P. Thompson ("The Making of the English Working Class"), who Nelson should have read, said desire, possibility, urgency, imagination and experimentation would be key features of struggles to come.

These cuts, that impoverish & punish; students, workers and the poor are only to protect the rich. Lets hope the campaigns against the cuts to come are even larger & more lively.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> A return to 2006 spending levels as a percentage of GDP is relatively modest overall


It is NOT modest in terms of the effect it will have on the lives of those least able to deal with the impact ffs!



> At some point the debt becomes a problem you have to deal with


Then do so by TAXING THE RICH. The banks and the big corporates are 100% responsible for this problem; let THEM pay to solve it. NOT the poorest 1/3 of society


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I have already lost 30% of my current turnover due to a contract with a local authority being prematurely terminated.
> 
> I have also noticed significant reductions in business (from the private sector over the last 2 years, now from the public sector).  Security and training, areas in which I now work, are always prone to be the first to go ...
> 
> ...


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> But democracy is _far, far_ better than dictatorship (of any colour).


yes, wouldn't it be great if we lived in a democracy?


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Anyone with half a brain can see that smashing up the political headquarters of a democratic party within  a western democracy is not a very sensible course of action. There is nothing self-interested about the vast majority of protestors who had their say in a reasonable manner.  We are not talking about people fighting against a tyranny or denied democratic participation. We are discussing modest cuts resulting from a global crisis and a major sovereign debt problem and whether those who benefit from education should pay for it or whether the public as a collective whole should pay for it.



"Modest cuts".  Are you fucking serious?  Does this sort of shit come easily to you?  Does it rub off if you're surrounded by massive liars all the time or something?

You're still under the illusion that people voted for this shit, that our crappy form of democracy 'works'.  They didn't and it doesn't.  In fact a lot of people voted against this shit only to be utterly betrayed by the likes of you and your lying scum libdem mates.

Yeah, we should all sit round drinking tea and mildly disagreeing with them while they fuck us over.  That'll show them who's boss.  They work for us the cunts and it's something they need to be reminded of.

I'm not even going to start on your 9% graduate tax (but only for those who on lower wages) post.  Considering that reasonable is beyond mental.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

revlon said:


> trouble is most coppers have a very limited and rudimentary knowledge of the law.


I would quite agree that in many respects their knowledge of the law is dire ... but in the basic, everyday things it is not too bad as a rule. 



> What they do have (and what you continue to show here) is the misunderstanding that their actions are lawful because they are police officers.


And what you do have (and what you continue to show with posts like this) is the misunderstanding that some of their actions _are_ lawful because they are police officers.  If they, as police officers, have reasonable grounds to suspect possession of prohibited articles they have a lawful power to search.  Anyone else wouldn't.  If they, as police officers, have reasonable grounds to suspect an offence has been committed (_even if it actually hasn't_) they have a lawful power to arrest anyone they have reasonable grounds to suspect has committed it _even if they actually haven't_.  Anyone else wouldn't.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 12, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I'll get off with it though, with being Whitehall's favourite rent boy.


 
I'll never forgive you for toppling me from my throne.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 12, 2010)

the button said:


> Shut it, butterfingers, or you might drop *another* fire-extinguisher.


 
I can explain. _I thought it would be funny._


----------



## the button (Nov 12, 2010)

fogbat said:


> I can explain. _I thought it would be funny._



It would have been funny if it was a traffic cone. What sort of fucking student are you?


----------



## The Octagon (Nov 12, 2010)

Santino said:


> If there are journalists reading, I am looking for a job as a cricket correspondent or tv/film critic. PM me.


 
Me too, I'll take whichever one you don't give him^^^^

I won't work with Davina McCall though.

Seriously.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> yes, wouldn't it be great if we lived in a democracy?


We do.  It would be great if we lived in a better, fairer one.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 12, 2010)

the button said:


> It would have been funny if it was a traffic cone. What sort of fucking student are you?


 
A naughty anarchist one.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I have already lost 30% of my current turnover due to a contract with a local authority being prematurely terminated.
> 
> I have also noticed significant reductions in business (from the private sector over the last 2 years, now from the public sector).  Security and training, areas in which I now work, are always prone to be the first to go ...
> 
> ...


 
Boo fucking hoo.

I've never seen a pension run on that basis.  Even if it was on that basis, working 20 years for 50% of a full pension _is_ gold plated.  Nobody else gets that much for so little.  I'd have to work 40 years for the same and my pension is considered a good one.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> We do.  It would be great if we lived in a better, fairer one.


 
We currently have a government with no mandate.  Democracy, my arse.


----------



## madzone (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I have already lost 30% of my current turnover due to a contract with a local authority being prematurely terminated.
> 
> I have also noticed significant reductions in business (from the private sector over the last 2 years, now from the public sector).  Security and training, areas in which I now work, are always prone to be the first to go ...
> 
> ...


 
I was asking a simple question, paranoid fucknut.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> We do.  It would be great if we lived in a better, fairer one.


Sorry, but we do _not_. we get one x on a piece of paper, between three increasingly homogenised bunch of centre-right figureheads, with fuck all accountability, transparency and popular involvement beyond that. All power has been so centralised that there is no point involving yourself wqith locla government, and ferocious whipping has fundamentally destroyed the concept of the independent-minded MP. That, plus the impenetrability of thehuge bureaucratic monoliths that central govt depts are (and the fact that far more power resides in the boardrooms than in parliament) has turned our system into a grotesque sham of a democracy. "of the people, by the people, for the people" my arse.
you do know it was the ancient greeks wot invented democracy? They'd be horrified at what we've let it mutate into.


----------



## Diamond (Nov 12, 2010)

I was pretty busy mid-week so this whole palaver more or less passed me by but I've had the opportunity to watch some of the footage, look at some of the photos and read some reports this morning.

The whole thing seems quite bizarre. It comes across as a hyperreal simulation of a riot.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I have already lost 30% of my current turnover due to a contract with a local authority being prematurely terminated.
> 
> I have also noticed significant reductions in business (from the private sector over the last 2 years, now from the public sector).  Security and training, areas in which I now work, are always prone to be the first to go ...
> 
> ...


haha


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 12, 2010)

Diamond said:


> I was pretty busy mid-week so this whole palaver more or less passed me by but I've had the opportunity to watch some of the footage, look at some of the photos and read some reports this morning.
> 
> The whole thing seems quite bizarre. It comes across as a hyperreal simulation of a riot.


 
Ooooh!  Someone's been reading Baudrillard!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> Recently there has been an article in the paper wishing students should grow up, 'we have to get respectable with good jobs' etc nonsense - the journalist described his limp and non committed journey on the liberal left during his youth. SO!! I banged off a letter to the letters page and I will let you all know if it is published;
> 
> *Anarchic Protest*
> 
> ...


 
local paper? they'll publish pretty much anything.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Ooooh!  Someone's been reading Baudrillard!


 
or at least looking at it


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2010)

belboid said:


> its moonie.  being a cunt is as normal as being a lying little shit for him and his cohorts.


*corrected for you*


----------



## Santino (Nov 12, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Ooooh!  Someone's been reading Baudrillard!


 
It only seems that way.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 12, 2010)

apologies for facebook stuff but all helps

Stop the hunt on the Millbank protestors

We need unity - defend the Millbank protestors


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 12, 2010)

Santino said:


> It only seems that way.


 
It's like a simulacra of someone reading Baudrillard.


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 12, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> you do know it was the ancient greeks wot invented democracy? They'd be horrified at what we've let it mutate into.



I know -  letting women and those who haven't passed their military training become citizens - they must be spinning in their graves.

If it's direct democracy you're after, where do you suggest that the assembly should be (bear in mind that it has to be large enough to house the whole citizen population)?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> I know -  letting women and those who haven't passed their military training become citizens - they'd spin in their graves.
> 
> If it's direct democracy you're after, where do you suggest that the assembly should be (bear in mind that it has to be large enough to house the whole citizen population)?


 
where did these greeks describe their democracy as direct?


----------



## creak (Nov 12, 2010)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/12/spending-cuts-fightback-begins

Thought this was quite a good article about the demo and wider context.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 12, 2010)

creak said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/12/spending-cuts-fightback-begins
> 
> Thought this was quite a good article about the demo and wider context.


 
A decent report that.


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 12, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> where did these greeks describe their democracy as direct?


 
Apart from their wide restrictions on who had a right to participate, the only way that early Greek democracy was different was that it didn't involve citizens voting for representatives who legislated on their behalf.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> I know -  letting women and those who haven't passed their military training become citizens - they must be spinning in their graves.
> 
> If it's direct democracy you're after, where do you suggest that the assembly should be (bear in mind that it has to be large enough to house the whole citizen population)?


#where did I say that I, personally, favour direct democracy? I didn't - i just think our system is, or has become, a complete betrayal of democracy.


----------



## chilango (Nov 12, 2010)

creak said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/12/spending-cuts-fightback-begins
> 
> Thought this was quite a good article about the demo and wider context.


 
Yeah.

A good piece.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Apart from their wide restrictions on who had a right to participate, the only way that early Greek democracy was different was that it didn't involve citizens voting for representatives who legislated on their behalf.


 no, i said 'where did these greeks describe their democracy as direct', not 'let's see you spout some irrelevant blather'.


----------



## grit (Nov 12, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> i just think our system is, or has become, a complete betrayal of democracy.


 
I'd hesitate to call it democracy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2010)

grit said:


> I'd hesitate to call it democracy.


 
some sort of unholy oligarchy/constitutional monarchy masquerading as a democracy


----------



## revlon (Nov 12, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> It's like a simulacra of someone reading Baudrillard.


 
i'd eco that


----------



## grit (Nov 12, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> some sort of unholy oligarchy/constitutional monarchy masquerading as a democracy


 
Absolutely, I think oligarchy is the most accurate.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

chilango said:


> Cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 12 billion (says Brown) and rising.
> 
> Amount saved by cuts 6 billion (says Osborne)
> 
> So clearly, its not spending on education, welfare etc that is causing the problem...


 
My bug bear is the annual spend on IT being about £21Bn per annum, and that's with around 70% of large government IT projects failing. If we actual held those companies that delivered failed IT to account then we probably wouldn't need a rise in tuition fees. Instead we are beholden to these huge companies IBM, Fujitsu, CSC etc. and would risk being sued to the tune of Billions if we pulled out of their contracts. It's a national disgrace.

For the record I oppose a rise in tuition fees.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> My bug bear is the annual spend on IT being about £21Bn per annum, and that's with around 70% of large government IT projects failing. If we actual held those companies that delivered failed IT to account then we probably wouldn't need a rise in tuition fees. Instead we are beholden to these huge companies IBM, Fujitsu, CSC etc. and would risk being sued to the tune of Billions if we pulled out of their contracts. It's a national disgrace.
> 
> For the record I oppose a rise in tuition fees.


 
oh do fuck off


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 12, 2010)

You oppose it by continuing to support that shower of fucks.

Well done.


----------



## grit (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> My bug bear is the annual spend on IT being about £21Bn per annum, and that's with around 70% of large government IT projects failing. If we actual held those companies that delivered failed IT to account then we probably wouldn't need a rise in tuition fees. Instead we are beholden to these huge companies IBM, Fujitsu, CSC etc. and would risk being sued to the tune of Billions if we pulled out of their contracts. It's a national disgrace.
> 
> For the record I oppose a rise in tuition fees.



Sorry, for the vast majority of cases the government is responsible for those failures. I work in a private company that provides specialised IT services to the public sector. We have several customers who paid full whack for our products and never even installed them even after we offer to come out free of charge to do it for them.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> You oppose it by continuing to support that shower of fucks.
> 
> Well done.


 
I opposed tution fees when they were introduced with direct action, and it didn't change anything. Now I choose to work within the democratic system to try and acheive change. So I oppose it by encouraging Lib Dem MPs to vote against the measure. I do also think that the party has made the Browne review proposals fairer. For instance the 25% of students on the lowest incomes will pay less under this proposed system.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

grit said:


> I'd hesitate to call it democracy.


I DON'T call it 'democracy' - anything but!


----------



## pk (Nov 12, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Oh really? How many have you asked?


 
43,659. Been at it all morning. Knackered TBH.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> oh do fuck off


 
It's an open forum.


----------



## chilango (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> My bug bear is the annual spend on IT being about £21Bn per annum, and that's with around 70% of large government IT projects failing. If we actual held those companies that delivered failed IT to account then we probably wouldn't need a rise in tuition fees. Instead we are beholden to these huge companies IBM, Fujitsu, CSC etc. and would risk being sued to the tune of Billions if we pulled out of their contracts. It's a national disgrace.
> 
> For the record I oppose a rise in tuition fees.


 
See the cuts aren't necessary.

But the banks' cock up have given post-thatcherite governments and their friends in business the world over an alibi to launch an outright assault of looting and plundering in a viscious escalation of class war.


----------



## grit (Nov 12, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> I DON'T call it 'democracy' - anything but!


 
Wasn't claiming you were, just stating my position on the use of the word


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I opposed tution fees when they were introduced with direct action, and it didn't change anything. Now I choose to work within the democratic system to try and acheive change. So I oppose it by encouraging Lib Dem MPs to vote against the measure. I do also think that the party has made the Browne review proposals fairer. For instance the 25% of students on the lowest incomes will pay less under this proposed system.


so what? The party you support, in just about every way possible is doing something that - viewed overall - will deter kids from w./c class backgrounds from Higher Education, and saddle students with mountains of debt.  you saying that you, personally, 'oppose it' means FUCK ALL.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

grit said:


> Wasn't claiming you were, just stating my position on the use of the word


oh right, sorry, fair enough!


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> I DON'T call it 'democracy' - anything but!


 
It isn't perfect by any means, which is why there is a significant campaign for electoral reform and many critics of the civil service departmental bureaucracies.  

It is worth remembering the Conservative party won more votes than any other party at the last election a more democratic system might actually see more conservative views being represented as the British public is quite conservative really.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> so what? The party you support, in just about every way possible is doing something that - viewed overall - will deter kids from w./c class backgrounds from Higher Education, and saddle students with mountains of debt.  you saying that you, personally, 'oppose it' means FUCK ALL.


 
I think many Lib Dems oppose a rise in tuition fees but are faced with an impossible parliamentary situation where the majority of the house wants to introduce them. The question is then do you make a principled stance and oppose the Conservatives or do you try and get involved in the decision making process to try and make the proposals fairer. I think raising the repayment threshold, and the additional help to poorer students makes the system fairer.

In terms of pure self-interest for the party it would have been easier to stand on the side-lines remaining ideological principled but having zero impact on the decision making process. I know this is the type of political strategy preferred by many on the left but it consistently fails to make any difference to people’s lives.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2010)

You all support them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It isn't perfect by any means, which is why there is a significant campaign for electoral reform and many critics of the civil service departmental bureaucracies.
> 
> It is worth remembering the Conservative party won more votes than any other party at the last election a more democratic system might actually see more conservative views being represented as the British public is quite conservative really.


 not, i suspect, for much longer.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 12, 2010)

A question for you, Moon. Do you think the Tories would be attempting to slash university funding by 40% (something that was not mentioned at all in their manifesto) if they had been a minority govt and not in 'coalition'?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think many Lib Dems oppose a rise in tuition fees but are faced with an impossible parliamentary situation where the majority of the house wants to introduce them. The question is then do you make a principled stance and oppose the Conservatives or do you try and get involved in the decision making process to try and make the proposals fairer. I think raising the repayment threshold, and the additional help to poorer students makes the system fairer.
> 
> In terms of pure self-interest for the party it would have been easier to stand on the side-lines remaining ideological principled but having zero impact on the decision making process. I know this is the type of political strategy preferred by many on the left but it consistently fails to make any difference to people&rsquo;s lives.


 
Actually, you were the ones who turned the tories minority vote into a majority one. You were the ones who enabled this. Without you it would not have happened. You engineered that parliamentary arithmetic. You made this happen.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 12, 2010)

It's a shame that there's this Tory majority that allows them to just force through whatever they like, without the poor Lib Dems being able to do anything about it, so they're forced to just try to change the system from the _inside_.

edit: hah


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A question for you, Moon. Do you think the Tories would be attempting to slash university funding by 40% (something that was not mentioned at all in their manifesto) if they had been a minority govt and not in 'coalition'?


 
This is a very good point. Having the LibDems on board gives them far more authority to push through draconian policy because it comes with the backing of a second party, and a 'liberal' one to boot. If they had been a minority gvt every piece of policy such as this would have been shot down at the first possibly opportunity.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I opposed tution fees when they were introduced with direct action, and it didn't change anything. Now I choose to work within the democratic system to try and acheive change. So I oppose it by encouraging Lib Dem MPs to vote against the measure. I do also think that the party has made the Browne review proposals fairer. For instance the 25% of students on the lowest incomes will pay less under this proposed system.


 
Yeah, and I oppose the arms trade by buying shares in arms companies and sending them polite messages asking them to stop production.

Wait, what?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 12, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> This is a very good point. Having the LibDems on board gives them far more authority to push through draconian policy because it comes with the backing of a second party, and a 'liberal' one to boot. If they had been a minority gvt every piece of policy such as this would have been shot down at the first possibly opportunity.


 
They wouldn't even have tried. They would have known full well that every single non-tory MP (excepting perhaps the odd Ulster Unionist) would have voted against it. The libdems are facilitating the most extreme right-wing govt we've had post-War.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They wouldn't even have tried. They would have known full well that every single non-tory MP (excepting perhaps the odd Ulster Unionist) would have voted against it. The libdems are facilitating the most extreme right-wing govt we've had post-War.


 
You know, I honestly hadn't thought of it in that way before but you're absolutely correct. There are still plenty of LibDem voters I know who feel slightly ashamed about the result, but try to save face (and perhaps persuade themselves) by saying well, at least the LibDems are managing to soften some of the evil Tory plans. In fact, it's the exact opposite. These evil Tory plans wouldn't be possible WITHOUT the LibDems.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A question for you, Moon. Do you think the Tories would be attempting to slash university funding by 40% (something that was not mentioned at all in their manifesto) if they had been a minority govt and not in 'coalition'?


 
No a Tory minority government would have announced a lot of populist tax cut proposals and continued the phony-war over cuts that preceded the general election. After about six months they would have called a general election knowing full well both Labout and the Lib Dems had empty war cheasts. We would now have a Tory majority government.


----------



## dylans (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think many Lib Dems oppose a rise in tuition fees but are faced with an impossible parliamentary situation where the majority of the house wants to introduce them. The question is then do you make a principled stance and oppose the Conservatives or do you try and get involved in the decision making process to try and make the proposals fairer. I think raising the repayment threshold, and the additional help to poorer students makes the system fairer.
> 
> In terms of pure self-interest for the party it would have been easier to stand on the side-lines remaining ideological principled but having zero impact on the decision making process. I know this is the type of political strategy preferred by many on the left but it consistently fails to make any difference to people’s lives.


 
You and your party should be fucking ashamed of yourselves. 

These cuts wouldn't be possible without the Lib dems holding Cameron's coat tails.

 So the Lib dems ( a party with no mandate at all but who serve solely at the invitation of Cameron) lie to the electorate, then shamelessly break every  manifesto promise they have made, then, as if that is not bad enough,  they then forge  a coalition deal in order to make possible the most savage attacks on the welfare state since it's creation. This is the legacy of the lib dems. The party that is attempting to take the UK back to the workhouse, the undeserving poor and a country where the proles "know their place"  The only good thing about any of this is that the lib dems are now seen what they really are. We won't forget it.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No a Tory minority government would have announced a lot of populist tax cut proposals and continued the phony-war over cuts that preceded the general election. After about six months they would have called a general election knowing full well both Labout and the Lib Dems had empty war cheasts. We would now have a Tory majority government.


 
...bollocks the unions would fund labour to the hilt and have you been following the polls at all? A tory majority would be impossible. Even you lot might have prospered.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> You know, I honestly hadn't thought of it in that way before but you're absolutely correct. There are still plenty of LibDem voters I know who feel slightly ashamed about the result, but try to save face (and perhaps persuade themselves) by saying well, at least the LibDems are managing to soften some of the evil Tory plans. In fact, it's the exact opposite. These evil Tory plans wouldn't be possible WITHOUT the LibDems.


 
That's a very short-term way of looking at things. A minority Tory government would be looking to return to the polls ASAP to secure a majority and would be enacting unaffordable populist polices that they thought would have appealed to people in the key marginal’s they needed.

The narrative would be about how Lib Dem’s refusing to help the government in a time of need resulted in them unable to implement all these ‘wonderful polices’ and forcing the British public back to the polls.

Meanwhile the uncertainly would have resulted in higher interest repayments on our debts and less money for schools and hospitals.  
.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> ...bollocks the unions would fund labour to the hilt and have you been following the polls at all? A tory majority would be impossible. Even you lot might have prospered.


 
Yes I’ve been following the polls, but we are talking about a counter-factual reality. In this counter-factual reality the actual polls are irrelevant as the decisions that have been made that effect them would have been totally different. I'll repeat a Tory minority government would have created a lot of populist polices for a short-period to create a poll surge in support then gone for a snap autumn election.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The narrative would be about how Lib Dem’s refusing to help the government in a time of need resulted in them unable to implement all these ‘wonderful polices’ and forcing the British public back to the polls.



And nobody would have questioned the narrative? 

Also, a Tory govt calling a new election would have been a very different beast from the 'clean slate' tories we have now. Nothing they are doing now was in their manifesto. A sitting govt cannot throw aside its manifesto pledges so easily. Even if the tories had won a majority a few months later, which is very far from certain, it would not have been the tory govt we have now.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> You and your party should be fucking ashamed of yourselves.
> 
> These cuts wouldn't be possible without the Lib dems holding Cameron's coat tails.
> 
> So the Lib dems ( a party with no mandate at all but who serve solely at the invitation of Cameron) lie to the electorate, then shamelessly break every  manifesto promise they have made, then, as if that is not bad enough,  they then forge  a coalition deal in order to make possible the most savage attacks on the welfare state since it's creation. This is the legacy of the lib dems. The party that is attempting to take the UK back to the workhouse, the undeserving poor and a country where the proles "know their place"  The only good thing about any of this is that the lib dems are now seen what they really are. We won't forget it.


 
I'm proud of being a Lib Dem and helping to return a Lib Dem MP (that will vote against the tuition fee rise). The Lib Dems did not create the economic legacy the coalition has inherited. What they are doing is ensuring things are implemented in a fairer way then a Tory majority would. 
Talk of workhouses is hyperbole, there are no workhouses and there is still a welfare system, an education system and a healthcare system to support people.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And nobody would have questioned the narrative?
> 
> Also, a Tory govt calling a new election would have been a very different beast from the 'clean slate' tories we have now. Nothing they are doing now was in their manifesto. A sitting govt cannot throw aside its manifesto pledges so easily. Even if the tories had won a majority a few months later, which is very far from certain, it would not have been the tory govt we have now.


 
Also one has to wonder how many of the cuts now being introduced would have been done by a Labour government anyway.  The overall cuts are actually less then Labour anticipated would be needed when in government. It was Labour who introduced tuition fees, and also Labour who commissioned the Browne review.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes I&rsquo;ve been following the polls, but we are talking about a counter-factual reality. In this counter-factual reality the actual polls are irrelevant as the decisions that have been made that effect them would have been totally different. I'll repeat a Tory minority government would have created a lot of populist polices for a short-period to create a poll surge in support then gone for a snap autumn election.


 
...and then been beaten. What policies btw? If they're so rotten why joina coalition with them and enable all their plans to come true!

 Such contempt for the electorate too.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

I'd like some people who are introducing the increased fees why those who had a free higher education are not being expected to contribute. Wouldn't it be possible to apply a graduate tax to all graduates past and present?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 12, 2010)

I'm not defending Labour. My guess is that they would have pushed for an increase in fees to £5k or so, which is what was widely predicted. 

But the libdems apparently supported the _abolition_ of tuition fees. They campaigned specifically on a pledge never to vote for an increase in fees. 

Where is the democratic legitimacy in this govt, Moon23? Where is its mandate?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm proud of being a Lib Dem and helping to return a Lib Dem MP (that will vote against the tuition fee rise). The Lib Dems did not create the economic legacy the coalition has inherited. What they are doing is ensuring things are implemented in a fairer way then a Tory majority would.
> Talk of workhouses is hyperbole, there are no workhouses and there is still a welfare system, an education system and a healthcare system to support people.


 
Who?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm proud of being a Lib Dem and helping to return a Lib Dem MP (that will vote against the tuition fee rise). The Lib Dems did not create the economic legacy the coalition has inherited. What they are doing is ensuring things are implemented in a fairer way then a Tory majority would.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'd like some people who are introducing the increased fees why those who had a free higher education are not being expected to contribute. Wouldn't it be possible to apply a graduate tax to all graduates past and present?


 
No, you can't introduce such things retrospectively. 

This is a very simple principle, one that also applies to such things as school education and health care. It is the responsibility of the older generation to provide education for the younger generation. When that younger generation becomes the older generation, they then fund the next generation. Free at the point of access, a right for all who would benefit from it, and paid for by a progressive tax system. If you go on to earn a lot of money, you contribute a fair amount to the education of the next generation through the income tax you pay. 

It's not difficult, you know. It's called a 'principled position'. And it is the kind of society that I want to live in.

Do you not understand how regressive the proposed system is? Under the proposed system, those that go to uni then go on to earn vast sums of money only pay for their own education. Under a system where it is free at the point of access, such people pay for the education of many others in the next generation.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A question for you, Moon. Do you think the Tories would be attempting to slash university funding by 40% (something that was not mentioned at all in their manifesto) if they had been a minority govt and not in 'coalition'?


I'd like an answer to this excellent question please, moon23?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Talk of workhouses is hyperbole, there are no workhouses and there is still a welfare system, an education system and a healthcare system to support people.


bollocks - all these are being ripped to pieces even as we speak, and higher education is again becoming a no-go zone for the working class


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No a Tory minority government would have announced a lot of populist tax cut proposals and continued the phony-war over cuts that preceded the general election. After about six months they would have called a general election knowing full well both Labout and the Lib Dems had empty war cheasts. We would now have a Tory majority government.


 
what a load of crystal balls


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'll repeat a Tory minority government would have created a lot of populist polices for a short-period to create a poll surge in support then gone for a snap autumn election.


no they wouldn't, cos the policies we are seeing now was their plan all along. Thery're anti-populist, and even if they did start doing vote-winning giveaways ther was never a guarantee they'd have got them through the house in line with their timeframe


----------



## TopCat (Nov 12, 2010)

The shocking justifications for the libdems lies are really that, shocking. I think they will be forever fucked electorally after this.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 12, 2010)

TopCat said:


> A decent report that.


 
The subby could have glanced over it a little harder.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 12, 2010)

David Cameron and the Bullingdon night of the broken window.

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/201...nd-the-bullingdon-night-of-the-broken-window/


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Boo fucking hoo.


I'm not seeking any sympathy.  I was simply explaining the situation to madzone before they waded in with the predictable next comment and made themselves look a dick.



> I've never seen a pension run on that basis.  Even if it was on that basis, working 20 years for 50% of a full pension _is_ gold plated.  Nobody else gets that much for so little.  I'd have to work 40 years for the same and my pension is considered a good one.


Oh right.  Clearly my situation isn't as it, er, actually is.  Obviously what it says in my pension documentation is wrong if you say _you_ have never heard of such a thing.  What fucking arrogant bollocks to post.  It is exactly as I fucking described you dick.

Did you notice that the contributions are 11%.  I doubt yours are _anything_ like that.  And of course the pension is acknowledged to be better than average to compensate in part for the restrictions on your private life that are associated with being a police officer.  (ETA:  I am not making this up.  Even Andrew Gilligan comments: "The police, who do demanding jobs and pay quite high pension contributions, have traditionally been seen as a special case." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...tor-pensions-crisis-facing-the-coalition.html) 

And anyway, I didn't say it shouldn't be considered a "gold-plated" pension - in the big scheme of things it clearly _is_.  I was again simply anticipating what madzone was likely to post next.  So how about doing us all a favour and actually reading what I post and applying a bit of thought before posting next time?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Democracy, my arse.


And your brilliant, inspired alternative is ...


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> My bug bear is the annual spend on IT being about £21Bn per annum, and that's with around 70% of large government IT projects failing. If we actual held those companies that delivered failed IT to account then we probably wouldn't need a rise in tuition fees. Instead we are beholden to these huge companies IBM, Fujitsu, CSC etc. and would risk being sued to the tune of Billions if we pulled out of their contracts. It's a national disgrace.
> 
> For the record I oppose a rise in tuition fees.



No you don't. If you oppose it so much let's see you do something about it then.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

madzone said:


> I was asking a simple question, paranoid fucknut.


So why ask me and no-one else, eh?


----------



## Crispy (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> And your brilliant, inspired alternative is ...


 
Actual democracy - with massive decentralisation of power.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Sorry, but we do _not_.


The simple fact is that we do.  Albeit a (very) imperfect one.

(And, in any event, _your_ brilliant, inspired alternative is ... )


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Did you notice that the contributions are 11%.  I doubt yours are _anything_ like that.  And of course the pension is acknowledged to be better than average to compensate in part for the restrictions on your private life that are associated with being a police officer.


i've not got the calculator out, but 11% would be about the amount i pay for my pension contributions. as for the restrictions on your private life associated with being a police officer, i suppose you mean that the number of people who want anything to do with you dwindles considerably when you become a cop.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

Diamond said:


> The whole thing seems quite bizarre. It comes across as a hyperreal simulation of a riot.


It's the virtual reality effect.  They're students.  They only think in terms of computer games ...


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Also one has to wonder how many of the cuts now being introduced would have been done by a Labour government anyway.  The overall cuts are actually less then Labour anticipated would be needed when in government. It was Labour who introduced tuition fees, and also Labour who commissioned the Browne review.


 
So fucking what? As has been pointed out, again and again, very few of the people on here are labour party members. Even if they are, so what? It doesn't make their arguments invalid. And as much as I dislike the LP, it at least has a far wider range of views in the party than a bunch of cultists who worship the ground that Nick Clegg walks on so much that they'll happily argue that black is white and white is black. Your party and the majority of its members would agree that 2+2=5 if Nick Clegg said so.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> And your brilliant, inspired alternative is ...


 
Worker's councils, syndicalism, community politics, i.e. some form of direct democracy.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Actual democracy - with massive decentralisation of power.


and _real_ accountability and transparency, because that is the _only_ way ordinary people will feel that it belongs to them, and feel that strongly enough to get involved


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Worker's councils, syndicalism, community politics, i.e. some form of direct democracy.


yup, that as well!


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> This is a very good point. Having the LibDems on board gives them far more authority to push through draconian policy because it comes with the backing of a second party, and a 'liberal' one to boot. If they had been a minority gvt every piece of policy such as this would have been shot down at the first possibly opportunity.


I can't remember who (Paul Merton on Have I got News for You???) but some comedian pointed out the other day that it wasn't so much a Coalition as a hostage-situation, swith the hostage being used as a human shield ...


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Actual democracy - with massive decentralisation of power.


That would be an adaption of we have (i.e. correcting the imperfections that our, er, democracy has to make it a _better_ democracy).  Which, er, supports my point that we do have a democracy, albeit a (very) imperfect one.

If we didn't you'd need to invent a whole new system, not just knock the edges off this one.

(This is yet another example of hyperbole being self-defeating ... people _know_ we _do_ live in a democracy by any sensible standard and so immediately ignore any argument which starts by telling them that we don't.  If you want to change things you need to engage people.  If you want to engage them you need to be honest and straightforward, and not exaggerate your case with hyperbole.)


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> *That would be an adaption of we have *(i.e. correcting the imperfections that our, er, democracy has to make it a _better_ democracy).  Which, er, supports my point that we do have a democracy, albeit a (very) imperfect one.
> 
> If we didn't you'd need to invent a whole new system, not just knock the edges off this one.
> 
> (This is yet another example of hyperbole being self-defeating ... people _know_ we _do_ live in a democracy by any sensible standard and so immediately ignore any argument which starts by telling them that we don't.  If you want to change things you need to engage people.  If you want to engage them you need to be honest and straightforward, and not exaggerate your case with hyperbole.)



No, it would be completely different.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The simple fact is that we do.  Albeit a (very) imperfect one.
> 
> (And, in any event, _your_ brilliant, inspired alternative is ... )


i think we'll have to agree to differ on opur definitions of the concept of 'democracy', as I would have described our system as an 'elective dictatorship', _pace_ Hailsham.
I weould also argue that lousy turnout, time after time, and near-complete popular disenchasntment with the political classes at least suggets the British people are warming to my point of view. 
as for my alternatives - optimally, a globally revolutionary one. As for my more medium-term alternatives, i've quoted crispy and Blagsta (above), and they've given a v good start


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 12, 2010)

That's just a semantic argument, really. Anyone who's ever spent time in a true dictatorship knows that the UK isn't one. But to me, democracy isn't an all or nothing quality. We have a bit of democracy in the UK. We could do with a whole lot more.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Worker's councils, syndicalism, community politics, i.e. some form of direct democracy.


Meaningless slogans without an indication of the local and national _structures_ that they would be associated with.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> No, it would be completely different.


Explain how then.  Structure.  How it would work.  How I would have my voice heard as an individual citizen.

Not meaningless slogans.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We have a bit of democracy in the UK. We could do with a whole lot more.


Indeed.

And to pin our hopes on things getting better on a global revolution is hardly a recipe for anything changing any time soon ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Meaningless slogans without an indication of the local and national _structures_ that they would be associated with.


 
Not really. It's a wider definition of the term 'democracy', one that acknowledges that true democracy requires a fairer distribution of resources, for a start. Democracy isn't just having a vote in an election every few years. It extends to having a say in how your workplace is run, for instance and very importantly. It extends to notions of ownership – how can you have democracy when the majority have no ownership of the company they work for, for instance?


----------



## grit (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Explain how then.  Structure.  How it would work.  How I would have my voice heard as an individual citizen.
> 
> Not meaningless slogans.


 
I disagree with you on a bunch of stuff db, but here you have a point. Its all well and good repeating the strap lines but its irrelevant until actual workable plans are presented as an alternative.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'm not seeking any sympathy.  I was simply explaining the situation to madzone before they waded in with the predictable next comment and made themselves look a dick.
> 
> 
> Oh right.  Clearly my situation isn't as it, er, actually is.  Obviously what it says in my pension documentation is wrong if you say _you_ have never heard of such a thing.  What fucking arrogant bollocks to post.  It is exactly as I fucking described you dick.
> ...


 
I used to implement pensions calculations for a living.  I've never seen one like yours with accelerating worth of contributions.  Never.  It is gold plated with knobs on top.

If yours is as you describe it then it is the equivalent to a 45ths final salary scheme, which is what executives at large companies are on.  For comparison, nurses are on an 80ths scheme, almost twice as bad.  They have to work 52 years to earn a pension like yours.  It's not even possible 

I checked, and you're not making it up.  http://www.hansonwealth.co.uk/policefed/pps/pension.html

So yeah, boo fucking hoo.  Take your pieces of silver.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 12, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> I used to implement pensions calculations for a living.  I've never seen one like yours with accelerating worth of contributions.  Never.  It is gold plated with knobs on top.
> 
> If yours is as you describe it then it is the equivalent to a 45ths final salary scheme, which is what executives at large companies are on.  For comparison, nurses are on an 80ths scheme, almost twice as bad.  They have to work 52 years to earn a pension like yours.  It's not even possible
> 
> ...


 
It's not affordable either. No money in the pot.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Meaningless slogans without an indication of the local and national _structures_ that they would be associated with.


OK, but bear with me as rthese things do take time to outline.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 12, 2010)

The real problem here is that they're going to use the cost of the retardedly generous police pension to attack all public sector pensions.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 12, 2010)

I would never attack someone's pension just because it was much better than mine. Far more important, and on the mark, to attack the lie that says that we cannot afford decent pensions any more. This is not true. It is not the poor that we cannot afford. It is the rich.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

grit said:


> ... but here you have a point. Its all well and good repeating the strap lines but its irrelevant until actual workable plans are presented as an alternative.


Indeed.  You could have added ... and you have persuaded a critical mass of the citizens of the benefit of the alternative.

Our democracy would be _much_ better if all those interested in making society better in _any_ way could unite in a single desire to improve the engagement of citizens with the democratic processes (at all levels) above the frankly pathetic levels which currently exist.  One _really_ good thing about yesterday is that it has engaged masses of young people with a political debate for the first time in years.  I hope their interest and involvement will be maintained (though I suspect it won't ... not least because the last thing the vested interests of the wannabee politicians (such as Aaron Porter) want is a load of other (rather more talented) people getting involved and competing with them for positions they have ambitions to fill ...).


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> I checked, and *you're not making it up.* http://www.hansonwealth.co.uk/policefed/pps/pension.html (My emphasis)


So why not just fucking say that?  Why post this shit first ...



> I used to implement pensions calculations for a living. I've never seen one like yours with accelerating worth of contributions. Never. It is gold plated with knobs on top.
> 
> If yours is as you describe it then it is the equivalent to a 45ths final salary scheme, which is what executives at large companies are on. For comparison, nurses are on an 80ths scheme, almost twice as bad. They have to work 52 years to earn a pension like yours. It's not even possible


... which basically alleges that I AM making it up.  

You and your mates my lie and bullshit in what they post on here.  I don't.  I only post what I know to be true or what I believe to be true to the best of my knowledge and belief.  If I am not sure I make that plain.  If it is an opinion, rather than a fact, I make that plain.

Please do not judge me by your low standards.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So why not just fucking say that?  Why post this shit first ...
> 
> 
> ... which basically alleges that I AM making it up.
> ...


 No, it says the facts you offered are correct. Your interpretation of the relative privilege you have might have been challenged though. Paranoia.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Indeed.  You could have added ... and you have persuaded a critical mass of the citizens of the benefit of the alternative.
> 
> Our democracy would be _much_ better if all those interested in making society better in _any_ way could unite in a single desire to improve the engagement of citizens with the democratic processes (at all levels) above the frankly pathetic levels which currently exist.  One _really_ good thing about yesterday is that it has engaged masses of young people with a political debate for the first time in years.  I hope their interest and involvement will be maintained (though I suspect it won't ...* not least because the last thing the vested interests of the wannabee politicians (such as Aaron Porter) want is a load of other (rather more talented) people getting involved and competing with them for positions they have ambitions to fill* ...).


 
Let a thousand Aaron Porters bloom!

Do you ever think that the reason people have no truck with the 'democratic process' and the various window dressing of advisory boards, councils and focus groups is cos they are smarter than you, that they can see through the racket that is the state and 'society'. What we need is to feel empowered, to realise our own latent power to resist cuts and to impose our needs, it will be a long tough struggle but it is the actions like those of the students who bypassed NUS and took matters into their own hands that provide a starting point leap years in advance of all the letter righting, petition signing, bureaucrat electing bollocks that is pushing by desperate defenders of the status quo like yourself.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So why not just fucking say that?  Why post this shit first ...
> 
> 
> ... which basically alleges that I AM making it up.
> ...


 
Typical cop paranoia, secretly crippled by fear that everyone knows you are a thick cunt you are constantly imaging them all scheming and plotting against you.

He never said you made it up, he said he has never come across such a pension and that if you have one it is an especially cushy one.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So why not just fucking say that?  Why post this shit first ...
> 
> 
> ... which basically alleges that I AM making it up.
> ...


 
The only reason I'd think you were making it up is that it's so fantastical I couldn't believe it.

You get ten years more pension than a teacher or nurse, at a higher % of salary having worked only 3/4 of the years.  

In fact you get paid _twice_ as much money in total post retirement yet contribute _less_.


----------



## grit (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> What we need is to feel empowered, to realise our own latent power to resist cuts and to impose our needs, it will be a long tough struggle but it is the actions like those of the students who bypassed NUS and took matters into their own hands that provide a starting point leap years in advance of all the letter righting, petition signing, bureaucrat electing bollocks that is pushing by desperate defenders of the status quo like yourself.



It doesnt help your case though by intentionally alienating the other parts of society that could assist you in your fight for change. I post on urban because I want to learn of other viewpoints and as a consequence have learned and come to agree with viewpoints I previously didnt consider. However here the knee jerk reaction is the sneer and use the term middle class as an insult.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Your interpretation of the relative privilege you have might have been challenged though. Paranoia.


Unintelligible fucking gibberish.

As usual.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 12, 2010)

It's perfectly legible, as you well know.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

grit said:


> It doesnt help your case though by intentionally alienating the other parts of society that could assist you in your fight for change. I post on urban because I want to learn of other viewpoints and as a consequence have learned and come to agree with viewpoints I previously didnt consider. However here the knee jerk reaction is the sneer and use the term middle class as an insult.


 
I haven't mentioned the middle class...


----------



## grit (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> I haven't mentioned the middle class...


 
Yeah I know, I'm just trying to demonstrate (perhaps badly) that unification of people is going to be required to accomplish the changes you are discussing. Instead of directly attacking the system I think more can be achieved by trying to gain the support of other parts of society. Then attack together!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 12, 2010)

grit said:


> Yeah I know, I'm just trying to demonstrate (perhaps badly) that unification of people is going to be required to accomplish the changes you are discussing.


 
There is a need to unify people, yes, and the attack on the universality of the post-WW2 social contract would seem to me to be the perfect issue with which to find that unity. The welfare state is not some kind of charity for the destitute and terminally hopeless. It is the bedrock of a decent society, something to which everyone contributes when able to contribute, and from which everyone takes when they need it, and the vast majority do need it at some stage in their lives. The welfare state is by everyone for everyone. It is a unifying force in and of itself.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Do you ever think that the reason people have no truck with the 'democratic process' and the various window dressing of advisory boards, councils and focus groups is cos they are smarter than you, that they can see through the racket that is the state and 'society'.


No.  Because they do not striggle against that racket.  They don't propose any other structure.  They simply do not engage at all.  That is not the action of "smart" people.



> ... it is the actions like those of the students who bypassed NUS and took matters into their own hands that provide a starting point leap years in advance of all the letter righting, petition signing, bureaucrat electing bollocks that is pushing by desperate defenders of the status quo like yourself.


Where have I said that it won't?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> ... he said he has never come across such a pension and that if you have one it is an especially cushy one.


Some fucking pension advisor (or whatever he claims to be) then.  It is probably the most widely discussed pension in the fucking country ... 

And again, where the fuck have I said anywhere that it is anything but cushy?  Please stop making up what you think I think, based on your prejudices and nothing else, and read what I fucking post.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 12, 2010)

Don't make this thread about you, d-b.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> The only reason I'd think you were making it up is that it's so fantastical I couldn't believe it.


So explain why it was so difficult to just say "I'd never heard of anything like it, but you're quite right."?  

Why the need to imply I was talking bollocks first and then acknowledge that I wasn't in what was little more than a postscript?


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Don't make this thread about you, d-b.


 
this.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> It's perfectly legible, as you well know.


No.  It isn't.  Not least because I haven't provided any "interpretation of the relative privilege" I might have.  As you'll see if you go back over my posts.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 12, 2010)

Some good advice @ Fitwatch...
Students who are worried should consider taking the following actions:


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  It isn't.  Not least because I haven't provided any "interpretation of the relative privilege" I might have.  As you'll see if you go back over my posts.


 
life's too short to go back over your bilious and turgid posts


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Don't make this thread about you, d-b.


I'm not.

Others are choosing to have a pop at me.  And to post about side issues.  And resorting to their usual fuckwittery.  

I reserve the right to respond to that fuckwittery.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

AKA pseudonym said:


> Some good advice @ Fitwatch...
> Students who are worried should consider taking the following actions:


I'm not sure that'd I'd characterise advice to perjure yourself ("It's not me") as being "good" advice ...


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 12, 2010)

If you really want to discuss your pensions further go do it on another thread.


----------



## Santino (Nov 12, 2010)

Let's not make this thread about d-b having a go at people saying that we shouldn't make this thead about d-b.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 12, 2010)

*Back on topic? *

I can't even pretend to have had time to read 60 pages of this thread, so apologies of this link has been posted already.

John Harris in today's Guardian has a take well worth reading  about the NUS demo and its implications -- "Spending cuts : the fightback begins"



> Can this week's violent protests in Westminster simply be dismissed as the hijacking of an orderly demonstration by a 'small minory' of anarchists. Or are they a sign of things to come for an 'out-of-touch' government with 18 millionaires in its cabinet?



Not at all bad I thought, that article.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> If you really want to discuss your pensions further go do it on another thread.


Er ... I don't.  I haven't from the outset.  I only mentioned it as an entirely relevant adjunct to my rebuttal of a claim that I was somehow insulted from the effects of the cutbacks.  That would have been the end of the matter, except some fuckwit decided to start discussing it in detail, apparently on the basis that they thought I was lying about it.

Now I wonder who that fuckwit was ...


----------



## revlon (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'm not sure that'd I'd characterise advice to perjure yourself ("It's not me") as being "good" advice ...


 
to be fair most of the advice is based on people who * may be arrested as a result of identification by CCTV, FIT or press photography .*

For those arrested golden rule: say nothing, admit nothing.

My understanding is no-one's actually been charged with anything as yet, all bailed to return, and the vast majority of the initial arrests were for aggravated trespass, which suggests blanket arrest just to get as much information from those present/left in the building. Cps charges will be based on the information gathered post-riot. So the fitwatch advice is doubly "good" advice.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, you can't introduce such things retrospectively.
> 
> Do you not understand how regressive the proposed system is? Under the proposed system, those that go to uni then go on to earn vast sums of money only pay for their own education. Under a system where it is free at the point of access, such people pay for the education of many others in the next generation.


 
A good point, although currently those people who did not go to University also have to pay for those who do. Is it fair that a working class labourer has to subside someone else’s higher education?

I would prefer a system where those that earn the most pay the most.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 12, 2010)

Apols for disrail...


detective-boy said:


> I'm not sure that'd I'd characterise advice to perjure yourself ("It's not me") as being "good" advice ...



you are a funny boy indeed... maybe just use song titles as u lie would be better??


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> A good point, although currently those people who did not go to University also have to pay for those who do. Is it fair that a working class labourer has to subside someone else’s higher education?
> 
> I would prefer a system where those that earn the most pay the most.


 
Is it fair that that working class labourer or his children will _never_ be able to afford university education?  That is what the proposed system essentially means...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Is it fair that a working class labourer has to subside someone else’s higher education?





We've been over this before. A 'working class labourer' does not subsidise anyone's higher education. A whole raft of provisions are provided communally, including higher education for said labourer's children, if they have any, and are paid for through a tax system that taxes people progressively higher proportions of their incomes the richer they are. You seem to consistently fail to get this basic point – a university graduate who goes on to earn a large wage pays for the education of maybe 10 people from the upcoming generation over their working life. That's fairness. Universality of provision paid for from general taxation is the fairest way to fund all services.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

revlon said:


> to be fair most of the advice is based on people who * may be arrested as a result of identification by CCTV, FIT or press photography .*


The rest of the advice is common sense advice to any suspect if you wish to assist them escape justice (no doubt rapists will also welcome the caring advice of Fitwatch that they can use should the need arise ...).  But the suggestion to say "It's not me", apparently in the context of giving evidence to the Court as it mentions a judge maybe not recognising you even if you do recognise yourself, would amount to perjury and I'm not sure that I would characterise perjuring yourself as "good" advice (nor would I expect most criminal lawyers to do so). 



> For those arrested golden rule: say nothing, admit nothing.


Saying nothing (which is very different from lying) is sound advice in relation to the time of arrest, in interview and even, subject to legal advice, in Court.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 12, 2010)

worker's councils, syndicalism etc are _not_ just "meaningless slogans" (in fact they're not slogans at all - db should go and look up what "slogan" means). They are political traditions. I'm posting from my phone at the mo but i'll try and go into a bit of depth later. Alternatively you could google the terms and do some reading if you're actually interested db.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> A good point, although currently those people who did not go to University also have to pay for those who do. Is it fair that a working class labourer has to subside someone else’s higher education?


The argument is that we all benefit from a better educated population in a wide variety of ways.  It is a similar argument that is used in relation to universal funding of the health service, welfare benefits, etc. regardless of whether we actually use them.


----------



## Santino (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> A good point, although currently those people who did not go to University also have to pay for those who do. Is it fair that a working class labourer has to subside someone else’s higher education?
> 
> I would prefer a system where those that earn the most pay the most.



You are such a fucking cretin. Do you know how tax even works?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

AKA pseudonym said:


> ... maybe just use song titles as u lie would be better??


I wouldn't suggest lying using any form of words.

If you are telling the truth, however, it is _entirely_ a matter for you how you choose the words which you use ...


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

Conflating the property destruction of the student protesters with rapists, nice.

And you wonder why people hate cops.

On another thread you are defending a cop "hilariously" putting song titles into his statement regarding his shooting of a tragic fucked up man.

You are a disgusting excuse for a person, a lackey for power.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I would prefer a system where those that earn the most pay the most.



Such as some kind of tax, maybe you could call it 'earnings tax' or something similar, which is taken from your wages as a percentage, where that percentage goes up for higher earners?

I wonder whether such a system could be possible?


----------



## Santino (Nov 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Such as some kind of tax, maybe you could call it 'earnings tax' or something similar, which is taken from your wages as a percentage, where that percentage goes up for higher earners?
> 
> I wonder whether such a system could be possible?


 
'Earnings tax'? A meaningless slogan.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Such as some kind of tax, maybe you could call it 'earnings tax' or something similar, which is taken from your wages as a percentage, where that percentage goes up for higher earners?
> 
> I wonder whether such a system could be possible?


 
Unfortunately those with lots of money are amazingly good at circumventing such a system and even better corporate tax is generally less than those on paye.

The answer to this is of course to crack the whip on people on benefits and those trying to earn a few quid more a wee working a few hours cash in hand.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Alternatively you could google the terms and do some reading if you're actually interested db.


I am aware of what they are, thank you.  (Though I wouldn't put money on it, as most references are in the inpenetratable bollocks language that characterises this whole debate and which pretty much guarantees that hardly anyone will engage with it ...).

I just don't see how simply listing them somehow provides an entire replacement for the democracy we have (for all it's failings) and how it secures a voice for _all_ citizens (as opposed to simply representing a transfer of controlling power to "the workers" who can then gain revenge over those who they perceive as having abused them previously, as has traditionally been the case with revolutions ...)


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Conflating the property destruction of the student protesters with rapists, nice.
> 
> And you wonder why people hate cops.
> 
> ...



to be fair he calls himself detective* boy*


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Conflating the property destruction of the student protesters with rapists, nice.


Lying about what another poster has posted.



> And you wonder why people hate cops.


And you wonder why people think you are a cunt.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not defending Labour. My guess is that they would have pushed for an increase in fees to £5k or so, which is what was widely predicted.
> 
> But the libdems apparently supported the _abolition_ of tuition fees. They campaigned specifically on a pledge never to vote for an increase in fees.
> 
> Where is the democratic legitimacy in this govt, Moon23? Where is its mandate?


 
The democratic legitimacy of the govt stems from the number of elected MPs it contains. It's true that on this issue if you take away those MPs who signed an election pledge not to support this policy it would not have a majority. Then again in terms of the MPs in parliment most are in a party that supports fees so you could argue on this issue there is a majority of elected MPs in parliment that support fees.

If there were more Lib Dem MPs and they had a majority government on their own then you would not be having these fee increases.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The democratic legitimacy of the govt stems from the number of elected MPs it contains. It's true that on this issue if you take away those MPs who signed an election pledge not to support this policy it would not have a majority. Then again in terms of the MPs in parliment most are in a party that supports fees so you could argue on this issue there is a majority of elected MPs in parliment that support fees.
> 
> If there were more Lib Dem MPs and they had a majority government on their own then you would not be having these fee increases.


what, given how spinelessly you caved in over this? ROFL!


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> If there were more Lib Dem MPs and they had a majority government on their own then you would not be having these fee increases.



Of course we wouldn't. Which is why they're currently fighting the Tories tooth and nail over it rather than being spineless turds and collaborating with their policies...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 12, 2010)

If the libdem mps all vote against these increases, the policy will not go through. Given that they all pledged themselves never to vote for any fee increase, and a significant number of people voted for them in large part on the strength of this pledge, they are duty-bound to vote against, are they not? If they vote in favour, are they not betraying all those whose votes they secured on the back of the pledge? Should they not all just resign en masse?


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

You sought to compare someone lying to get off smashing during a worthy political protest to some lying to get off q rape charge, ergo you are a despicable cunt.

And if people don't like me on here it isn't cos I'm a lackey for the cops and the racket they uphold, a cunt I might be but I' not a cowardly one.


----------



## revlon (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The rest of the advice is common sense advice to any suspect if you wish to assist them escape justice (no doubt rapists will also welcome the caring advice of Fitwatch that they can use should the need arise ...).  But the suggestion to say "It's not me", apparently in the context of giving evidence to the Court as it mentions a judge maybe not recognising you even if you do recognise yourself, would amount to perjury and I'm not sure that I would characterise perjuring yourself as "good" advice (nor would I expect most criminal lawyers to do so).
> 
> 
> Saying nothing (which is very different from lying) is sound advice in relation to the time of arrest, in interview and even, subject to legal advice, in Court.


 
Rapists have nothing to gain from FITwatch advice, they do however have have excellent allies in the Met police: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23896782-officers-broke-the-rules-by-dismissing-rape-claims-says-met.do


> Met officers repeatedly breached official rules by writing off rape allegations as “no crime” incidents, a confidential Scotland Yard report reveals today.
> 
> The disturbing report, obtained by the Evening Standard, was produced after Met chiefs became alarmed at the “unhealthy” number of investigations closed down by officers from one of the force's Sapphire sex crimes units.



You're right i withdraw my previous comment. I would now say _make sure you can get away with it_ before denying it's you.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

Db you are such a pathetic lackey that I have no doubt you were probably hated by rank n file cops. As reactionary as they may be even they grasp basic solidarity and will cover for each other. 

You're pretty much a nothing person, a anal retentive bureaucrat with a book of statutes where a heart should be.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Unfortunately those with lots of money are amazingly good at circumventing such a system and even better corporate tax is generally less than those on paye.


more accurately, they employ amazingly smart, well-paid a-list accountants who know every trick in the game


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> You sought to compare someone lying to get off smashing during a worthy political protest to some lying to get off q rape charge, ergo you are a despicable cunt.


No.  I didn't.  You are a lying cunt.  Or a thick cunt.  Or, probably, both.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

revlon said:


> Rapists have nothing to gain from FITwatch advice, they do however have have excellent allies in the Met police:


If you actually bothered to _read_ what that was all about you'd realise that it was absolutely nothing to do with assisting rapists to get off in any way whatsoever ... 

But hey, why allow the facts to get in the way of an opportunity to have a pop ...


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  I didn't.  You are a lying cunt.  Or a thick cunt.  Or, probably, both.


 
Oh yeah made a side criticism of those trying to help anyone charged over the student protests by pointing out this advice could be used by a rapist too, ergo you are a cunt.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 12, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If the libdem mps all vote against these increases, the policy will not go through. Given that they all pledged themselves never to vote for any fee increase, and a significant number of people voted for them in large part on the strength of this pledge, they are duty-bound to vote against, are they not? If they vote in favour, are they not betraying all those whose votes they secured on the back of the pledge? Should they not all just resign en masse?


 
Yup


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

The trouble with you Db is you either haven't or simply can't grasp the distinction between morality and law, this makes you a poor excuse for a human.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 12, 2010)

DB earlier...


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> The trouble with you Db is you either haven't or simply can't grasp the distinction between morality and law, this makes you a poor excuse for a human.


The trouble with you revol68 is you either haven't or simplt can't grasp the importance of law as providing a universal framework against which all citizens are judged, as opposed to morality which is a subjective concept and a movable feast, and this makes you an idiot when it comes to discussing the operation of a fari and just society ....


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Oh yeah made a side criticism of those trying to help anyone charged over the student protests by pointing out this advice could be used by a rapist too, ergo you are a cunt.


There, you see!  You _can_ understand what I _actually_ did if you try hard enough.

Hopefully next time it won't take you three attempts to get there ... 

(I have no problem with you concluding that I am a cunt based on an accurate account of what I have posted - you are entitled to your opinion.  I have a major problem with you doing so on the basis of lies about what I have posted.)


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2010)

From the FAQ:


> We're happy to host lively and robust debate but racists, bullies, sexist oafs, bigots and general all-round irritating arses are not welcome on these boards. Over the top swearing, endless personal attacks and needlessly disruptive conduct is not permitted and posters who continue such behaviour after being asked to stop will be banned.



OK, here's how it's going to play from now on. Anyone calling anyone else a cunt gets banned for the weekend because this topic is far too important to be trashed by childish name calling and endless personal attacks.

To repeat: anyone calling anyone else a cunt in this thread gets banned for the weekend. Starting from *now*.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The trouble with you revol68 is you either haven't or simplt can't grasp the importance of law as providing a universal framework against which all citizens are judged, as opposed to morality which is a subjective concept and a movable feast, and this makes you an idiot when it comes to discussing the operation of a fari and just society ....


 
A universal structure masking the particular interests of the ruling elites and capitalism.

The law truly is blind afterall it is illegal for both the rich and the poor to steal a loaf of bread. Talk of a universal framework is nonsense in a class society.

The dogs in the street know, even most pigs know it, everyone knows it except silly little muppet like you.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 12, 2010)

editor said:


> From the FAQ:
> 
> 
> OK, here's how it's going to play from now on. Anyone calling anyone else a cunt gets banned for the weekend because this topic is far too important to be trashed by childish name calling and endless personal attacks.
> ...



Hows about trying to keep the thread 'on topic' also?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> A universal structure masking the particular interests of the ruling elites and capitalism.
> 
> The law truly is blind afterall it is illegal for both the rich and the poor to steal a loaf of bread. Talk of a universal framework is nonsense in a class society.


Nonsense.  You may have a point if there was a fixed sentence for every offence.  Or if there was no scope for the precise circumstances of each offence to be taken into account in deciding an appropriate sentence.  Or of taking account of the _personal_ circumstances of the individual defendant in determining sentence. 

But none of that is the case ...


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I am aware of what they are, thank you.  (Though I wouldn't put money on it, as most references are in the inpenetratable bollocks language that characterises this whole debate and which pretty much guarantees that hardly anyone will engage with it ...).
> 
> I just don't see how simply listing them somehow provides an entire replacement for the democracy we have (for all it's failings) and how it secures a voice for _all_ citizens (as opposed to simply representing a transfer of controlling power to "the workers" who can then gain revenge over those who they perceive as having abused them previously, as has traditionally been the case with revolutions ...)



If you are knowledgable about these political traditions, then why call them "meaningless slogans"?  I smell bullshit.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Nonsense.  You may have a point if there was a fixed sentence for every offence.  Or if there was no scope for the precise circumstances of each offence to be taken into account in deciding an appropriate sentence.  Or of taking account of the _personal_ circumstances of the individual defendant in determining sentence.
> 
> But none of that is the case ...


 
It's still illegal and more importantly its meant as some of a metaphor to highlight the massive structural inequality in society that makes a mockery of any claims to universalism. 

Politicians get expenses, proles do the double, what one faces the wrath of your universal framework?


----------



## grit (Nov 12, 2010)

editor said:


> From the FAQ:
> 
> 
> OK, here's how it's going to play from now on. Anyone calling anyone else a cunt gets banned for the weekend because this topic is far too important to be trashed by childish name calling and endless personal attacks.
> ...



Excellent, would be such a shame if such a monumental thread went off the rails as this one appears to be going.


----------



## pk (Nov 12, 2010)

They've nicked the knobhead who threw the extinguisher at the cops...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11747571


----------



## dylans (Nov 12, 2010)

pk said:


> They've nicked the knobhead who ALLEGEDLY threw the extinguisher at the cops...
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11747571



Edited for you.


----------



## treelover (Nov 12, 2010)

Trade unions plan student coalition to fight public spending cuts

Big turnout at student anti-fees protest emboldens TUC leadership to plan wider campaign against government cuts'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/12/tuc-joins-student-protests'

Some big news, surely the TUC now realise there are hundreds of thousands just waiting to have their voice heard and yes peacefully


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 12, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I would prefer a system where those that earn the most pay the most.


 
Good idea. Let's have a 90% tax rate for earnings over £100,000. That ought to cover it.


----------



## DRINK? (Nov 12, 2010)

Fire extinguisher man arrested.

The Human torch commented " Thank Christ for that "


----------



## killer b (Nov 12, 2010)

treelover said:


> Some big news, surely the TUC now realise there are hundreds of thousands just waiting to have their voice heard and yes peacefully


 
how would that happen then?


----------



## revlon (Nov 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Edited for you.


 
if only he'd set fire to some curtains instead.


----------



## Onket (Nov 12, 2010)

pk said:


> They've nicked the knobhead who threw the extinguisher at the cops...
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11747571


 


The amount of time you spend mouthing off threatening violence and reminding everyone how acab you are, I'd have expected you to fully support his actions.

Maybe you're getting old.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Politicians get expenses, proles do the double, what one faces the wrath of your universal framework?


Like our democracy, our system of justice is (very) imperfect.  But ALL are amenable to the law (as the recent decision of the Supreme Court in relation to the wriggling MP expenses claimants demonstrates only too well).


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Like our democracy.


 
We do not live in a 'Majority Rule' country. This is a Polyarchy.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Edited for you.


Indeed.  Especially as I have not seen any picture of footage of the actual _throwing_ of it - all the pictures I saw today were of him _holding_ it ...  As I have said repeatedly, pictures never tell the whole story ... in _any_ case.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

SpineyNorman said:


> Good idea. Let's have a 90% tax rate for earnings over £100,000. That ought to cover it.


As it is impracticable to have an upper limit on earnings (though "takings" would probably be more accurate that "_earn_ings") that sort of taxation is the best answer.


----------



## DJ Squelch (Nov 12, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Indeed.  Especially as I have not seen any picture of footage of the actual _throwing_ of it - all the pictures I saw today were of him _holding_ it ...  As I have said repeatedly, pictures never tell the whole story ... in _any_ case.


 






All the pics in the media seem to be of this bloke but he's holding a CO2 extinguisher with a black band. The one that was dropped was a larger foam or water one with a cream coloured band as you can see here.




I imagine there are hundreds of other photos the police have to ID a suspect but the media seem to have it wrong.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 12, 2010)

DJ Squelch said:


> ... but the media seem to have it wrong.


I find that _extremely_ difficult to believe ...


----------



## pk (Nov 12, 2010)

dylans said:


> Edited for you.


 
Yeah, it could have been a paper mache extinguisher...


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 12, 2010)

DJ Squelch said:


> All the pics in the media seem to be of this bloke but he's holding a CO2 extinguisher with a black band. The one that was dropped was a larger foam or water one with a cream coloured band as you can see here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Excellent. Should save the poor bugger a lot of grief.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 12, 2010)

Onket said:


> The amount of time you spend mouthing off threatening violence and reminding everyone how acab you are, I'd have expected you to fully support his actions.
> 
> Maybe you're getting old.



Violence against the police/crack dealers/fascists is only acceptable when it takes place in his fevered imagination.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 13, 2010)

on-line petition


----------



## where to (Nov 13, 2010)

the person who threw the fire extinguisher was wearing different coloured clothing too - going by the brief sight of the person from the C4 footage.


----------



## pk (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket said:


> The amount of time you spend mouthing off threatening violence and reminding everyone how acab you are, I'd have expected you to fully support his actions.
> 
> Maybe you're getting old.



What are you oinking about now? Oink oink!!

ACAB my arse. If you knew anything you'd know that my contributions here accept the fact that there will always be a need for a police system of some kind. No matter how things turn out, even if the sacred revolution happens, the holy Marxist grain is realised. ACAB is for football hooligans and people who use violence to protect their own and don't require state and law intervening.

I know you love to oink like the oink-it you are, but at least try to do some basic research before you laughably attack the 'ard man approach.

Not that anyone gives a fuck. Guess I'm the mug for even bothering to respond.

Oh and well done for phoning the cops, if it was you, and informing them about the hedgeparty. I guess you might be alarmed to find out about the phone calls I was made aware of. If that was you, pity, because it worked out well for me in the end, and I got an even better rig as a result, so if you or anyone else wants to fuck about in future, bring it on OinkIt, I'll let them take the system for the woods, can't be arsed to store it any longer anyway. Nice try cunt.


----------



## pk (Nov 13, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Violence against the police/crack dealers/fascists is only acceptable when it takes place in his fevered imagination.


 
Oh dear, it's the epitome of the token gesture from you too is it?

Laugh Out Loud! Nothing to do on a Friday night? Shame...


----------



## strung out (Nov 13, 2010)

pk said:


> What are you oinking about now? Oink oink!!
> 
> ACAB my arse. If you knew anything you'd know that my contributions here accept the fact that there will always be a need for a police system of some kind. No matter how things turn out, even if the sacred revolution happens, the holy Marxist grain is realised. ACAB is for football hooligans and people who use violence to protect their own and don't require state and law intervening.
> 
> ...


 
are you accusing onket of grassing you up to the filth?


----------



## pk (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Indeed.  Especially as I have not seen any picture of footage of the actual _throwing_ of it - all the pictures I saw today were of him _holding_ it ...  As I have said repeatedly, pictures never tell the whole story ... in _any_ case.


 
So you'll be sticking up for the bloke seen trying to drop it on your pals then?

Great stuff. Change come soon.

He'd have a good career in golf, it was a measured swing and drom from the helicopter video.

Doubt anyone would be laughing if the Thames winds blew that shit so it landed on some girls head. Lets see, the chants of "stop throwing stuff" were just Daily Mail bullshit too, right???

 You were not even there. You really are a c-c-c-cunt.

Ban away. Pin it on "revealing passwords" or similar bollocks if it makes you feel better. Grow a pair of bollocks though Mike, time was this place meant something...


----------



## pk (Nov 13, 2010)

strung out said:


> are you accusing onket of grassing you up to the filth?


 
Someone made a phone call, and fuck knows who would bother, I'm just looking at the Hedgeparty thread and looking at who might be sad enough to have fucked it. I'm not accusing anyone, but if the shit fits... I only read the thread, and someone made a call because I had to explain myself in an empty van...


----------



## pk (Nov 13, 2010)

If it wasn't OinkIt then it was some fucking lurker I guess, either way, it was a report I heard about on the 21st of October. 

Luckily it didn't fuck up any plans.

Look, if anyone's got the arse with me, that's fine, but don't fuck it for good people who are trying to do good stuff for free. Maybe I'm just paranoid but I will be happy to meet with people prepared to fuck with my shit.

I'm just doing it for the fun of it


----------



## Voley (Nov 13, 2010)

pk said:


> time was this place meant something...


 
Funny you should say that. Now things have quietened down a bit I'm warming to U75 again. Interesting threads don't drift off the front page so quickly, you get time to follow a thread properly. Seen some genuinely good discussions lately (this thread possibly not the best example, admittedly). Reminds me of the early days.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 13, 2010)

Course it wasn't Onket. 

Could have been anyone, but almost certainly was a lurker. Use your brain, pk.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 13, 2010)

pk said:


> If it wasn't OinkIt then it was some fucking lurker I guess, either way, it was a report I heard about on the 21st of October.
> 
> Luckily it didn't fuck up any plans.
> 
> ...


 
No way was it onket. You should withdraw you're pathetic accusation.


----------



## where to (Nov 13, 2010)

pk said:


> If it wasn't OinkIt then it was some fucking lurker I guess, either way, it was a report I heard about on the 21st of October.
> 
> Luckily it didn't fuck up any plans.
> 
> ...


 
this thread isn't about you.


----------



## dylans (Nov 13, 2010)

pk said:


> So you'll be sticking up for the bloke seen trying to drop it on your pals then?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

God DB really can't win can he. If he had come on here all hang em and flog em he would have been flamed left right and centre but everything he has posted on here has been pretty reasonable imo. He points out that the media witch hunt is over the top and still he gets flamed. He suggests there is no evidence that the poor sod fingered in the papers threw the fire extinguisher and then he gets attacked for that. Fucked if he does fucked if he doesn't.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 13, 2010)

pk said:


> I'm just doing it for the fun of it


 
I'll call you Mr Breezy PK Hijinks McSparkles then. Weeeeeee!


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> God DB really can't win can he. If he had come on here all hang em and flog em he would have been flamed left right and centre but everything he has posted on here has been pretty reasonable imo. He points out that the media witch hunt is over the top and still he gets flamed. He suggests there is no evidence that the poor sod fingered in the papers threw the fire extinguisher and then he gets attacked for that. Fucked if he does fucked if he doesn't.


 
the media hunt isn't over the top.  The guy chucking the extinguisher is looking at a jail sentence (I hope) and quite a few others with criminal damage.  Whatever the situation you don't have the right to break windows or throw objects at people.  I hope they all get what's coming to them and I reckon in a few years time when they look back and see that their university education has been rather cut short they may regret what they did.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 13, 2010)

pk said:


> Oh dear, it's the epitome of the token gesture from you too is it?
> 
> Laugh Out Loud! Nothing to do on a Friday night? Shame...


 
I'm not the one pontificating I think you'll discover...


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 13, 2010)

aw c'mon - what's wrong with breaking a few windows?


----------



## Nylock (Nov 13, 2010)

your university career is not going to get cut short because you smashed a window at a protest... The idiot that threw the extinguisher may be facing a term inside though...


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> aw c'mon - what's wrong with breaking a few windows?


 
nothing as long as you pay for them to be replaced.  Would you be OK with someone breaking your windows?

Actually that's not true - it's criminal damage

Whatever one's views it was also wrong to intimidate people working inside the building.

Im sure they'll get clobbered for this once theyre identified.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 13, 2010)

no, but i'm not in charge of a concerted attack on the less well off.


----------



## Santino (Nov 13, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> no, but i'm not in charge of a concerted attack on the less well off.


 
I'm going to stop sending those parcels to your house.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> nothing as long as you pay for them to be replaced.  Would you be OK with someone breaking your windows?
> 
> Actually that's not true - it's criminal damage
> 
> ...


 
In all the videos I've seen the poeple sitting behind reception just look bemused. They certainly don't appear to be intimidated. None of them even got up out of their chairs ffs.


----------



## chilango (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Would you be OK with someone breaking your windows?



I think I could cope with it if I'd just robbed them of tens of thousands of quid to add to my looted millions. Yeah.


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> In all the videos I've seen the poeple sitting behind reception just look bemused. They certainly don't appear to be intimidated. None of them even got up out of their chairs ffs.



The ones working on the top floor were - they had to have security keep the mob out by all accounts or at least block their way.  Is that right?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 13, 2010)

mob


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

The proetstrers were probably lucky come to think of it - most of the employees were probably female.  I can think of many offices where they'd probably have got clobbered when confronted by workers none to worried about hammering a few teenage students.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 13, 2010)

regular hotbed of hardcases, those offices. Water fountain warriors.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 13, 2010)

you reckon?


----------



## chilango (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> The proetstrers were probably lucky come to think of it - most of the employees were probably female.  I can think of many offices where they'd probably have got clobbered when confronted by workers none to worried about hammering a few teenage students.


 
Hang on I thought it was a hardcore minority of extremists that done it?


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 13, 2010)

A strike is a form of direct action, right?  Its designed to inconvenience the people with the money financially to a greater extent than the demands that the group striking are making would, if I am understand this correctly anyway?  So when the windows got smashed, that wasn't with the intention of violence, it was to prove the point, it was to say 'you cost us, we'll cost you'.  And which will get more media coverage?  The only way the smashing of those windows could be constued as violence is as a form of economic violence.  A bit like the economic violence that the government are applying through cuts.


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> A strike is a form of direct action, right?  Its designed to inconvenience the people with the money financially to a greater extent than the demands that the group striking are making would, if I am understand this correctly anyway?  So when the windows got smashed, that wasn't with the intention of violence, it was to prove the point, it was to say 'you cost us, we'll cost you'.  And which will get more media coverage?  The only way the smashing of those windows could be constued as violence is as a form of economic violence.  A bit like the economic violence that the government are applying through cuts.



so smashing windows isn't violent?  I am free to do this to neighbours if I wish?

I think the courts may take a different view on this


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

chilango said:


> Hang on I thought it was a hardcore minority of extremists that done it?


 
it was kids driven on by a few veggie eaters.  The whole group was quite funny - and the poor lambs in the paper the next day trying to make out they werent involved when they suddenly realised they may be kicked out of their polys was quite funny


----------



## chilango (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> it was kids driven on by a few veggie eaters.  The whole group was quite funny - and the poor lambs in the paper the next day trying to make out they werent involved when they suddenly realised they may be kicked out of their polys was quite funny


 
Quality post.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> so smashing windows isn't violent?  I am free to do this to neighbours if I wish?
> 
> I think the courts may take a different view on this



Smashing the windows at millbank tower in law would be classed as criminal damage wouldn't it - damage to another person's property with malicious intent - breaking a sheet of glass somewhere is not in and of itself a violent act.  The legal definition of whether is constitutes criminal damage is to do with a) the ownership of the sheet of glass and b) the intent behind the action to break it.  The intent was, as far as I can tell, not to cause physical injury to another person so no, not violent in those terms, I think economically violent is a fair phrase to use, given the situation.


----------



## chilango (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> so smashing windows isn't violent?  I am free to do this to neighbours if I wish?
> 
> I think the courts may take a different view on this


 
No. Smashing windows isn't violent.

Actually. You can't compare the ruling party of government with your neighbour. But if they were comparable, then yes, feel free.

Of course the courts will take a different view. That's what they're there for.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> so smashing windows isn't violent?  I am free to do this to neighbours if I wish?
> 
> I think the courts may take a different view on this


 it only matters if people get hurt. who care about a window?


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

chilango said:


> No. Smashing windows isn't violent.
> 
> Actually. You can't compare the ruling party of government with your neighbour. But if they were comparable, then yes, feel free.
> 
> Of course the courts will take a different view. That's what they're there for.



Smashing windows isn't violent? Excellent


----------



## chilango (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Smashing windows isn't violent? Excellent


 
No it's not.

Obviously.


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> it only matters if people get hurt. who care about a window?



That's like saying it doesn't matter if I drink drive as long as I don't run someone over.  None of those involved knew or cared whether someone got injured.

However they were quite lucky their target was weak.  I used to know a copper in the 80s who loved policing the football hooligans!!


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> That's like saying it doesn't matter if I drink drive as long as I don't run someone over.  None of those involved knew or cared whether someone got injured.
> 
> However they were quite lucky their target was weak.  I used to know a copper in the 80s who loved policing the football hooligans!!


you seem to be ignorant of the concept of context here.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 13, 2010)

his chance to expunge the memory of schoolday bullying in a one-saided swedge eh


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I used to know a copper in the 80s who loved policing the football hooligans!!



bobby's helmet up the bum was it?


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

Just find the whole thing quite funny.  I guess it's what happens when you turn every portakabin in the UK into a university and let kids in with 2 Ds.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Just find the whole thing quite funny.  I guess it's what happens when you turn every portakabin in the UK into a university and let kids in with 2 Ds.


 
You couldn't make it up!


----------



## little_legs (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Smashing windows isn't violent? Excellent


 
Yes, it's _excellent_. That's how the Suffragettes fought for the women's vote, by smashing the windows of the Home Office.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 13, 2010)

little_legs said:


> Yes, it's _excellent_. That's how the Suffragettes fought for the women's vote, by smashing the windows of the Home Office.


 
Students haven't got a vote now?


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I used to know a copper in the 80s who loved policing the football hooligans!!


 
I bet you did. I watched footage of the Poll Tax Riots the other day and the police didn't give a flying fuck if anyone got hurt. Driving transit vans at 30 - 40mph straight into a crowd of people, trampling them with horses, raining baton blows on anyone who got 'in their way'......


----------



## little_legs (Nov 13, 2010)

@jer, Babylondon 

that's how you make the point to those who shrug you aside. there is no need to talk about _the vote_. you are better than this.


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> I bet you did. I watched footage of the Poll Tax Riots the other day and the police didn't give a flying fuck if anyone got hurt. Driving transit vans at 30 - 40mph straight into a crowd of people, trampling them with horses, raining baton blows on anyone who got 'in their way'......


 
I suspect if these teeny boppers do this again the same may happen


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 13, 2010)

jer said:


> Students haven't got a vote now?


 
Given that the majority of students are under 18 no. But even those over 18 might as well not have. The Lib Dems sold themselves to students by saying they would oppose any rise in fees, and claimed they would campaign to have fees scrapped altogether. But it turns out they never had any intention of doing any of this. So, whilst they do have a vote it has been ignored completely and they therefore have no representation, which amounts to the same thing.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I suspect if these teeny boppers do this again the same may happen


 
Obviously you wouldn't approve of that though, cos you're opposed to violence, right?


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I suspect if these teeny boppers do this again the same may happen


 
I'm 45. I fully intend to go to the next protest.


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> I'm 45. I fully intend to go to the next protest.



you'll look like terry scott in the curly wurly ad


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 13, 2010)

little_legs said:


> @jer, Babylondon
> 
> that's how you make the point to those who shrug you aside. there is no need to talk about _the vote_. you are better than this.


 
No, I'm not. It's been decided.

Maybe I'm wrong and something good will have come out of all of this but so far...


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 13, 2010)

protest and it's 'typical students etc' from the right. Given the fairly de politicised UK student population it is out-of-date cliche. Fair play on them for this action, just thank your stars they aren't french gunner, else they'd be round your house pissing on your biscuits.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> you'll look like terry scott in the curly wurly ad


 
Couldn't give a fuck.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> the media hunt isn't over the top.  The guy chucking the extinguisher is looking at a jail sentence (I hope) and quite a few others with criminal damage.  Whatever the situation you don't have the right to break windows or throw objects at people.  I hope they all get what's coming to them and I reckon in a few years time when they look back and see that their university education has been rather cut short they may regret what they did.


 
fuck off you muppet, you care more about broken windows of corporations than you do about the lives ruined by these cuts.

you are a sad little man.

seems it's true what they say about the Emirates being full of posh city boys.

as for the office workers being intimidated, what nonsense, they most likely couldn't care less, probably hate their bosses and had a laugh about it down the pub since they got off early.


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> protest and it's 'typical students etc' from the right. Given the fairly de politicised UK student population it is out-of-date cliche. Fair play on them for this action, just thank your stars they aren't french gunner, else they'd be round your house pissing on your biscuits.



ha ha I prefer the french at the emirates - the rest can stay the other side of la manche


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> fuck off you muppet, you care more about broken windows of corporations than you do about the lives ruined by these cuts.
> 
> you are a sad little man.
> 
> ...


 
oh you've unstuck your keyboard


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> you'll look like terry scott in the curly wurly ad


 
People don't go protest to look good. I'm 32 and I was at the last one and will be at the next one.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> ha ha I prefer the french at the emirates - the rest can stay the other side of la manche


 
No wonder Arsenal have won fuck all in over 5 years, it must be difficult being bothered to up your game for a shower of soulless posh cunts.


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> Couldn't give a fuck.


 
made me laugh anyway


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> No wonder Arsenal have won fuck all in over 5 years, it must be difficult being bothered to up your game for a shower of soulless posh cunts.


 
says the man who never goes near old trafford


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> made me laugh anyway


 
I get the feeling it doesn't take a lot.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> life's too short to go back over your bilious and turgid posts


 
It's a pity then that so many people don't seem to bother to read them the first time round.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Excellent. Should save the poor bugger a lot of grief.


Does anyone know for sure that the guy in the first picture is the one who has been arrested?  (the police don't usually release the names or details (beyond age, gender and area they are from) of people arrested and they don't even confirm them if it is well known - further details are only released on charge or summons)


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> I get the feeling it doesn't take a lot.


 
sometimes - dont forget your skateboard and lollipop


----------



## where to (Nov 13, 2010)

jer said:


> Students haven't got a vote now?


 
you seem to have missed the bit where hundreds of thousands of students voted and voted for a party who were *knowingly lying* to them about plans to hit them in the pocket for tens of thousands of pounds as soon as they reached government.

the anti-democrats here are not the students.  the students voted in their droves.  many couldn't even reach the voting booth in nick clegg's own constituency on election night such were the queues.  

it is the lib dems have subverted the democratic process here and so long as they are forcing through these measures they deserve anything and everything coming to them.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 13, 2010)

where to said:


> you seem to have missed the bit where hundreds of thousands of students voted and voted for a party who were *knowingly lying* to them about plans to hit them in the pocket for tens of thousands of pounds as soon as they reached government.
> 
> the anti-democrats here are not the students.  the students voted in their droves.  many couldn't even reach the voting booth in nick clegg's own constituency on election night such were the queues.
> 
> it is the lib dems have subverted the democratic process here and so long as they are forcing through these measures they deserve  deserve anything and everything coming to them.


 
Is it a surprise that voters were lied to?


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

where to said:


> you seem to have missed the bit where hundreds of thousands of students voted and voted for a party who were *knowingly lying* to them about plans to hit them in the pocket for tens of thousands of pounds as soon as they reached government.
> 
> the anti-democrats here are not the students.  the students voted in their droves.  many couldn't even reach the voting booth in nick clegg's own constituency on election night such were the queues.
> 
> it is the lib dems have subverted the democratic process here and so long as they are forcing through these measures they deserve  deserve anything and everything coming to them.


 
I have nothing against protesting- but protests need to stay within the law.

I hope anyone who has broken it gets clobbered - Im sure they will next week.


----------



## where to (Nov 13, 2010)

jer said:


> Is it a surprise that voters were lied to?


 
what's your point?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

pk said:


> So you'll be sticking up for the bloke seen trying to drop it on your pals then?


I will be properly assessing the evidence as I always do. 

As opposed to following your "Guide to Investigation":  

1. Decide whether you like the suspect or not.  
2a. If you do, ignore even the most compelling evidence and refuse to accept that they could even be the teeniest, weeniest bit guilty of anything, ever.  
2b. If you do not, gather, exaggerate and misrepresent anything you can possibly find to "prove" they are guilty of the most heinous crimes possible.  Ignore, or undermine as lies, any evidence, witness or account which suggests otherwise.  Ignore any rule of law which suggests they may have had any lawful justification for anything they have done.  
3. Er ...  
4. .... well that's it really!


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 13, 2010)

where to said:


> what's your point?


 
I asked you if it came as a surprise that voters were lied to.


----------



## treelover (Nov 13, 2010)

'





> I had very early morning news on the tv, and when the story of students having to pay massive fees was first leaked, they had this Tory spokesperson on, I wish I had taken more notice of his name.As the interview unfolded, he became more and more pompous, and the interviewer asked him, that if these plans were to go ahead, what would happen to all the gifted clever children from working class families who wanted to go to university, and do you know what the awful git said ?....
> 
> 'Well, they will fill all the manual jobs in industry, while those who can pay for an education will make use of it in top jobs, helping to run the country'






someone posted this on another forum, if its true its horrendous and is a clear case of tory thinking on the working class and harks back to the 19th C.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I have nothing against protesting- but protests need to stay within the law.
> 
> I hope anyone who has broken it gets clobbered - Im sure they will next week.


 
Staying within their laws means losing, always.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 13, 2010)

treelover said:


> '
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If it is true, it certainly is horrendous


----------



## treelover (Nov 13, 2010)

Well another Tory MP compared the housing benefit cap in London to the Highland Clearances and he wasn't being critical, what on earth is going on, they have no mandate for all this.


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

I very much doubt that was said - it would have been all over the news


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 13, 2010)

it isn't news though, it is naked toryism. Quite old school ranks and places thinking.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 13, 2010)

When we start the revolution all they'd probably do is snitch.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> the media hunt isn't over the top.


I would argue that it very much _is_.  

I have described their approach as schizophrenic and I believe that it is - after G20 they all went into "Ooooh!  Bad police!  Stop being all nasty to the nice protestors!" mode, slagging off the use of containment tactics _way_ more than could be justified.  No they have gone into "Ooooh!  Bad police!  How did you let all those nasty protestors write nasty things on that nice Mr Cameron's wallpaper!" mode, slagging off the police's failure to use, er, containment tactics to prevent the protestors getting anywhere near Millbank.

What I would characterise as appropriate media coverage of what happened this week would look something like this:

1. Big demonstration.  _Lots_ of support - way more than anyone (NUS or police) expected.  BIG message to government.  (Accompanied by lots of piling on of the pressure in interviews with politicians, preventing them dodging the question by trying to focus on some broken windows)
2. General acknowledgment that the police had policed the demonstration in an approprate manner, facilitating lawful protest, tolerating minor infringements of the law (burning placards, pushing and shoving, being stationary for a while obstructing streets and causing disruption, offensive slogans on placards, etc.) where appropriate.
3. Acknowledgement of the fact that the police had NOT over-reacted when things had started getting violent (even when they got excessively violent) and encouraging this style of restrained policing of protest as compared to the more robust, interventionist, "get-in-first" tactics of G20 and other demonstrations (even going so far as to discuss the concept of the police being expected to take some minor casualties in the interests of free speech and, whilst sympathising with the individual injured officers, supporting the idea that those minor injuries are caused in the interests of a greater good (and acknowledging that they are the equivalent of the possibly non-violent person caught at the front of the crowd when the police mount a baton charge receiving injuries that cannot be justified on an _individual_ basis (i.e. it is the _crowd_ against which force is being used but it is an _individual_ who actually gets the cuts and bruises.
4. Questioning the police tactics in relation to Millbank - Did they gather all the information available to them prior to the demonstration?  Did they analyse it properly?  Did they properly assess the risk to 30 Millbank?  Did they warn the occupiers and did the occupiers put on appropriate additional security, etc?  Were sufficient police (deployed and in immediate reserve) assigned to Millbank?  Was a decision made soon enough to call up additional reserves to protect the building from invasion?  Why did those reserves not get there in time to prevent it? - though not assuming from the outset that any fuck-ups had been made - it may just have been an inevitable consequence of unexpected things sometimes happening in less strictly policed demonstration situations.
5. Identifying the few _specific_ serious offences (such as the throwing of the fire extinguisher, the theft of property (including a Poppy Appeal collection tin I understand ... ) and the absolute trashing of the reception area (beyond the causing of a little damage to gain access and the writing of grafitti)) and supporting the idea that they should be reactively investigated as far as possible and that those responsible, if identified, should answer to the Courts for their actions (not least because they have set back the cause of peaceful protest and direct action by encouraging the police to move back to more robust and interventionist tactics).


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

jer said:


> Is it a surprise that voters were lied to?


 
You can't have it both ways, jer. On the one hand you're saying that they should make their feelings known by voting and yet when it's pointed out to you that they did you just do the internet version of shrugging.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> In all the videos I've seen the poeple sitting behind reception just look bemused.


That was in the initial stages, when there was little, if any, window smashing going on - if you look at the pictures you'll see that a few protestors got in initially (through the door, and then through one broken window) but that then other windows were broken _from the inside_ as well as from the outside.  

It all got an _awful_ lot worse later and anyone working in the reception area (and offices up on about the fourth floor (where windows were also smashed from the inside, fortunately not causing large panes of glass to fall onto the people below, I suspect more by luck than judgement) _would_ have been absolutely terrified!


----------



## treelover (Nov 13, 2010)

The independent well shot films are coming in now and they are showing the sheer scale of the protest with massive crowds at Millbank and it is clear the majority are not part of any organised group, etc


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> aw c'mon - what's wrong with breaking a few windows?


 
there are, after all, a number of occasions on which people are actively encouraged to break windows.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2010)

treelover said:


> The independent well shot films are coming in now and they are showing the sheer scale of the protest with massive crowds at Millbank and it is clear the majority are not part of any organised group, etc


 
which we already know.


----------



## treelover (Nov 13, 2010)

> the theft of property (including a Poppy Appeal collection tin I understand ...



who did that, what a prick


----------



## where to (Nov 13, 2010)

jer said:


> If it is true, it certainly is horrendous


 
but lets just take it on the chin, right?



jer said:


> I asked you if it came as a surprise that voters were lied to.


 
can you think of an example when evidence has come out that a party of government had planned two months before an election to ditch key promises *immediately* upon reaching government.  i honestly can't.  be it incompetence or otherwise, i can't remember that sort of evidence ever being unearthed before.

this isn't spin, or masking long term intentions, its bare-faced, cynical, lying to a degree that shouldn't be surprising, it should be shocking.  and it along justifies anything and everything now coming to the scumbags.

you can't hide behind "democracy" in this context.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

Fuck the Poppy Appeal, fuck the brits.


----------



## treelover (Nov 13, 2010)

yawn...


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

chilango said:


> No. Smashing windows isn't violent.


It most certainly can be ... not least if someone is behind them.

Just because breaking something is criminal damage at its most basic in terms of criminal offences, it does not mean that it cannot be _part_ of some other more serious crime.  At the time the windows were being broken to gain access it would probably amount to burglary (entry with intent to cause damage or steal), certainly amounted to affray (using or threatening violence causing another to fear for their personal safety), violent disorder (three or more using or threatening violence causing another to fear for their personal safety) or riot (twelve or more, ditto, but for a common purpose).  In view of the size of the plate glass it _may_ amount to an attempted assault if people were known to be close enough to be at risk from the broken pieces falling, etc.

Personally I would use the disorder as the measure of what was and was not acceptable as part of "non-violent" protest.  Whilst they were outside, burning placards, throwing the odd thing, writing grafitti, chanting, breaking the odd window, doing a bit of pushing and shoving with the police, even occupying the building without using force (just by weight of numbers swarming in through doors and not doing anything significant once inside, just causing disruption) that is acceptable.  When they started to smash their way in and the smash the place up to a significant degree, that is not.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 13, 2010)

treelover said:


> The independent well shot films are coming in now and they are showing the sheer scale of the protest with massive crowds at Millbank and it is clear the majority are not part of any organised group, etc


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> That was in the initial stages, when there was little, if any, window smashing going on - if you look at the pictures you'll see that a few protestors got in initially (through the door, and then through one broken window) but that then other windows were broken _from the inside_ as well as from the outside.
> 
> It all got an _awful_ lot worse later and anyone working in the reception area (and offices up on about the fourth floor (where windows were also smashed from the inside, fortunately not causing large panes of glass to fall onto the people below, I suspect more by luck than judgement) _would_ have been absolutely terrified!


 
The pains of glass were nowhere near reception. The video clip I watched was of the windows being smashed from the inside. The reception staff were just sitting watching. I was watching it with other students and we all commented on how calm the staff seemed.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> it only matters if people get hurt.


Do you include being terrified for their own safety in that?  Do you acknowledge psycholgical hurt?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

jer said:


> Students haven't got a vote now?


Many of the ones there certainly didn't have ... being as they were from schools and FE colleges and many would therefore be under 18 ...

(ETA: As I see now has already been noted)


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> I watched footage of the Poll Tax Riots the other day and the police didn't give a flying fuck if anyone got hurt. Driving transit vans at 30 - 40mph straight into a crowd of people, trampling them with horses, raining baton blows on anyone who got 'in their way'......


You failed to mention the violence by "protestors" who didn't give a flying fuck if anyone got hurt, throwing scaffolding poles through police car windows, etc which _caused_ the police to react in the way you described ...


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Do you include being terrified for their own safety in that?  Do you acknowledge psycholgical hurt?


 
Are there any pictures or videos of these people being 'terrified' or are you making assumptions?


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You failed to mention the violence by "protestors" who didn't give a flying fuck if anyone got hurt, throwing scaffolding poles through police car windows, etc which _caused_ the police to react in the way you described ...


 
Tit for tat is ok then? It's ok for police to dish out violence indiscriminately if they see themselves as 'provoked'?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> life's too short to go back over your bilious and turgid posts


Absolute fucking classic!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 13, 2010)

Peaceful protests can be effective. But violent protests are generally more effective. Collective bargaining by riot works, just don't be the poor bastard who gets caught because the authorities _will_ try to make an example of you.


----------



## treelover (Nov 13, 2010)

'You failed to mention the violence by "protestors" who didn't give a flying fuck if anyone got hurt, throwing scaffolding poles through police car windows, etc which caused the police to react in the way you described ...' 


Apparently one of them is a Barrister now!


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

If the pigs insist on being the defenders of those who wage relentless class war on the working class then they should expect to be hated and face violence.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

treelover said:


> who did that, what a prick


When I was down there on Thursday there was a Poppy Appeal box trampled to pieces on the forecourt area and poppies scattered around trampled underfoot too.  The security staff said that it had been on the reception desk, along with a collection box and that like everything else in erception it had been thrown out through the broken windows and either stolen or destroyed.  They said the collection box hadn't been seen since (though someone else could have taken it for safe keeping and he wouldn't have been aware I guess).


----------



## treelover (Nov 13, 2010)

are you Dave Spart?


----------



## where to (Nov 13, 2010)

great video here:
http://london.indymedia.org.uk/videos/6010

the cops left to defend the tories in there must be raging, really isolated.  i also think they made a defence holding the line outside the huge half smashed window pane, that was very dangerous for all.


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> That was in the initial stages, when there was little, if any, window smashing going on - if you look at the pictures you'll see that a few protestors got in initially (through the door, and then through one broken window) but that then other windows were broken _from the inside_ as well as from the outside.
> 
> It all got an _awful_ lot worse later and anyone working in the reception area (and offices up on about the fourth floor (where windows were also smashed from the inside, fortunately not causing large panes of glass to fall onto the people below, I suspect more by luck than judgement) _would_ have been absolutely terrified!


 
There were plenty where I was working who would have loved the chance to confront the teeny boppers


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You failed to mention the violence by "protestors" who didn't give a flying fuck if anyone got hurt, throwing scaffolding poles through police car windows, etc which _caused_ the police to react in the way you described ...


 
perhaps you should leave your orgreave clock at home and watch the poll tax footage chronologically instead of shifting it about to suit your own inclinations.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> If the pigs insist on being the defenders of those who wage relentless class war on the working class then they should expect to be hated and face violence.


 
i'm not sure that 'defenders' is quite the word you're looking for


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> If the pigs insist on being the defenders of those who wage relentless class war on the working class then they should expect to be hated and face violence.


 
it's wolfie!!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> There were plenty where I was working who would have loved the chance to confront the teeny boppers


 
You are a fucking moron, aren't you?


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Fuck the Poppy Appeal, fuck the brits.


 
you really are quite stupid; Ive asked you before - are you 16 yet?


----------



## treelover (Nov 13, 2010)

its well known and identified in many studies that when in crowds people do things that in other circumstances they would be horrified about carrying out.


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You are a fucking moron, aren't you?


 
would have made great youtube material - if you cause trouble expect retaliation in certain instances.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 13, 2010)

Why the hell would you retaliate?


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> When I was down there on Thursday there was a Poppy Appeal box trampled to pieces on the forecourt area and poppies scattered around trampled underfoot too.  The security staff said that it had been on the reception desk, along with a collection box and that like everything else in erception it had been thrown out through the broken windows and either stolen or destroyed.  They said the collection box hadn't been seen since (though someone else could have taken it for safe keeping and he wouldn't have been aware I guess).


 
Oh ffs


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> would have made great youtube material - if you cause trouble expect retaliation in certain instances.


 
but not in others then


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why the hell would you retaliate?


 
because he's gunneradt.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> you really are quite stupid; Ive asked you before - are you 16 yet?


 
no just someone with a bit of wit and no interest in celebrating, glorifying or in anyway making heroes of murderers who drape themselves in the butcher's apron.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> The pains of glass were nowhere near reception.


Absolute complete and utter bollocks.

I suggest that you actually find out what you are fucking talking about before you gob off.

The panes of glass WERE the fucking reception area - it was walled with plate glass on three sides.

Here's a picture to help you:  see the desk?  That was the reception desk and that is where it was.  There was glass between the pillars in front of, behind and at the far side of it.  







Why do you have to fucking lie?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> Are there any pictures or videos of these people being 'terrified' or are you making assumptions?


Of course there are pictures and fucking videos you moron.

Many were shown LIVE on fucking TV.  They were all over the TV and papers the following day.  Many of them are even linked to on this fucking thread.  Jesus fucking Christ, your prejudices really _do_ blind you to _everything_ don't they.  Tosser.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Absolute complete and utter bollocks.
> 
> I suggest that you actually find out what you are fucking talking about before you gob off.
> 
> ...


 
And we're off.

You are quite emotionally unstable, aren't you?

The footage I saw had people sitting behind a long desk and the windows being smashed were at least 10 - 15 feet away.

Now, can you come up with those photos of 'terrified' staff?


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Of course there are pictures and fucking videos you moron.
> 
> Many were shown LIVE on fucking TV.  They were all over the TV and papers the following day.  Many of them are even linked to on this fucking thread.  Jesus fucking Christ, your prejudices really _do_ blind you to _everything_ don't they.  Tosser.


 
So, if there's so much evidence you shouldn't have any trouble linking to it


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> And we're off.


 that little race has been going on for quite some time


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> Tit for tat is ok then? It's ok for police to dish out violence indiscriminately if they see themselves as 'provoked'?


It wasn't "tit for tat", it was self-defence and/or attemtping to escape a violent attack.  So someone tries to kill you and you believe they should just stay there or, if you really must drive away, you musyt make sure that you don't exceed the fucking speed limit.  You really are a joke.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So someone tries to kill you and you believe they should just stay there or, if you really must drive away, you musyt make sure that you don't exceed the fucking speed limit.  You really are a joke.


 
If someone tried to kill me does that justify driving a van at speed into a group of unrelated people?


----------



## where to (Nov 13, 2010)

Paul O'Grady on free education and using a fire extinguisher as a battering ram:


lol


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> that little race has been going on for quite some time


 
It's quite sudden isn't it? Chat chat chat then sudenly YOUFUCKINGWANKERMORONTOSSPOTCUNT.

It's quite fascinating.


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why the hell would you retaliate?


 
If you'd broken into any city office after lunch you'd probably end up needing hospital treatment


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

where to said:


> Paul O'Grady on free education and using a fire extinguisher as a battering ram:
> 
> 
> lol



 I saw that last night. Bloody good on him. There's all these lily livered tv twats going 'oh no we can't condone violence blah blah blah' and the Paul O Grady just comes out with it


----------



## treelover (Nov 13, 2010)

Paul O' Grady on prime time TV has supported the students, pretty amazing really...


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

If any "staff" were terrified I think they need to get their heads examined, they were never ever in any way under threat and I'm pretty certain that the vast majority found it a nice break from the boring routine of lowly paid office work, getting out early was a nice brucey bonus too no doubt.

All this moralising about terrified receptionists and poor broken windows is just chaff, the violence of these cuts and generalised attack on the working class by the tories is the issue and a few broken windows and injured cops is nothing in comparison and I'm afraid if we are to effectively resist these cuts it'll involve quite a bit more.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> If you'd broken into any city office after lunch you'd probably end up needing hospital treatment


 
Nah. They're all pissed and full of fois gras


----------



## treelover (Nov 13, 2010)

bingo!

the guy from Birkenhead done good...


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

where to said:


> i also think they made a defence holding the line outside the huge half smashed window pane, that was very dangerous for all.


Classic no win situation - you can see them recognising the danger from falling glass (I, like many cops have (literally) seen arms and legs amputated by falling plate glass but it seems that fortunately this had been "filmed", probably as an anti-blast precaution) by putting a line both inside and outside it to keep protestors away _as much for their own safety as anything else_.  Unfortunately the protestors failed to recognise that danger and insisted on surging through it, pushing the outside line back through it first.  (whilst, no doubt, the receptionist was merrily sorting out her e-mails a couple of yards away, according to madzone ... )


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> If you'd broken into any city office after lunch you'd probably end up needing hospital treatment


 
All you rah rah boys out to teach the filthy proles a lesson.

Don't worry youse cunts already stand on the neck of the working class everyday.


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> no just someone with a bit of wit and no interest in celebrating, glorifying or in anyway making heroes of murderers who drape themselves in the butcher's apron.


 
i see wit equals having no respect for those who have died in conflict - actually you're over 16 because all schoolchildren have huge respect for armistice day and every school, office and place of work held two mins silence.


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> All you rah rah boys out to teach the filthy proles a lesson.
> 
> Don't worry youse cunts already stand on the neck of the working class everyday.


 
nonsense - we're talking about little boys and girls on this demo who got out of their depth

and what is a 'youse'?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

treelover said:


> its well known and identified in many studies that when in crowds people do things that in other circumstances they would be horrified about carrying out.


It is indeed - there is a whole world of crowd dynamics too, as well as the group psychology stuff.  (And bearing in mind that police officers are human beings too, this should all always be borne in mind when it comes to individual officers actions in mass disorder situations ...)


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> Nah. They're all pissed and full of fois gras


 
only on a good day!!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> C(whilst, no doubt, the receptionist was merrily sorting out her e-mails a couple of yards away, according to madzone ... )


 
Get some perspective on this. They were student protesters, and I very much doubt anyone had cause to fear for their lives. If they were a little shaken up, well, that might show them that working for the Conservative party has consequences - the angry victims of your vicious policies might come looking for you. Tough.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Classic no win situation - you can see them recognising the danger from falling glass (I, like many cops have (literally) seen arms and legs amputated by falling plate glass but it seems that fortunately this had been "filmed", probably as an anti-blast precaution) by putting a line both inside and outside it to keep protestors away _as much for their own safety as anything else_.  Unfortunately the protestors failed to recognise that danger and insisted on surging through it, pushing the outside line back through it first.  (whilst, no doubt, the receptionist was merrily sorting out her e-mails a couple of yards away, according to madzone ... )



Still no pics of terrified staff?


----------



## where to (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Unfortunately the protestors failed to recognise that danger and insisted on surging through it, pushing the outside line back through it first.  (whilst, no doubt, the receptionist was merrily sorting out her e-mails a couple of yards away, according to madzone ... )


 
its the fact that the protesters were so clearly intent of pushing through (remember some at the back pushing wouldn't be aware of the glass situation).  given that context i think the police should have moved aside.  having an extended push and shove over 30 mins in that area wasn't a good idea, but that's just hindsight to be fair.

the receptionists would have vacated the area a good 30-60 mins before this from what i can tell.  as has been observed the first group simply walked straight into the foyer and the clips show the staff were unperturbed.  after the thousands outside started to try and get in some time later (and yes there was a signnificant gap) and the riot cops entered, then the reception staff would surely have left the area by then on instruction of management, police and common sense.  

the reception workers basically got a free half day.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> The footage I saw had people sitting behind a long desk and the windows being smashed were at least 10 - 15 feet away.


Oh that's OK then.  Cos obviously the footage you saw couldn't _possibly_ have been followed by anything else, could it.

I supposed we should at least be grateful that you saw that and not some estate agents promotional video showing us the newly refurbished reception area or you'd be demanding footage showing that there had actually been some windows broken because "the footage I saw had all the windows nice and shiny and new, not a broken one in sight" ... moron.

Oh so the 20ft square plate glass windows being kicked in by a chanting mob of thousands of protestors, being held back by an handful of police officers, so worried for their own safety that they have drawn batons were "at least 10-15 feet away" were they?  Well I never.  Fancy that receptionist being terrified!  What is the world coming too!  Some people eh?

I'm not "emotionally unstable" - I just hate prjudiced liars.  And you are one of the worst.

I suggest you just fuck off and stop making a total and complete cunt of yourself.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Oh that's OK then.  Cos obviously the footage you saw couldn't _possibly_ have been followed by anything else, could it.
> 
> I supposed we should at least be grateful that you saw that and not some estate agents promotional video showing us the newly refurbished reception area or you'd be demanding footage showing that there had actually been some windows broken because "the footage I saw had all the windows nice and shiny and new, not a broken one in sight" ... moron.
> 
> ...


 
Such a crosspatch


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> It's quite sudden isn't it?


Yeah, there's a pattern if you look carefully.

Everything's fine whilst normal people are engaged.

Then lying fuckwits like you turn up and wade in ....

Now I wonder what could be the common factor ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 13, 2010)

You're the common factor, d-b. Always.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yeah, there's a pattern if you look carefully.
> 
> Everything's fine whilst normal people are engaged.
> 
> ...


 
Pictures/video of terrified staff please 

There's plenty footage of the windows being smashed so it shouldn't be hard to find one with a cowering Miss Moneypenny in one of them.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> If any "staff" were terrified I think they need to get their heads examined, they were never ever in any way under threat and I'm pretty certain that the vast majority found it a nice break from the boring routine of lowly paid office work, getting out early was a nice brucey bonus too no doubt.


But you're just as stupid as the other idiot ... No normal person would even attempt to make this argument.


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> Pictures/video of terrified staff please
> 
> There's plenty footage of the windows being smashed so it shouldn't be hard to find one with a cowering Miss Moneypenny in one of them.


 
who cares whether there's footage of terrified staff.  Try being even remotely confrontational towards LU staff (if they can understand you) and see what happens.  No-one should have to put uop with that at work - they should throw the book at this lot once theyve identified them including piling damage costs at them.  Lets see if their parents like it once they have to foot the bill.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If they were a little shaken up, well, that might show them that working for the Conservative party has consequences - the angry victims of your vicious policies might come looking for you.


Get your facts right.  30 Millbank is a bulding in multiple occupation.  The reception staff on the ground floor were not "working for the Conservative party".  The vast majority of people in the building were not "working for the Conservative party".  The reception staff at the Millbank Tower (which was also attacked by mistake) were definitely not "working for the Conservative party".

In fact, seeing as the _actual_ offices of the Conservative party don't appear to have been specifically found and attacked at all, hardly _anyone_ involved would appear to have been "working for the Conservative party" ...


----------



## where to (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Oh so the 20ft square plate glass windows being kicked in by a chanting mob of thousands of protestors, being held back by an handful of police officers, so worried for their own safety that they have drawn batons were "at least 10-15 feet away" were they?  Well I never.  Fancy that receptionist being terrified!


 
the Officers should blame chain of command for insisting they were kept in situ achieving fuck all.  the video posted above shows that when they lost that fight to defend the window access they then went to defend the lift/ stairs and access upstairs.  they should of done that in the first place and nobody would of been at risk of a "Ghost" (the film) style slaying by glass.  but no they were ordered to hold a stupid fucking line putting everyone in danger because their seniors couldn't see what was happening on the ground and didn't trust their judgement.

you're not seriously saying the reception staff were still at their desks during all this are you?  you've basically accepted in your earlier post that they weren't when you joked about them carrying on with their emails.  of course they weren't.  they were probably half way home by then listening to the Killers on their ipods texting their pals for an unexpected opportunity to go for a coffee whilst updating their facebook pages on what an exciting afternoon they'd had.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> Still no pics of terrified staff?


I have absolutely no intention at all of wasting my time finding pictures that you can easily find yourself and which, in any event, any _normal_ person would not need in order to conclude that whoever was sitting at the recetion desk shown in the photo I have already bothered to find for you would, clearly, have at some point been terrified and have left.  (Otherwise they'd still be sitting there now).

Now fuck off.

I have no intention of ever engaging with you again.  You are an idiot.


----------



## where to (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> hardly _anyone_ involved would appear to have been "working for the Conservative party" ...


 
yup and there's an interesting correlation between the numbers of Tory party staff on the scene and the numbers of general staff who have reported being scared or attacked in the papers:  zero of either.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I have absolutely no intention at all of wasting my time finding pictures that you can easily find yourself and which, in any event, any _normal_ person would not need in order to conclude that whoever was sitting at the recetion desk shown in the photo I have already bothered to find for you would, clearly, have at some point been terrified and have left.  (Otherwise they'd still be sitting there now).
> 
> Now fuck off.
> 
> I have no intention of ever engaging with you again.  You are an idiot.


 
So, you basically can't provide any evidence to back up your assumptions. Thought not


----------



## where to (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> whoever was sitting at the recetion desk shown in the photo I have already bothered to find for you would, clearly, have at some point been terrified and have left.  (Otherwise they'd still be sitting there now).


 
not really.  they'd have been told to leave by management/ police or mere common sense/ opportunism at getting a half day.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> In fact, seeing as the _actual_ offices of the Conservative party don't appear to have been specifically found and attacked at all, hardly _anyone_ involved would appear to have been "working for the Conservative party" ...


 
They reached the reception of the tory party offices.

Just noticed this as well:



> Essex University student *Leila Khaled*, 22, was among those held in the police cordon. She said demonstrators, who were not there to cause trouble, were left "freezing" and "desperate" as they waited to be let out.


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 13, 2010)

broken windows..  a poppy tin...  terrified staff...  attempted murder by fire extinguisher.

no doubt the full wrath of the law will be brought against anyone they can pin anything on.

yet ian tomlinson's killer escaped the courts.


----------



## dylans (Nov 13, 2010)

The following facebook group sends all wall posts automatically to the telegraph. Join and help fill their inbox with spam. http://www.facebook.com/spamthetelegraph


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

where to said:


> the receptionists would have vacated the area a good 30-60 mins before this from what i can tell.  as has been observed the first group simply walked straight into the foyer and the clips show the staff were unperturbed.  after the thousands outside started to try and get in some time later (and yes there was a signnificant gap) and the riot cops entered, then the reception staff would surely have left the area by then on instruction of management, police and common sense.


 


where to said:


> you're not seriously saying the reception staff were still at their desks during all this are you?



No.  Of course I'm not saying they were still there during all of that.  I am saying that having been there happily doing their e-mails and _not_ being scared for their safety initially (in the footage which madzone (never has a user-name been so appropriate ... though I think the "zone" bit could be improved ...) appears to believe shows the _entire_ incident), things changed at some point and they (and everyone else) became seriously worried about their safety and so they, er, left.  

It is fuckwitted to suggest that they would not have been at all shaken up by that experience, having to leave their place of work because a mob was smashing their way in intent on who knows what (bear in mind that a flare had earlier set off the building fire alarm and with the first having been set outside in the courtyard the threat of the building being burned would have been in some people's minds) and with the police patently unable to prevent them (by sheer force of numbers if nothing else).  I would suggest that at the time the left their post they would, quite understandably, have been terrified for their safety.  _Any_ normal person, especially anyone who has been in anything like that situation, would agree with me.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 13, 2010)

Thirty fucking years since the last shit and look how far we've come.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> The following facebook group sends all wall posts automatically to the telegraph. Join and help fill their inbox with spam. http://www.facebook.com/spamthetelegraph


 
Interesting profile picture of a receptionist's chair being thrown through the window. She's clearly so terrified she's gone _invisible_.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're the common factor, d-b. Always.


Er ... seing as you are focusing on _me_ throwing fucks into people I think that is pretty inevitable ... 

I am suggesting that if you look you will see that I don't do it at random but that there is another common factor as well.  It's posters acting like fuckwits (as madzone is here).  And it's the _same_ small group of posters.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  Of course I'm not saying they were still there during all of that.  I am saying that having been there happily doing their e-mails and _not_ being scared for their safety initially (in the footage which madzone (never has a user-name been so appropriate ... though I think the "zone" bit could be improved ...) appears to believe shows the _entire_ incident), things changed at some point and they (and everyone else) became seriously worried about their safety and so they, er, left.
> 
> It is fuckwitted to suggest that they would not have been at all shaken up by that experience, having to leave their place of work because a mob was smashing their way in intent on who knows what (bear in mind that a flare had earlier set off the building fire alarm and with the first having been set outside in the courtyard the threat of the building being burned would have been in some people's minds) and with the police patently unable to prevent them (by sheer force of numbers if nothing else).  I would suggest that at the time the left their post they would, quite understandably, have been terrified for their safety.  _Any_ normal person, especially anyone who has been in anything like that situation, would agree with me.


 
I've spent the last hour looking at footage from all sources - even the right wing press and there is not one hint in ANY of them of terrified staff. Now, you'd think the people dissing the protestors would be flaunting any footage like that wouldn't you? Wonder why they aren't?


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Er ... seing as you are focusing on _me_ throwing fucks into people I think that is pretty inevitable ...
> 
> I am suggesting that if you look you will see that I don't do it at random but that there is another common factor as well.  It's posters acting like fuckwits (as madzone is here).  And it's the _same_ small group of posters.


 
I'm quite flattered that this has become about me


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> (in the footage which madzone (never has a user-name been so appropriate ... though I think the "zone" bit could be improved ...)


 
perhaps only the z needs leaving out.

(I meant to add a smiley, but don't seem to able from 'edit'.)


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> perhaps only the z needs leaving out.


 


No-one has ever said that before.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> No-one has ever said that before.


 
I like old jokes.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

where to said:


> they should of done that in the first place and nobody would of been at risk of a "Ghost" (the film) style slaying by glass.


Of course they would - the protestors who would have been coming through the window with the large pieces of plate glass poised to fall on them ...

The police had a duty to try and prevent people doing that _for their own safety_.  They tried but were unable to do so.  They did not _add_ to the danger to anyone else in any way - all they did (as police officers often do) was put themselves in danger in the interests if others.



> ... but no they were ordered to hold a stupid fucking line putting everyone in danger because their seniors couldn't see what was happening on the ground and didn't trust their judgement.


I doubt _very_ much that the decision to try and cordon the broken window from _both_ sides (clearly for safety reasons - there would be no other reason to stop people going _out_ through it) would have been made by a senior constable, sergeant or inspector actually there - that level of micromanagement by operation commanders is simply not possible in disorder situations and certainly not, as here, where it is highly unlikley that they had much, if any, detailed live footage of what was happening.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

where to said:


> yup and there's an interesting correlation between the numbers of Tory party staff on the scene and the numbers of general staff who have reported being scared or attacked in the papers:  zero of either.


Just because there is nothing in the papers doesn't mean the accounts do not exist.  Wait until later.  I will have £20 with you (for the server fund) that we eventually get accounts of the people working in reception which clearly demonstrate that they _were_ terrified for their own safety.


----------



## Nylock (Nov 13, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> If you'd broken into any city office after lunch you'd probably end up needing hospital treatment


 
lol 

if you say so


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Just because there is nothing in the papers doesn't mean the accounts do not exist.  Wait until later.  I will have £20 with you (for the server fund) that we eventually get accounts of the people working in reception which clearly demonstrate that they _were_ terrified for their own safety.


 
If there was even a whiff of such an account or angle the papers would have been on it in a flash and using it to attack the protesters.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Of course they would - the protestors who would have been coming through the window with the large pieces of plate glass poised to fall on them ...



Have you actually _looked _at footage? It wasn't bog standard  plate glass. It wasn't going to drop in great chunks onto everyone or decapitate anyone. It was clearly some kind of safety glass. You're talking such bullshit. You dress everything up in jargon but you're thick as the proverbial two short planks really, aren't you?


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Just because there is nothing in the papers doesn't mean the accounts do not exist.  Wait until later.  I will have £20 with you (for the server fund) that we eventually get accounts of the people working in reception which clearly demonstrate that they _were_ terrified for their own safety.


 
No pictures of them actually being terrified while it was all going off though. Funny that.


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Of course they would - the protestors who would have been coming through the window with the large pieces of plate glass poised to fall on them ...
> 
> The police had a duty to try and prevent people doing that _for their own safety_.  They tried but were unable to do so.  They did not _add_ to the danger to anyone else in any way - all they did (as police officers often do) was put themselves in danger in the interests if others.


but no they were ordered to hold a stupid fucking line putting everyone in danger because their seniors couldn't see what was happening on the ground and didn't trust their judgement.[/quote]
I doubt _very_ much that the decision to try and cordon the broken window from _both_ sides (clearly for safety reasons - there would be no other reason to stop people going _out_ through it) would have been made by a senior constable, sergeant or inspector actually there - that level of micromanagement by operation commanders is simply not possible in disorder situations and certainly not, as here, where it is highly unlikley that they had much, if any, detailed live footage of what was happening.[/QUOTE]

Id have let them have glass fall on them


----------



## where to (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> things changed at some point



things changed the moment protesters entered their building.  any normal workplace would stop work at that moment there and then.  nobody was scared though.



detective-boy said:


> and they (and everyone else) became seriously worried about their safety and so they, er, left.



i'll be kind and say these are assumptions.  its probably more accurately described as made up rubbish though.




detective-boy said:


> It is fuckwitted to suggest that they would not have been at all shaken up by that experience, having to leave their place of work because a mob was smashing their way in intent on who knows what (bear in mind that a flare had earlier set off the building fire alarm



er, if the fire alarm had gone off they would DEFINITELY have left the building already then, no?

i'll ignore the bit where you're seem to be saying i'm not a normal person.  i assume you didn't meant that the way it came across.  right?


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Good point re the fire alarm.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 13, 2010)

hmmm.. 56% of the readers of the daily star rag supports the action of the students...


----------



## where to (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Of course they would - the protestors who would have been coming through the window with the large pieces of plate glass poised to fall on them ...



i'm not haranguing them for this as it was obviously a really difficult moment to make decisions , but the effect of them defending the access was to keep a constant human presence right under that glass, and one which was pushing, shoving, extremely dangerous and made it more likely for the glass to fall.  we can agree to disagree though, its all hindsight anyway.  one things for sure, there were no receptionists around during this period.



detective-boy said:


> and certainly not, as here, where it is highly unlikley that they had much, if any, detailed live footage of what was happening.



it was on live tv, no?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

where to said:


> nobody was scared though ... i'll be kind and say these are assumptions.  its probably more accurately described as made up rubbish though.


Why did they leave then?  Why did they _not_ stay where they were?



> er, if the fire alarm had gone off they would DEFINITELY have left the building already then, no?


There were reports of some leaving (by a rear fire exit) and then returning when it was quickly established it was smoke from the flare which had set it off.  This was in the very early stages of the incident I think, when the protestors were still outside and the reception staff were still in reception.



> i'll ignore the bit where you're seem to be saying i'm not a normal person. i assume you didn't meant that the way it came across. right?


No.  I meant that if you are seriously suggesting that the staff working in reception did not become seriously concerned for their safety at some stage (which caused them to leave) then you are not normal.  If the hat fits, wear it.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> Good point re the fire alarm.


No Collective.

No circle jerk.

No tag team.

Not here!  Oh no!


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> Have you actually _looked _at footage? It wasn't bog standard  plate glass. It wasn't going to drop in great chunks onto everyone or decapitate anyone. It was clearly some kind of safety glass. You're talking such bullshit. You dress everything up in jargon but you're thick as the proverbial two short planks really, aren't you?



Exactly. I was there and the window only broke when it was subjected to near constant attack for over 2 hours. It was definitely a laminated safety glass. As for the police being attacked. That's just more poppycock.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

AKA pseudonym said:


> hmmm.. 56% of the readers of the daily star rag supports the action of the students...


 
Most people I've spoken to have an attitude of "fair fucks to them, about time someone kicked off".


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No Collective.
> 
> No circle jerk.
> 
> ...


 
Are you quite well?  I don't think you are. You've been clutching at straws and having great big sparkly hissy fits when all it would have taken is ONE tiny bit of footage or a picture to back up your silly assumption. Just ONE.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

where to said:


> it was on live tv, no?


Bits were ... but not the sort of detailed footage of the surrounding situation as well as any particular trouble spots that would normally be available, and certainly not under the command of the Control Room staff.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Bits were ... but not the sort of detailed footage of the surrounding situation as well as any particular trouble spots that would normally be available, and certainly not under the command of the Control Room staff.


 
What surrounding situation in particular?

You don't think that the press would have creamed themselves to find a photo opportunity of some terrified staff?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

nino_savatte said:


> As for the police being attacked. That's just more poppycock.


Of course it is dear.

Those pictures of the line of officers being pushed back and then through the broken window, holding people back with batons drawn are just imaginary.  And the injured ones probably injured themselves too.  Bastards!


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

Right so the likes of Sky News who reported falling newspapers as concrete being thrown from the roof and little placards as "FLAMING TORCHES!" would not have been dying to find some terrified cowering staff.

What planet do you live on?


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Of course it is dear.
> 
> Those pictures of the line of officers being pushed back and then through the broken window, holding people back with batons drawn are just imaginary.  And the injured ones probably injured themselves too.  Bastards!


 
If you think a bit of pushing and shoving equals attacking the police you need to come to Belfast.

Cops in England obviously don't get put in their place enough, too busy pushing around hippies and smacking people who don't fight back.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Of course it is dear.
> 
> Those pictures of the line of officers being pushed back and then through the broken window, holding people back with batons drawn are just imaginary.  And the injured ones probably injured themselves too.  Bastards!



Were you there? I was. The cops drew their batons for no other reason than to look tough. They weren't being attacked and if they'd had any sense _at all _they wouldn't have been standing in front of a dirty great window, _dear_.


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 13, 2010)

I've seen the video of people walking into the building



it also shows a smoke canister going off, which surely set off the fire alarms.

this article contains the testimony of a worker on the third floor of the tower, who says that the fire alarm went off at 1am and they were all outside.

http://www.publicaffairsnews.com/no...as-rioters-turn-violent-at-millbank-tower/73/

presumably, when the fire alarm went off, reception staff also left and couldn't get back in because the lobby was full of people.

here's a tweet which presumably relates to news reports saying that staff aren't feeling threatened in the tower

http://twitter.com/#!/markberry/status/2387219251732483

and another one which says the bbc are trying to ascertain if staff feel threatened.  and they say they aren't.

http://twitter.com/#!/simonpjbest/status/2387319466233856


----------



## Nylock (Nov 13, 2010)

Guardian said:
			
		

> Danny Alexander, wrote: "On tuition fees we should seek agreement on part-time students and leave the rest. We will have clear *yellow water* with the other [parties] on raising the tuition fee cap, so let us not cause ourselves more headaches."



...only a libdem could write that into a policy document with a straight face...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 13, 2010)

Nylock said:


> ...only a libdem could write that into a policy document with a straight face...


 
I noticed that, can't work out what it's even supposed to mean. Am I being thick here?


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

SpineyNorman said:


> I noticed that, can't work out what it's even supposed to mean. Am I being thick here?


 
I was wondering that too.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No Collective.
> 
> No circle jerk.
> 
> ...



Cant understand negative troublemakers...


----------



## Nylock (Nov 13, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> here's a tweet which presumably relates to news reports saying that staff aren't feeling threatened in the tower
> 
> http://twitter.com/#!/markberry/status/2387219251732483
> 
> ...


 
I was home from work that day and watched it all unfold on BBC news. The presenter who was covering the story had an office worker from millbank on the phone and for the duration of the interview he was desperately trying to get the office worker to admit that they were in fear of the protesters. He failed. 

Although i paraphrase, at one point the interview sort of ran like this:

Presenter: "But surely you are all feeling scared in the office right now?"
Office worker: "Not really, no"
Presenter: "But surely you are all feeling worried for your safety in the office right now?"
Office worker: "No, not really. They have a right to express their views..."
Presenter: "Aren't you all just a little unsettled by everything going on out there?"
Office worker: "Well.... No, it's actually ok in here despite what you are showing at the moment"
Presenter: "Will you not agree with me that you aren't all at least the teensiest bit concerned by proceedings..."
Office worker: "No"

..and so on for about 5 minutes or so 

The subtext of the questioning was quite clear: try and get the worker to admit that there was even a tiny possibility that people in the office may be slightly concerned so their comments would be blown out of all proportion. Fair play to the office worker for not falling for it


----------



## Nylock (Nov 13, 2010)

SpineyNorman said:


> I noticed that, can't work out what it's even supposed to mean. Am I being thick here?


 
I'd imagine it's libdem co-opting of the phrase 'clear blue water'... Although 'clear yellow water' certainly sums up the piss-weak levels of holding the tories to account going on from the leadership of the third party...


----------



## Onket (Nov 13, 2010)

pk said:


> What are you oinking about now? Oink oink!!
> 
> ACAB my arse. If you knew anything you'd know that my contributions here accept the fact that there will always be a need for a police system of some kind. No matter how things turn out, even if the sacred revolution happens, the holy Marxist grain is realised. ACAB is for football hooligans and people who use violence to protect their own and don't require state and law intervening.
> 
> ...


 
Oh dear, oh dear. You really are a pathetic excuse for a man, aren't you.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> What planet do you live on?


Why did the reception staff leave their posts then?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Why did the reception staff leave their posts then?



Good excuse to go for a coffee and a fag, I would have thought.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> If you think a bit of pushing and shoving equals attacking the police you need to come to Belfast.


Where have I talked of what happened as any sort of serious attack on the police?  It is the exact _opposite_ of everything I have said about how serious I consider most of what happened.  I'm not even sure I have used the phrase "attacking the police".  That was (as usual) someone else misrepresenting what I had posted.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Why did the reception staff leave their posts then?


 
There's a massive difference between leaving your post because the building has been entered by protestors and your claim that they were running, screaming, terrified in fear of their lives.

Have you read the posts where people quote reception staff etc who were explicitly saying they didn't feel threatened?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

nino_savatte said:


> The cops drew their batons for no other reason than to look tough.


Of course they did ...

You just can't help lying, can you, even when the truth is there for everyone to see on live TV ... 

No wonder everyone treats you and your mates as a joke.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

someone said the police come under attack was poppycock and you said they were wrong...

that was not the police coming under attack, if they'd have come under attack they'd have been fucked.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Of course they did ...
> 
> You just can't help lying, can you, even when the truth is there for everyone to see on live TV ...
> 
> No wonder everyone treats you and your mates as a joke.


 
If there's so much evidence why can't you point to any of it to back up your silliness?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> this article contains the testimony of a worker on the third floor of the tower, who says that the fire alarm went off at 1am and they were all outside.
> 
> http://www.publicaffairsnews.com/no...as-rioters-turn-violent-at-millbank-tower/73/


You DO know that Millbank Tower _isn't_ the same place as 30 Millbank which is the place that was trashed.  You article helopfully contains the line:  "A stoical Bryant continued: “To be honest, on the third floor of the tower we felt a lot safer than if we had been in 30 Millbank." ...



> here's a tweet which presumably relates to news reports saying that staff aren't feeling threatened in the tower


And that helps establish how the _reception_ staff in a different building felt how exactly ...


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

Nylock said:


> I was home from work that day and watched it all unfold on BBC news. The presenter who was covering the story had an office worker from millbank on the phone and for the duration of the interview he was desperately trying to get the office worker to admit that they were in fear of the protesters. He failed.
> 
> Although i paraphrase, at one point the interview sort of ran like this:
> 
> ...


This "office worker" ... they were working in the reception area at 30 Millbank, yes?  (If not, your point is .... ??? )

I really don't understand why a few idiots are attempting to convince everyone that the reception staff in 30 Millbank would never have felt the slightest bit concerned for their safety at any stage.  It is _patently_ obvious to any normal person that there would have come a time when they were seriously concerned for their safety and so they, er, left ... I seriously do not understand why a few idiots are making this such a big deal.  Why does it fucking matter how scared they were anyway?  It makes no difference to anyone's argument ...


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Of course they did ...
> 
> You just can't help lying, can you, even when the truth is there for everyone to see on live TV ...
> 
> No wonder everyone treats you and your mates as a joke.



Hang on a minute - didn't you say eariler that there wasn't enough live tv coverage of what was going on?  

You're all over the place.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You DO know that Millbank Tower _isn't_ the same place as 30 Millbank which is the place that was trashed.  You article helopfully contains the line:  "A stoical Bryant continued: “To be honest, on the third floor of the tower we felt a lot safer than if we had been in 30 Millbank." ...


 

it's the same complex


----------



## editor (Nov 13, 2010)

where to said:


> Paul O'Grady on free education and using a fire extinguisher as a battering ram:
> 
> 
> lol


Well worth an embed:



He's certainly rising to the challenge of the Tories, Respect!


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> This "office worker" ... they were working in the reception area at 30 Millbank, yes?  (If not, your point is .... ??? )
> 
> I really don't understand why a few idiots are attempting to convince everyone that the reception staff in 30 Millbank would never have felt the slightest bit concerned for their safety at any stage.  It is _patently_ obvious to any normal person that there would have come a time when they were seriously concerned for their safety and so they, er, left ... I seriously do not understand why a few idiots are making this such a big deal.  Why does it fucking matter how scared they were anyway?  It makes no difference to anyone's argument ...


 
I think there's a difference from thinking 'Oooer, might be an idea to get out of here for a bit' and 'OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIEEEEEEEEEE'


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> someone said the police come under attack was poppycock and you said they were wrong...
> 
> that was not the police coming under attack, if they'd have come under attack they'd have been fucked.


So you are saying that no force was used or threatened by any protestor against any police officer at any stage in the whole incident at 30 Millbank?

Because if you are not then the phrase "the police were attacked" is accurate and your denial that there was any attack on the police is shown up as total bollocks.

You're just an idiot like madzone.  It really is a waste of time trying to engage with you as you would with a grown up ...


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> If there's so much evidence why can't you point to any of it to back up your silliness?


Which bit of "Just fuck off.  I have no interest in ever engaging with you again" are you having difficulty with?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So you are saying that no force was used or threatened by any protestor against any police officer at any stage in the whole incident at 30 Millbank?
> 
> Because if you are not then the phrase "the police were attacked" is accurate and your denial that there was any attack on the police is shown up as total bollocks.
> 
> You're just an idiot like madzone.  It really is a waste of time trying to engage with you as you would with a grown up ...



I see you've not posted a picture of any receptionists in fear of their lives. Just replied to a poster and gone on the offensive - and that's a carefully chosen word - in a desperate bid to make the other folk on this thread LOOK OVER THERE!!!!11!!11!


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Which bit of "Just fuck off.  I have no interest in ever engaging with you again" are you having difficulty with?


 
Which bit of 'don't hit reply with quote then' are _you_?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

Orang Utan said:


> it's the same complex


Yes.  It's next door.  It actually had _it's_ reception windows broken too (by some protestors who got the wrong building).

But it might as well be on the moon as far as we are concerned, as we are _only_ talking about the staff in the reception area at 30 Millbank and whether _they_ would have been terrified at any stage ...


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Yes.  It's next door.  It actually had _it's_ reception windows broken too (by some protestors who got the wrong building).
> 
> But it might as well be on the moon as far as we are concerned, as we are _only_ talking about the staff in the reception area at 30 Millbank and whether _they_ would have been terrified at any stage ...


 
Makes no difference to finding the evidence to back up your assumptions does it?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

editor said:


> He's certainly rising to the challenge of the Tories, Respect!


I'm not sure that his closing point about the need for people to engage in _important_ voting (i.e. the election rather than X Factor) will find many fans here though ...


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'm not sure that his closing point about the need for people to engage in _important_ voting (i.e. the election rather than X Factor) will find many fans here though ...


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> I see you've not posted a picture of any receptionists in fear of their lives.


I have not seen any pictures of the receptionists "in fear of their lives".  I have not even seen any pictures of the receptionists being terrified or in fear for their personal safety (which are the phrases I have _actually_ used).  There are hours of footage and thousands of pictures on the web.  I have no intention of wasting my life looking for one to prove what is patently bleeding obvious to any normal person: that there came a point at which the receptionist, initially seen carrying on with her work as the first few students came in and started making the place look untidy but very little else (a situation that madzone, who initially raised the issue of the receptionists, implied continued throughout the whole incident (because that was the only footage she had seen at that point) and thus illustrated that all these claims that it had kicked off in anything like a serious way were bollocks*) decided that she was in danger and that it would best to leave.  I suspect that the various cameramen also visible in the reception area in those early stages also took exactly the same decision and fucked off at about the same time (in fact one BBC News 24 (I think) reporter was heard on air saying "We've got to get out of here now, it's too dangerous" when they cut to him at about the time the windows started going in).

To suggest (as madzone and revol68 are doing) that the receptionist (and other reception staff) were never terrified or concerned for their personal safety is simply ridiculous.  It is patently obvious to any normal person that they would have been.   Now are you normal or do want to join the fuckwits?

(* Post 1567 if you're interested (cos otherwise madzone will simply deny posting it ...) - I simply responded saying it got worse later, she countered with another claim that the reception staff were just watching the windows getting broken from the inside and that they were some distance from the reception desk (she later laughably claimed that it was 10-15ft and that this meant that anyone at the desk couldn't possibly be scared ... ) ... but when I posted a picture demonstrating that she hadn't got a clue what she was talking about she went into total attack d-b mode as usual.  She _really_ should learn not to gob off until she knows what she's gobbing off about and she really does need to do something about her response to being shown to be wrong ... after all, it happens time and time again!)


----------



## Onket (Nov 13, 2010)

Why are people arguing about the receptionist being a bit scared?


----------



## Onket (Nov 13, 2010)

Or not being a bit scared?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket said:


> Why are people arguing about the receptionist being a bit scared?


 
angels and pinheads


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I have not seen any pictures of the receptionists "in fear of their lives".  I have not even seen any pictures of the receptionists being terrified or in fear for their personal safety (which are the phrases I have _actually_ used).  There are hours of footage and thousands of pictures on the web.  I have no intention of wasting my life looking for one to prove what is patently bleeding obvious to any normal person: that there came a point at which the receptionist, initially seen carrying on with her work as the first few students came in and started making the place look untidy but very little else (a situation that madzone, who initially raised the issue of the receptionists, implied continued throughout the whole incident (because that was the only footage she had seen at that point) and thus illustrated that all these claims that it had kicked off in anything like a serious way were bollocks*) decided that she was in danger and that it would best to leave.  I suspect that the various cameramen also visible in the reception area in those early stages also took exactly the same decision and fucked off at about the same time (in fact one BBC News 24 (I think) reporter was heard on air saying "We've got to get out of here now, it's too dangerous" when they cut to him at about the time the windows started going in).
> 
> To suggest (as madzone and revol68 are doing) that the receptionist (and other reception staff) were never terrified or concerned for their personal safety is simply ridiculous.  It is patently obvious to any normal person that they would have been.   Now are you normal or do want to join the fuckwits?
> 
> (* here's the post (cos otherwise madzone will simply deny posting it ...) http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th....10-London?p=11233571&viewfull=1#post11233571)


 
But if there's hours of footage and thousands of pictures a simple google image/video search would easily find one that backs up your 'assumptions'


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket said:


> Or not being a bit scared?


 
Because madzone wrote this: "In all the videos I've seen the poeple sitting behind reception just look bemused. They certainly don't appear to be intimidated. None of them even got up out of their chairs ffs. "


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket said:


> Why are people arguing about the receptionist being a bit scared?


 
Because DB was using it as a reason we should all be cross with the naughty protestors. Now he can't actually produce any evidence he's making out he never wanted to talk about it in the first place


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> But if there's hours of footage and thousands of pictures a simple google image/video search would easily find one that backs up your 'assumptions'


 
Have you found none then?


----------



## Onket (Nov 13, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Because madzone wrote this: "In all the videos I've seen the poeple sitting behind reception just look bemused. They certainly don't appear to be intimidated. None of them even got up out of their chairs ffs. "


 
Well, it's good that we're really discussing the important points here, isn't it.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Because madzone wrote this: "In all the videos I've seen the poeple sitting behind reception just look bemused. They certainly don't appear to be intimidated. None of them even got up out of their chairs ffs. "


 
Just out of the blue like? Or was I responding to gunner's view that it was wrong to intimidate the people working in the building?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket said:


> Well, it's good that we're really discussing the important points here, isn't it.



I think they might have been covered in the one or two other pages of the thread. Now it's just a turkey shoot.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Have you found none then?


 
Nope - all the pictures/video I can find are of the reception area being empty of workers by the time chairs etc were being thrown through the windows.


----------



## Onket (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> Because DB was using it as a reason we should all be cross with the naughty protestors. Now he can't actually produce any evidence he's making out he never wanted to talk about it in the first place


 
If that's the best reason someone can come up with to be against the protestors then, well........


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> Just out of the blue like? Or was I responding to gunner's view that it was wrong to intimidate the people working in the building?


 
So are you convinced none of the receptionists felt intimidated?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

Jusyt for the record, as anyone who has actually been following what I have posted on this thread from the start will know, I have not used the fact that the reception staff were terrified as a reason why "we should all be cross with the naughty protestors" at all  I have not used it for any other reason.  I have not even suggested that we "should be cross with the naughty protestors".  All of that is lies from madzone.  Who simply cannot bring herself to acknowledge that she gobbed off about the situation, based on assumptions made from one piece of footage, and who is pathologically incapable of acknowledging her mistake.

*She* is the one making some big deal out of this, not me.


----------



## Onket (Nov 13, 2010)

Shall we just draw a line under all of this, then?


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> So are you convinced none of the receptionists felt intimidated?


 Read my posts


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Jusyt for the record, as anyone who has actually been following what I have posted on this thread from the start will know, I have not used the fact that the reception staff were terrified as a reason why "we should all be cross with the naughty protestors" at all  I have not used it for any other reason.  I have not even suggested that we "should be cross with the naughty protestors".  All of that is lies from madzone.  Who simply cannot bring herself to acknowledge that she gobbed off about the situation, based on assumptions made from one piece of footage, and who is pathologically incapable of acknowledging her mistake.
> 
> *She* is the one making some big deal out of this, not me.


 
That's how it looked to me.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Jusyt for the record, as anyone who has actually been following what I have posted on this thread from the start will know, I have not used the fact that the reception staff were terrified as a reason why "we should all be cross with the naughty protestors" at all  I have not used it for any other reason.  I have not even suggested that we "should be cross with the naughty protestors".  All of that is lies from madzone.  Who simply cannot bring herself to acknowledge that she gobbed off about the situation, based on assumptions made from one piece of footage, and who is pathologically incapable of acknowledging her mistake.
> 
> *She* is the one making some big deal out of this, not me.



You're _both_ arguing from ignorance.



> Angela Hayward said she was shocked as she came face to face with the protesters in reception.
> 
> "We are unable to get away from the building. The building still smells of the smoke bombs released by the protesters who managed to get in. It's tripping the fire alarm."



That's all I can find so far. Hey ho.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Am I fuck arguing from ignorance


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> Because DB was using it as a reason we should all be cross with the naughty protestors. Now he can't actually produce any evidence he's making out he never wanted to talk about it in the first place


Just for the record again, so that this lying bitch isn't able to succeed in her lying attempts to re-write history, here is one of my earliest posts (#1222):




			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> Personally I don't think there should be a major reactive investigation here - yes there have definitely been some serious criminal offences which merit enquiries to trace principal offenders and put them before the courts (and perhaps some effort to idenitify agitators if any such did exist and stir things up from the initial burning of placards and pushing and shoving (which continued for good thirty or forty minutes at the time I posted on the day) ... but in the big scheme of things not many that are worth that degree of effort.
> 
> Sadly the comments by the Commissioner (especially his saying it was an "embarassment" for the Met) and the schizophrenic media coverage (now slagging the police off for not being robust enough having spent the G20 aftermath slagging them off for being too robust ...) suggest that this will not be the case and there will be a massive investigation.



That has been my view from the start.  It is my view now.  There are other posts which expand on the points I make if you want to go and find them.

madzone is one of the worst liars here and she should be shown up for what she is.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> Am I fuck arguing from ignorance


No.  You're lying.


----------



## Onket (Nov 13, 2010)

Madz, you have claimed that d-b said the opposite of what he actually said, tbf.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Just for the record again, so that this lying bitch isn't able to succeed in her lying attempts to re-write history, here is one of my earliest posts (#1222):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Way to take the moral high ground. Calling Madzone a lying bitch is showing you up for what _you_ are.

From reporter Paul Lewis, 1.51 p.m. on the day itself: 





> Office workers have been evacuated from the building, after a warning message was sounded out inside. They are now sitting on grass opposite.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Just for the record again, so that this lying bitch isn't able to succeed in her lying attempts to re-write history, here is one of my earliest posts (#1222):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You're behaving like we have some long running grudge against each other. I've barely interacted with you in the years I've been here.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 13, 2010)

Madz - D-b does this you'll find.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket said:


> Madz, you have claimed that d-b said the opposite of what he actually said, tbf.


 
Fair enough. I'm bored with him now. He resorts to petty nastiness very quickly. Nasty little person


----------



## Onket (Nov 13, 2010)

We know the office workers left the building at some point, I don't really see why we are dwelling on that point.

Have to agree with d-b here- "Personally I don't think there should be a major reactive investigation".


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 13, 2010)

d_b is the permanent victim who pollutes all the threads he's on with the same routine.

It's boring and disruptive.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

stephj said:


> Madz - D-b does this you'll find.


 
It's bizarre. It's one fo the reasons I don't spend much time in the politics forums. I wonder if he behaves like this in real life


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

.


----------



## Onket (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> Fair enough. I'm bored with him now. He resorts to petty nastiness very quickly. Nasty little person


 
You've wound him up and he's bitten. Well done madz, hope you enjoyed it.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 13, 2010)

Oh yeah, and he calls everyone liars yet cries like a baby when subjected to the same.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Go away, liar.


 
Or what? You going to call me a bitch again?


----------



## Onket (Nov 13, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> d_b is the permanent victim who pollutes all the threads he's on with the same routine.
> 
> It's boring and disruptive.


 
Why do so many people seem intent on winding him up, then? There is no need for it and it make every thread he posts on go the same way.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket said:


> You've wound him up and he's bitten. Well done madz, hope you enjoyed it.


 
Wound him up by stating my opinion? He was the one who launched into the abuse.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket said:


> Why do so many people seem intent on winding him up, then? There is no need for it and it make every thread he posts on go the same way.


 
I didn't wind him up intentionally. I stated my opinion and then he wades in with his own brand of nastiness.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> Wound him up by stating my opinion? He was the one who launched into the abuse.


 
....and for such he should be banned.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket said:


> Have to agree with d-b here- "Personally I don't think there should be a major reactive investigation".


I was talking to someone about Stephenson's comments yesterday - the Met are embarrassed by this and all that - and I sadly think that means that there will be ... 

As I said earlier, yes the fire extinguisher thing merits a proper investigation, and possibly one or two other specific bits of the incident ... but I _really_ hope we don't waste millions on months of investigation and end up with a "rogues gallery" of dozens of pictures of protestors who did little more than join in what was a _crowd_ action.


----------



## Onket (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> I didn't wind him up intentionally.


 
You accidentally claimed he'd said the opposite of what he actually said?!


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You DO know that Millbank Tower _isn't_ the same place as 30 Millbank which is the place that was trashed.  You article helopfully contains the line:  "A stoical Bryant continued: “To be honest, on the third floor of the tower we felt a lot safer than if we had been in 30 Millbank." ...
> 
> 
> And that helps establish how the _reception_ staff in a different building felt how exactly ...



i am aware that the tower next door isn't the actual building.  it does give an idea of how people were feeling though.   and it does state that protesters entered both buildings at the start.

it also indicates that when the fire alarms went off, the staff left and couldn't get back in through the crowds.  i don't know either way whether the fire alarms are linked, so that if one building goes, the other one does, however, there is a smoke canister going off in the reception at the point the students enter the lobby, well before any breaking of windows.

presumably this would set off the fire alarm quite quickly, causing the staff to leave.  if you look at the video when the students are entering, the staff look a bit bemused.  i can't see any evidence of panic or terror though.

i'm suggesting that they sat there, the fire alarm went off and they left through the fire exit and never returned.  is there any evidence to counter this theory?


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket said:


> You accidentally claimed he'd said the opposite of what he actually said?!


 
I believed it to be true. Read the thread Onket. It's all going normally and then he goes off like a fucking rocket. I thinks the professional term is 'emotionally liable'.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 13, 2010)

Claire solomon on the radio vs some tory twat and an aggro presenter


----------



## Onket (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> I believed it to be true. Read the thread Onket. *It's all going normally *and then he goes off like a fucking rocket. I thinks the professional term is 'emotionally liable'.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 13, 2010)

Johann Hari on the cuts:



> It was predictable that the British people would be furious at this betrayal and fight back. A tiny number fought back this week in a despicable way: throwing fire extinguishers off a tall building could kill somebody, and whatever thug did it should go to prison. But most acted eloquently and passionately and peacefully. “Don’t ruin my dreams,” one student’s banner said, summarizing the mood of the crowd.



Well worth a read.

http://johannhari.com/2010/11/12/nick-clegg-has-betrayed-us-all


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Do you include being terrified for their own safety in that?  Do you acknowledge psycholgical hurt?


 


Onket said:


> You accidentally claimed he'd said the opposite of what he actually said?!



See that up there where he's talking about people being terrified for their safety?

He kicked off because he was asked to back up his opinions with some evidence. Nothing more nothing less.


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 13, 2010)

detective boy has merely pointed matters of law and has been talking common sense

I hope all those in short trousers and rah rah skirts get punished appropriately

they should have been nicked, held overnight and made to clear up the mess the following morning wearing orange jumpsuits


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

where to said:


>


As we're back on the powerfulness of some of the placards (well, all of us except obsessed liars who are still misrepresenting what has previously been posted ...), this one mentioned earlier merits repetition.  I think it makes a hugely powerful point (I hope the guy holding it is from somewhere like Hackney College rather than Eton, but the point would remain valid anyway ... ).


----------



## Onket (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> See that up there where he's talking about people being terrified for their safety?


 
No.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Oh yeah, let's be chummy and pretend nothing has happened. No apology for calling me a 'lying bitch' for the crime of disagreeing with you?


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> See that up there where he's talking about people being terrified for their safety?


 
That was in answer to someone who said, "it only matters if people get hurt." You have to include the context, IMO.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket said:


> No.


 
I can't be arsed playing silly buggers Onket.


----------



## Onket (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> Oh yeah, let's be chummy and pretend nothing has happened. No apology for calling me a 'lying bitch' for the crime of disagreeing with you?


 
I thought you were tired of him now?!!!  Make your mind up. And you did actually lie.


----------



## Onket (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> I can't be arsed playing silly buggers Onket.


 
That is EXACTLY what you have been doing, you clown!


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> That was in answer to someone who said, "it only matters if people get hurt." You have to include the context, IMO.


 
The context is in what comes next.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket said:


> I thought you were tired of him now?!!!  Make your mind up. And you did actually lie.


 
I didn't lie. In what way did I lie?


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> The context is in what comes next.


 
It was you who used that quote in your argument. Why not use a later one if it was revelevant?


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> It was you who used that quote in your argument. Why not use a later one if it was revelevant?


 
You and Onket are just trying to fan the flames.

What do _you _think DB was saying?


----------



## Onket (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> I didn't lie. In what way did I lie?



This-



madzone said:


> Because DB was using it as a reason we should all be cross with the naughty protestors.



is not the truth.

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't really care either way if two people want to bicker on the internet, but I do find it amusing that you seem to be so blinkered of your own actions.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 13, 2010)

I certainly can't be arsed to wade back through the absolute drivel that d-b's been posting to prove this, but you are incorrect, Onket. What madz says is fair comment, and as ever d-b has lost it twice on this thread for no reason.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket said:


> This-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
So, if someone posts something that isn't true (although you're wrong about that in this instance - db had ample time to say he wasn't claiming they were terrified) they're lying? 

Can people not be mistaken? If your partner makes a mistake do you call her a lying bitch?


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I certainly can't be arsed to wade back through the absolute drivel that d-b's been posting to prove this, but you are incorrect, Onket. What madz says is fair comment, and as ever d-b has lost it twice on this thread for no reason.


 
There's a post by revol a few pages back where he says he doesn't believe the office staff were terrifed and db asks why they left the building then. Onket's just being a shit stirrer.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It is _patently_ obvious to any normal person that there would have come a time when they were seriously concerned for their safety and so they, er, left ...



.


----------



## Onket (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> So, if someone posts something that isn't true (although you're wrong about that in this instance - db had ample time to say he wasn't claiming they were terrified) they're lying?
> 
> Can people not be mistaken? If your partner makes a mistake do you call her a lying bitch?


 
Are you saying you were mistaken?

LBJ- I'm more than aware d-b flies off the handle, but I'm also more than aware that people do love to have a pop at him because of who is is/was.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket said:


> Are you saying you were mistaken?
> 
> LBJ- I'm more than aware d-b flies off the handle, but I'm also more than aware that people do love to have a pop at him because of who is is/was.


 
Did you miss the bit in brackets?

And if you're suggesting I'd try to wind him up just because he used to be a policeman you're more paranoid than he is.


----------



## Onket (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> Did you miss the bit in brackets?


 
Are you saying that d-b not only doesn't have to state something, he also must specifically state that he isn't stating it?


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket said:


> Are you saying that d-b not only doesn't have to state something, he also must specifically state that he isn't stating it?


 
Nice try. Are you bored by any chance?

He was being challenged repeatedly on his claims by a number of  people and asked to provide evidence to back it up. Would that not have been a good time to explain that's not what he actually meant?


----------



## Onket (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> Nice try. Are you bored by any chance?
> 
> He was being challenged repeatedly on his claims by a number of  people and asked to provide evidence to back it up. Would that not have been a good time to explain that's not what he actually meant?


 
Thanks. Yes.

I didn't think they were 'his claims', I thought that was the whole point of why he called you a liar.

Anyway, now I'm guilty of arguing about things that don't matter on this thread.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

Can DB just fuck off from the thread, he delights in taking it off topic and reducing it to howls of "why is everyone picking on me".

Here's a clue you are a fucking pig and the vast majority on these boards are supportive of the protesters and have no time for you legal pedantry and apologism for the state and their dogs.

I don't get on with Madzone one bit usually but you did clearly imply that the protesters had terrifying the building staff, as she has quoted above.

Before that you sought to conflate giving advice to those face legal action for the protests to giving advice to rapists.

Why don't you clear off to some cop boards, though I'd guess you would probably be hated on them too.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> He was being challenged repeatedly on his claims by a number of  people and asked to provide evidence to back it up. Would that not have been a good time to explain that's not what he actually meant?


 
As often as not it turns out to be the "number of people" who have got the wrong end of the stick, IMO.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket said:


> Thanks. Yes.
> 
> I didn't think they were 'his claims', I thought that was the whole point of why he called you a liar.
> 
> Anyway, now I'm guilty of arguing about things that don't matter on this thread.



So you didn't even check


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> I don't get on with Madzone one bit usually ...


 
Which is why I found his cries of 'circle jerk, collective, blah blah blah...' quite amusing.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> So you didn't even check


 
I read onket's comment quite differently.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket said:


> Thanks. Yes.
> 
> I didn't think they were 'his claims', I thought that was the whole point of why he called you a liar.
> 
> Anyway, now I'm guilty of arguing about things that don't matter on this thread.


 
He clearly did claim that the protesters terrified the staff, did you miss Madzone quoting it?



			
				Detective Boy said:
			
		

> Do you include being terrified for their own safety in that? Do you acknowledge psycholgical hurt?



Or this one?




			
				Detective Pig said:
			
		

> It is patently obvious to any normal person that there would have come a time when they were seriously concerned for their safety and so they, er, left ...




Detective Boy is a straight up liar.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> I read onket's comment quite differently.


 
Are _you _bored?


----------



## Onket (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> So you didn't even check


 
Of course I checked. I can't see that he claimed that we should be cross with the demonstrators because they scared the receptionist.

But, like I said, it's hardly the most important issue that has arisen out of this whole thing (I actually said it doesn't matter).


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> Are _you _bored?


 
No. You are keeping me amused. Thanks.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket said:


> Of course I checked. I can't see that he claimed that we should be cross with the demonstrators because they scared the receptionist.
> 
> But, like I said, it's hardly the most important issue that has arisen out of this whole thing (I actually said it doesn't matter).


 
Do you think it's ok to call someone a lying bitch for disagreeing with you?


----------



## Onket (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> Do you think it's ok to call someone a lying bitch for disagreeing with you?


 
I think he probably called you that because he thought you were lying and quite possibly doesn't like you very much. I think that is really quite obvious and I think you know that.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket is correct.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket any chance of acknowledging my post where I show DB to be a liar?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket said:


> Of course I checked. I can't see that he claimed that we should be cross with the demonstrators because they scared the receptionist.



What, in your opinion, is the underlying tone of this statement?



detective-boy said:


> It is fuckwitted to suggest that they would not have been at all shaken up by that experience, having to leave their place of work because a mob was smashing their way in intent on who knows what (bear in mind that a flare had earlier set off the building fire alarm and with the first having been set outside in the courtyard the threat of the building being burned would have been in some people's minds) and with the police patently unable to prevent them (by sheer force of numbers if nothing else).  I would suggest that at the time the left their post they would, quite understandably, have been terrified for their safety.  _Any_ normal person, especially anyone who has been in anything like that situation, would agree with me.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket said:


> I think he probably called you that because he thought you were lying and quite possibly doesn't like you very much. I think that is really quite obvious and I think you know that.


 
Does that justify calling someone a lying bitch? I have no idea why he would or wouldn't 'like' me. I've never excahnged more thana  dozen words with him before now. If you're so bored have a little read of the thread from about page 40.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> What, in your opinion, is the underlying tone of this statement?


 
IMO, that the receptionists probably felt a little fear, but that is not enough reason alone to condemn the demonstrators.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> What, in your opinion, is the underlying tone of this statement?


 
He actually _says _in that post that he suggests they would be terrified for their safety 

Any chance of an apology Onket?


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> IMO, that the receptionists probably felt a little fear, but that is not enough reason alone to condemn the demonstrators.


 
Have you missed the words 'terrified for their safety'? 

And where is the bit in that post that says about not condemning the protestors?


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> IMO, that the receptionists probably felt a little fear, but that is not enough reason alone to condemn the demonstrators.


 
No it's just one of Pig Boy's increasingly desperate reasons for condemning the protesters.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> Have you missed the words 'terrified for their safety'?
> 
> And where is the bit in that post that says about not condemning the protestors?


 
I read the whole thread, madzone, when I wish to comment on it. I don't mistake a moment of crossfire for being the whole war.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> He actually _says _in that post that he suggests they would be terrified for their safety



Aye, but I was referring to DB's insinuating the mob deserved nothing but condemnation. After all, they could have done "who knows what".


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Pig Boy


 
Why are you allowed to do this?


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Aye, but I was referring to DB's insinuating the mob deserved nothing but condemnation. After all, they could have done "who knows what".


 
It matters not. He actually used the words that I've been accused of being a 'lying bitch' about.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

Anyway here's a statement for the Solidarity Federation on the claims that they and a handful of other "hardcore anarchists" and "protest junkies".




			
				SolFed said:
			
		

> It is absurd and grossly patronising to attempt to pin the day’s hugely unpredictable events on the heads of an apparent “hardcore of troublemakers” or “protest junkies,” in articles that sit alongside footage of student participants confirming that this was their first ever demonstration. Even if we were inclined to manipulate and control crowds, the chances of us successfully doing so as a small minority in the midst of irate thousands are surely minimal.  What must really terrify the politicians is to see how red and black flags and masks were hugely outnumbered by the hyped-up faces of students rejecting cuts to their education - cuts which now bear the fingerprints of all three major political parties.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> It matters not. He actually used the words that I've been accused of being a 'lying bitch' about.



Doesn't matter anyway. He's long gone.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Why are you allowed to do this?


 
Pig is just shorthand for cop and a detective is simply a sub category of cop, I'm just saving myself typing the full name.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Pig is just shorthand for cop and a detective is simply a sub category of cop, I'm just saving myself typing the full name.


 
A nooby might have fallen for this.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Doesn't matter anyway. He's long gone.


 
For now. He'll be back to do the same thing all over the forums all over again.

And again.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Pig is just shorthand for cop and a detective is simply a sub category of cop, I'm just saving myself typing the full name.


 
ROFL


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> A nooby might have fallen for this.


 
Do you actually want to debate the issue or are you just stirring?


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

also if someone got banned on Urban for calling a cop a pig it would be so tragic as to be funny.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> also if someone got banned on Urban for calling a cop a pig it would be so tragic as to be funny.


 
You hate them to a sad extent.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> also if someone got banned on Urban for calling a cop a pig it would be so tragic as to be funny.



Or a cunt, or a bitch. Etc.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Or a cunt, or a bitch. Etc.


 
I'd rather be called a cunt than a bitch. There's something extra nasty about the word bitch.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Or a cunt, or a bitch. Etc.


 
So why was madzone upset when called a bitch?

edited to say: I see she prefers to be called a cunt.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> You hate them to a sad extent.


 
actually I don't really, I hate db boy cos he actively spends his free time defending the state, most cops just do it for the pay check, he is ideologically committed to his masters.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> actually I don't really, I hate db boy cos he actively spends his free time defending the state, most cops just do it for the pay check, he is ideologically committed to his masters.


 
Thinking back, I realise I was mistaken. It's British soldiers who really reserve your utmost hate for.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 13, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> So why was madzone upset when called a bitch?
> 
> edited to say: I see she prefers to be called a cunt.



I see you can read, but not comprehend.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> I see you can read, but not comprehend.


 
While you can comprehend but cannot read. We should get together to make any sense of this, don't you think?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 13, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> While you can comprehend but cannot read. We should get together to make any sense of this, don't you think?



I thought that's what we were doing.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> I thought that's what we were doing.


 
Good. So long as it makes sense to you too.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 13, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Good. So long as it makes sense to you too.



A more easily-riled and perhaps more cynical man than me would have taken those last couple of posts as mildly threatening and gone off on one. 
I'm just not that confrontational, unfortunately for you. What a disappointment I must be.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Just for the record again, *so that this lying bitch *isn't able to succeed in her lying attempts to re-write history, here is one of my earliest posts (#1222)



Can U Not Think?
Im not a tout and wont report your sexist insulting remark... I would rather be called a Cunt than a 'lying bitch' which allegedly saying earns you the weekend off?
one rule for...

btw love this one...


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> I'm just not that confrontational, unfortunately for you. What a disappointment I must be.


 
You haven't GOT me, have you?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 13, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> You haven't GOT me, have you?



No. You're going to have to say what you mean. I'm a bit simple, me.


----------



## treelover (Nov 13, 2010)

thread fail, zzzzzzz


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Thinking back, I realise I was mistaken. It's British soldiers who really reserve your utmost hate for.


 
Yeah imagine someone not liking baby killing mercenaries.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 13, 2010)

treelover said:


> thread fail, zzzzzzz



I reckon a failed thread would be about 5 responses.


----------



## steeplejack (Nov 13, 2010)

Jesus Christ what a fucking embarrassment this thread is for the last dozen or so pages

nice work


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 13, 2010)

steeplejack said:


> Jesus Christ what a fucking embarrassment this thread is for the last dozen or so pages
> 
> nice work



And here you are to dig it out of the mire?


----------



## Onket (Nov 13, 2010)

The thread actually ended way before the last dozen or so pages.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket said:


> The thread actually ended way before the last dozen or so pages.



Have you read the article I linked to? It's very interesting.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> Oh yeah, let's be chummy and pretend nothing has happened. No apology for calling me a 'lying bitch' for the crime of disagreeing with you?


Who's being "chummy" and pretending nothing has happened?

You even manage to lie about being told to fuck off because I have no intention of ever engaging with you again.

Fucking classic!


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Who's being "chummy" and pretending nothing has happened?
> 
> You even manage to lie about being told to fuck off because I have no intention of ever engaging with you again.
> 
> Fucking classic!



Why don't you leave this thread?

You're unwelcome.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Here's a clue you are a fucking pig and the vast majority on these boards are supportive of the protesters and have no time for you legal pedantry and apologism for the state and their dogs.


No Collective.

No ACAB.

No tag team.

Oh no!  Not here!


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> Why don't you leave this thread?
> 
> You're unwelcome.



this!

Frankly if Urban is going to become something of a resource for discussing and planning activity against the cuts then I think a cop like him should be banned from such discussions.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

Onket said:


> I think he probably called you that because he thought you were lying and quite possibly doesn't like you very much.


You know, you really are just _too_ perceptive for this place ...


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No Collective.
> 
> No ACAB.
> 
> ...



Oh I only wish that was more the case.

You should have no place on a board like this and I hope more people join in hounding you off it.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> No it's just one of Pig Boy's increasingly desperate reasons for condemning the protesters.


Except I, er, haven't ... you fucking moron.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Except I, er, haven't ... you fucking moron.


 
Go away pig...


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Who's being "chummy" and pretending nothing has happened?
> 
> You even manage to lie about being told to fuck off because I have no intention of ever engaging with you again.
> 
> Fucking classic!



Hang on a minute - you've repeatedly said you were _never _going to engage with me again but you keep doing so. Who's the liar?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Frankly if Urban is going to become something of a resource for discussing and planning activity against the cuts then I think a cop like him should be banned from such discussions.


 
Both of these would be bad for Urban.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Anyway here's a statement for the Solidarity Federation on the claims that they and a handful of other "hardcore anarchists" and "protest junkies".


I'm not sure that their statement is particularly convincing when viewed in the context of what happened at 30 Millbank.  Thousands of protestors had beseiged the place and there were some inside.  This continued for some considerable time with no smashing of windows, mass invasion of the building, etc.  Then a few individuals (conspicous by the fact that they were particularly heavily masked and hooded, especially by comparison with the majority of the protestors) started to smash the windows and encourage more aggressive activity.  

Now I have no idea who these people are.  They may have been members of the original protest.  But it is laughably ridiculous to suggest that if, say, half a dozen rent-an-anarchists turned up at that stage (bear in mind it was being shown live on TV and was in central London on a weekday, so it wouldn't take long to get there from pretty much anywhere in London if you fancied a punch-up, even if you weren't lurking around anyway, just in case) "the chances of us successfully [manipulating and controlling the crowd]" would be "minimal".  It would be an _absolutely ideal_ situation for them to exploit!

(Awaits assorted lying bitches, fuckwits and cunts quoting this post and claiming that I am stating that it was absolutely certain that anachist troublemakers were definitely, totally and utterly entirely responsible for everything ...)


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> actually I don't really, I hate db boy cos he actively spends his free time defending the state, most cops just do it for the pay check, he is ideologically committed to his masters.


More lies from rent-a-twat ...


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> (Awaits assorted lying bitches, fuckwits and cunts



Ban time?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'm not sure that their statement is particularly convincing when viewed in the context of what happened at 30 Millbank.  Thousands of protestors had beseiged the place and there were some inside.  This continued for some considerable time with no smashing of windows, mass invasion of the building, etc.  Then a few individuals (conspicous by the fact that they were particularly heavily masked and hooded, especially by comparison with the majority of the protestors) started to smash the windows and encourage more aggressive activity.
> 
> Now I have no idea who these people are.  They may have been members of the original protest.  But it is laughably ridiculous to suggest that if, say, half a dozen rent-an-anarchists turned up at that stage (bear in mind it was being shown live on TV and was in central London on a weekday, so it wouldn't take long to get there from pretty much anywhere in London if you fancied a punch-up, even if you weren't lurking around anyway, just in case) "the chances of us successfully [manipulating and controlling the crowd]" would be "minimal".  It would be an _absolutely ideal_ situation for them to exploit!
> 
> (Awaits assorted lying bitches, fuckwits and cunts quoting this post and claiming that I am stating that it was absolutely certain that anachist troublemakers were definitely, totally and utterly entirely responsible for everything ...)




Hmmmmm.  I've been on demos where there's been a black bloc, radical workers bloc, whatever you want to call it.  They've always been largely ineffective in anything except being kettled and getting their details taken by the police.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> Why don't you leave this thread?
> 
> You're unwelcome.


Why don't you fuck off?

You're an idiot.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> You should have no place on a board like this and I hope more people join in hounding you off it.


You really are a sound advocate for the principle of freedom of speech ... 

And thank you for acknowledging that there is a group of people trying to hound me off it!  After all these months of denials that The Collective exists we finally get the evidence ... courtesy of a careless admission from their most retarded member!


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I'm not sure that their statement is particularly convincing when viewed in the context of what happened at 30 Millbank.  Thousands of protestors had beseiged the place and there were some inside.  This continued for some considerable time with no smashing of windows, mass invasion of the building, etc.  Then a few individuals (conspicous by the fact that they were particularly heavily masked and hooded, especially by comparison with the majority of the protestors) started to smash the windows and encourage more aggressive activity.
> 
> Now I have no idea who these people are.  They may have been members of the original protest.  But it is laughably ridiculous to suggest that if, say, half a dozen rent-an-anarchists turned up at that stage (bear in mind it was being shown live on TV and was in central London on a weekday, so it wouldn't take long to get there from pretty much anywhere in London if you fancied a punch-up, even if you weren't lurking around anyway, just in case) "the chances of us successfully [manipulating and controlling the crowd]" would be "minimal".  It would be an _absolutely ideal_ situation for them to exploit!
> 
> (Awaits assorted lying bitches, fuckwits and cunts quoting this post and claiming that I am stating that it was absolutely certain that anachist troublemakers were definitely, totally and utterly entirely responsible for everything ...)


 
I've just rewatched some footage and I can't see these heavily masked people instigating the window smashing. Can you provide a link?


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Why don't you fuck off?
> 
> You're an idiot.


 
It's been clearly stated anyone calling anyone a cunt will be banned.

So off you trot.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 13, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> It's been clearly stated anyone calling anyone a cunt will be banned.
> 
> .


 
Where?


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 13, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Where?


 
Pages ago.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

editor said:


> From the FAQ:
> 
> 
> OK, here's how it's going to play from now on. Anyone calling anyone else a cunt gets banned for the weekend because this topic is far too important to be trashed by childish name calling and endless personal attacks.
> ...


 


Maurice Picarda said:


> Where?


 
There.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Hmmmmm.  I've been on demos where there's been a black bloc, radical workers bloc, whatever you want to call it.  They've always been largely ineffective in anything except being kettled and getting their details taken by the police.


I wouldn't necessarily disagree ... I've met enough in that category over the years.  But my point was that the situation at 30 Millbank was actually pretty much the _ideal_ situation if half a dozen agitators wished to precipitate something more aggressive rather than representing a situation in which their chances of success would have been _minimal_.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Both of these would be bad for Urban.


 
Would it fuck, it would help reverse the slide into apolitical middle aged senility.

Infact the actions of the students have done quite a bit to enliven Urban, with alot of us cynical old fucks getting a nice shot in the arm.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> There.


 
Goodness. This place is going to the dogs.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

madzone said:


> There.


 
A ban which was shortly followed by this:



pk said:


> You were not even there. You really are a c-c-c-cunt.



Which received no sanction ...


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You really are a sound advocate for the principle of freedom of speech ...
> 
> And thank you for acknowledging that there is a group of people trying to hound me off it!  After all these months of denials that The Collective exists we finally get the evidence ... courtesy of a careless admission from their most retarded member!


 
oh yeah poor pigs so oppressed, nowhere can their voice be heard.

who needs to hear anything from you, you have nothing to say that isn't already pushed by various media outlets.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

Whereas, in your case, who needs to hear anything from you, you have nothing to say full stop.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Whereas, in your case, who needs to hear anything from you, you have nothing to say full stop.





That's all about you that is


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I wouldn't necessarily disagree ... I've met enough in that category over the years.  But my point was that the situation at 30 Millbank was actually pretty much the _ideal_ situation if half a dozen agitators wished to precipitate something more aggressive rather than representing a situation in which their chances of success would have been _minimal_.


 
I've been on more riots than you've had wanks over Juliet Bravo. 

It's never the  desire of the few wanting confrontation hijacking the will of the demo.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Oh I only wish that was more the case.
> 
> You should have no place on a board like this and I hope more people join in hounding you off it.



I may not agree with a poster, but I definitely disagree with this. I'd hate it to become a political monk's circle.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Infact the actions of the students have done quite a bit to enliven Urban, with alot of us cynical old fucks getting a nice shot in the arm.



They broke a window in an office block, and remonstrated over the throwing of a fire extinguisher. If that gives you a shot in the arm then it's the subversives and agitators who are descending into senility, not the rest of us.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> I may not agree with a poster, but I definitely disagree with this. I'd hate it to become a political monk's circle.


 
I'm lead to believe that DB used to be 'useful'. The only time I've seen him contributing to the boards however has been to disrupt threads and generally spit his glittery dummy at the slightest provocation. Quite how he's allowed to continue is beyond me.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> I've been on more riots than you've had wanks over Juliet Bravo.
> 
> It's never the  desire of the few wanting confrontation hijacking the will of the demo.


 
Yep if only it was as simple as turning up in black, doing a bit of posturing and willing confrontation into existence. 

Though I can see why cops would imagine it goes like that...


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> I may not agree with a poster, but I definitely disagree with this. I'd hate it to become a political monk's circle.


 
there's a lot of ocean between excluding pigs and political monk circles.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 13, 2010)

DB, I know you're coming at this from a police perspective (unsurprisingly), but what do you feel about the reasons behind the students protesting? Is there a justification for this protest, and the wave of protests that might well follow from other walks of life? Apologies if you've already answered this somewhere in this gargantuan thread.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 13, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> DB, I know you're coming at this from a police perspective (unsurprisingly), but what do you feel about the reasons behind the students protesting? Is there a justification for this protest, and the wave of protests that might well follow from other walks of life? Apologies if you've already answered this somewhere in this gargantuan thread.


Post 1222 and a few that follow on in the pages immediately after that sum up my feelings about the protest itself.

As for the justification, what the ConDems are doing is totally, completely and utterly wrong.  Yes there need to be savings ... but their prioritisation is all wrong.  Young people are the future of this country and without education and training (I wouldn't necessarily agree that everyone needs to go to university but every young person should be educated and / or trained for a future role in our country's economic recovery) that future is bleak.  Heartless though it may seem, at the extreme, if we couldn't do both, I would divert funding from keeping the old and infirm alive longer than nature intends and divert it to improving the prospects of the young.

(But there are also other big (bigger, even) issues which are just being swerved by the ConDems.  The development of Trident _cannot_ be justified.  Feeding the overblown bureaucracy of the EU without cutback _cannot_ be justified.  And, most importantly, the _absolute_ failure to rein in the fucking bankers, who at the end of the day are the cause of the world's current woes, is a disgrace.  Never mind the removal of future bonuses (which should be an _absolute_ given) they should have the wealth they have amassed from their gross negligence over many years confiscated and placed in public funds.  Thatcher has so much to answer for as they are absolutely the creations of her "no such thing as society", "every man for himself", "greed is good" deregulation of the City in the 80s.    )


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 13, 2010)

All right. Fine. pk and db are both banned for the weekend for calling people cunts after it was posted that anyone calling anyone else a cunt would be banned for the weekend.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

> Heartless though it may seem, at the extreme, if we couldn't do both, I would divert funding from keeping the old and infirm alive longer than nature intends and divert it to improving the prospects of the young.



You are scum.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 13, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> All right. Fine. pk and db are both banned for the weekend for calling people cunts after it was posted that anyone calling anyone else a cunt would be banned for the weekend.


 
It's easy to say that late on a Saturday night.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 13, 2010)

You might feel that you shouldn't need to, but you should think about starting contributions with statements like the above, db. I could pick holes in it, but its broad thrust is one that endears you to me generally speaking. And I'm sure others would be the same. 

I've had to learn this about Urban myself, and used to get myself into trouble by not prefacing potentially inflammatory comments with provisos. But this is the internet. You have to be very explicit about what you say and how you say it. Otherwise you _will_ be taken the wrong way.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 13, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> All right. Fine. pk and db are both banned for the weekend for calling people cunts after it was posted that anyone calling anyone else a cunt would be banned for the weekend.


 
Silly doing that now, imo, particularly after db just started to engage sensibly.


----------



## dylans (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> No it's just one of Pig Boy's increasingly desperate reasons for condemning the protesters.


 
Except he hasn't. I agree with some of DBs points (that the post "riot" witch hunt is over the top) and disagree with others. (that the workers inside the building were in anyway in fear etc) but for someone from his position I think his posts have been pretty reasonable and certainly less vitriolic in condemning the "violent students" than some of those who oppose the entire demonstration. It seems to me that the hostility shown to him has more to do with the fact that he is an ex cop than anything he has actually posted. I respect DB even if I disagree with him and I think the demands for him to fuck off etc are out of order frankly.

There is an argument here based on differing political analysis of our society. Some who believe that Britain is a liberal democracy also believe that such a lib democracy requires a rule of law and that such a rule of law is fair and even in its reach (DBs view). It follows from this logic then that illegal acts are always unacceptable attacks on a democratic system. If you  prescribe to this view then of course the violence of the demonstration is unacceptable. 

 I disagree with this analysis. I believe that British democracy is in effect a smokescreen for the class rule of unrepresentative elites who rule in their interests and those interests are diametrically opposed to mine.  As such the law, though presented as fair and unbiased is actually  structured in such a way as to defend the interests of those elites.. Not blatantly. this is rule of the velvet glove. But it defends the class interests of the powerful simply by the process of defending the status quo. When workers go on strike the police are called to a picket line in order to "keep the peace" and I am sure the individual cop thinks he is doing precisely that. But "the peace" is not neutral in class conflict. The peace suits the scabs and the bosses who will use the peace to break the strike. When the strikers act to defend their interests by stopping the scabs crossing the picket line the police act to enforce the "peace" and allow the strike breakers to cross.The workers have no choice but to engage in conflict or to face defeat. So they act to stop the scabs and of course they are presented as the aggressors. And this is because the "peace," the status quo is not neutral. It's a bosses peace and the law defends it by defending the status quo.  

 If, as I do, you hold the view that this is a class society then it follows that revolutionary violence in response to attacks on hard earned rights is not only justified but necessary if we are not to go down to defeat.

 My view is very simple and consistent. The post war gains of the working people of this country are under an unprecedented attack by those in power who will use every means at their disposal to enforce those attacks. As such it is morally justified to use whatever means are necessary to resist them. Any means necessary.  Losing this fight simply is not an option and restricting ourselves to only peaceful or legal means will mean defeat and that is simply unthinkable.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Heartless though it may seem, at the extreme, if we couldn't do both, I would divert funding from keeping the old and infirm alive longer than nature intends and divert it to improving the prospects of the young.


 
And now he's shown his true colours.


----------



## madzone (Nov 13, 2010)

I have no issue with the police.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 13, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> And now he's shown his true colours.


 
I don't think he meant that to sound nasty. Anyway, he's been banned now...


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

he condemns the students by condemning actions outside of the law.

he is an apologist for the status quo and no amount of hand wringing wank will stop that, people like him are far more effective defenders of the ruling class than a blatant right winger.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think he meant that to sound nasty. Anyway, he's been banned now...


 
well isn't that problem he's such a horrible excuse for a human that he thinks that it's possible to say such things in a non nasty way.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 13, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> All right. Fine. pk and db are both banned for the weekend for calling people cunts after it was posted that anyone calling anyone else a cunt would be banned for the weekend.


 
Actually, thinking about it, that's a pretty stupid reaction. The issue isn't 'are you calling others cunts'. As madz pointed out, calling her a 'lying bitch' was worse if anything. Intent is far more important than which particular word is used for the abuse.


----------



## dylans (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> well isn't that problem he's such a horrible excuse for a human that he thinks that it's possible to say such things in a non nasty way.


 
But you are not doing our argument any favours with the endless "fuck off pig" stuff either. This is a great thread, 78 pages long, and as such it is an opportunity to put forward class arguments especially to those who haven't considered them before. The justification of revolutionary violence is intrinsically connected to the argument about class society and the nature of law in defending class interests. Dpn't waste the opportunity


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

dylans said:


> But you are not doing our argument any favours with the endless "fuck off pig" stuff either. This is a great thread, 78 pages long, and as such it is an opportunity to put forward class arguments especially to those who haven't considered them before. The justification of revolutionary violence is intrinsically connected to the argument about class society and the nature of law in defending class interests. Dpn't waste the opportunity


 
I've made the arguments plenty of times in this thread, I also happen to think that DB has no place on such threads and really I find it odd that a site with Urbans origins tolerates him.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 13, 2010)

He should mind his tongue on such threads, certainly.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

also his comment about letting the elderly die as "nature intended" let slip the horrible social darwinist utilitarianism that runs through his thought.

as a gay man he should be well wary of arguments about "as nature intended".


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> as a gay man he should be well wary of arguments about "as nature intended".



That's an ill-judged comment, there.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 13, 2010)

Not just old people but 'infirm' too.

Fucking scary but predictable stuff.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 13, 2010)

revol68 said:


> also his comment about letting the elderly die as "nature intended" let slip the horrible social darwinist utilitarianism that runs through his thought.
> 
> as a gay man he should be well wary of arguments about "as nature intended".



Ham-fisted though the attempt was, there's a little more to it than you quoted.



detective-boy said:


> As for the justification, what the ConDems are doing is totally, completely and utterly wrong.  Yes there need to be savings ... but their prioritisation is all wrong.  Young people are the future of this country and without education and training (I wouldn't necessarily agree that everyone needs to go to university but every young person should be educated and / or trained for a future role in our country's economic recovery) that future is bleak.  Heartless though it may seem, at the extreme, if we couldn't do both, I would divert funding from keeping the old and infirm alive longer than nature intends and divert it to improving the prospects of the young.





Maurice Picarda said:


> That's an ill-judged comment, there.



Yep.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 13, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> That's an ill-judged comment, there.


 
how?

do you not expect a gay person to be a touch more sceptical to social darwinist crap? Afterall how many times do homophobes justify themselves with "it's just not natural"?


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 13, 2010)

Maurice Picarda said:


> That's an ill-judged comment, there.


 
I'm glad I'm not the only one to think that.


----------



## Nylock (Nov 13, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> This "office worker" ... they were working in the reception area at 30 Millbank, yes?  (If not, your point is .... ??? )
> 
> I really don't understand why a few idiots are attempting to convince everyone that the reception staff in 30 Millbank would never have felt the slightest bit concerned for their safety at any stage.  It is _patently_ obvious to any normal person that there would have come a time when they were seriously concerned for their safety and so they, er, left ... I seriously do not understand why a few idiots are making this such a big deal.  Why does it fucking matter how scared they were anyway?  It makes no difference to anyone's argument ...


 
erm, i wasn't actually responding to anything you said D-B, i was adding to what shaman75 had already said regarding the _Office Workers_ in the building and NOT the _Reception Staff_...


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 14, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Of course they did ...
> 
> You just can't help lying, can you, even when the truth is there for everyone to see on live TV ...
> 
> No wonder everyone treats you and your mates as a joke.



So let's get this straight: you _weren't _there?


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 14, 2010)

nino_savatte said:


> So let's get this straight: you _weren't _there?


 
Reading this thread would result in knowing that he indeed was not there. I, by the way, wasn't either.


----------



## Nylock (Nov 14, 2010)

damn didn't realise he was banned.. serves me right for going afk for several hours in the middle of a threadnaught...


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 14, 2010)

Nylock said:


> damn didn't realise he was banned.. serves me right for going afk for several hours in the middle of a threadnaught...


 
I can't believe he's been banned for long.


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 14, 2010)

revol68 said:


> he condemns the students by condemning actions outside of the law.
> 
> he is an apologist for the status quo and no amount of hand wringing wank will stop that, people like him are far more effective defenders of the ruling class than a blatant right winger.



you are quite ridiculous.  I can't work out whether you're 6 or 15 - all I know is that you're a little Manu Utd fan from the south of England who sits in his room with a sticky keyboard.  

DB's comments were quite reasonable.  Of course some of the teeny boppers actions were outside of the law and it will be right that they are brought to book - hopefully the insurance company will seek to recover costs from them if they are identified.  I suspect they will also be sacked from whatever poly they hailed.

You seem to have a real problem with getting on with life and existing alongside other human beings - and have more chips on your shoulder than most here.  

You should get out more away from your sticky keyboard


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 14, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> you are quite ridiculous.  I can't work out whether you're 6 or 15 - all I know is that you're a little Manu Utd fan from the south of England who sits in his room with a sticky keyboard.
> 
> DB's comments were quite reasonable.  Of course some of the teeny boppers actions were outside of the law and it will be right that they are brought to book - hopefully the insurance company will seek to recover costs from them if they are identified.  I suspect they will also be sacked from whatever poly they hailed.
> 
> ...


 
I don't disagree with much of that, but I think he's actually from the north of Ireland.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 14, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> you are quite ridiculous.  I can't work out whether you're 6 or 15 - all I know is that you're a little Manu Utd fan from the south of England who sits in his room with a sticky keyboard.
> 
> DB's comments were quite reasonable.  Of course some of the teeny boppers actions were outside of the law and it will be right that they are brought to book - hopefully the insurance company will seek to recover costs from them if they are identified.  I suspect they will also be sacked from whatever poly they hailed.
> 
> ...


 
From Northern Ireland you clown.

And yes like the majority on these boards I do have a chip on my shoulder about the inequality and injustice at the heart of society.

You come across as a content smug middle class wanker who snipes at people who have the brains and balls to identify injustice and to try and do something about it.


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 14, 2010)

revol68 said:


> From Northern Ireland you clown.
> 
> And yes like the majority on these boards I do have a chip on my shoulder about the inequality and injustice at the heart of society.
> 
> You come across as a content smug middle class wanker who snipes at people who have the brains and balls to identify injustice and to try and do something about it.


 
I just typed a reply but the board eat it

I think the gist was relax - it aint gonna make a blind bit of difference.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 14, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> I just typed a reply but the board eat it
> 
> I think the gist was relax - it aint gonna make a blind bit of difference.


 
Oh look at Daddy Cool, "just relax, man".

Bit of a turn around from you boasting of how you'd have given the protesters a kicking and hoping they get the full wrath of the law.

Whether something ends up making a difference or not is secondary to whether something is right or wrong, we can never be certain what difference our actions will actually make but we can know whether it is the right to try and make that difference. Everything else is cowardice.


----------



## where to (Nov 14, 2010)

nothing cowardly about employing a strategy.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 14, 2010)

where to said:


> nothing cowardly about employing a strategy.


 
there is when your strategy is attacking people fighting against a vicious class war being waged against the working class.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 14, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Reading this thread would result in knowing that he indeed was not there. I, by the way, wasn't either.



Well, la di da. By the way, you seem to have forgotten your antics a few years back and have chosen to reply to my post. What were you told?


----------



## Crispy (Nov 14, 2010)

Yes, yes! A years old bitch fight that nobody cares about and that's got nothing to do with the thread! More! More!


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 14, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Yes, yes! A years old bitch fight that nobody cares about and that's got nothing to do with the thread! More! More!



Well, perhaps you could tell L&L to make his posts more relevant to this thread? Or perhaps you think he is making a valuable contribution to the discussion. Tell me, was his post at all relevant to what I said? Take your time.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 14, 2010)

While we are discussing disputes, what about the NUS national protest against the cuts? What do you think about that? I support them. The students that is not the cuts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Yes, yes! A years old bitch fight that nobody cares about and that's got nothing to do with the thread! More! More!


 
as a moderator you should be trying to calm things down and not egg people on.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2010)

Switch on your sarcasm radar, Pickman's


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 14, 2010)

I hope the students can get it together with other groups affected by cuts, on their next venture.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2010)

The NUS leaders have come out against the plans for the walkout in a few eeks time - and are instead attempting to funnel anger down exclusively parliamentary roads and to labours benefit - mainly through what they pompously (and revealingly) call their 'decapitation strategy' i.e unseating the lib-dems big guns _in 5 years time_. Seize the moment eh comrades

I wonder, in the the NUS constitution is there a mechanism to recall Porter (or the entire EC)?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Switch on your sarcasm radar, Pickman's


 
Nope!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The NUS leaders have come out against the plans for the walkout in a few eeks time - and are instead attempting to funnel anger down exclusively parliamentary roads and to labours benefit - mainly through what they pompously (and revealingly) call their 'decapitation strategy' i.e unseating the lib-dems big guns _in 5 years time_. Seize the moment eh comrades
> 
> I wonder, in the the NUS constitution is there a mechanism to recall Porter (or the entire EC)?


 probably. let me have a look.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2010)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I hope the students can get it together with other groups affected by cuts, on their next venture.


 
Right, those involved in anti-cuts alliances, what link ups have you managed to achieve with students or student groups? What are your plans to ensure there's link ups?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2010)

from the nus constitution (1)

180 Removal of members of the National Executive Council
181 Any member of the National Executive Council may be removed from office according to
the following; any ordinary or emergency motion debated by the National Conference or
motion debated by an extraordinary National conference or by National Ballot may
include an expression of ‘no confidence’ in any specified member of the National
Executive Council.
182 If such a motion is passed by a simple majority, the specified person shall immediately
cease to be a member of the National Executive Council.
183 For the avoidance of doubt, in the case of members of the National Executive Council
appointed ex-officio by virtue of becoming Full Time Officers, it shall not be possible to
independently remove them as a member of the National Executive Council, but if they
are removed from the national office they hold, then they shall immediately cease to be
a member of the National Executive Council.

and (2)

210 Removal of Full Time Officers and Casual Vacancies
211. Any Full Time Officer in an office named in Article 98 of the core constitution may be
removed from office according to the following any ordinary or emergency motion
debated by the National Conference or motion debated by an extraordinary National
Conference or National Ballot may include an expression of ‘no confidence’ in any
specified Full-Time Officer. If such a motion is passed by a simple majority, the post of
that Full time officer shall immediately become vacant. The post shall also become
vacant if a motion to this effect is approved by a National Ballot.
212. Upon first coming into office, and at any other time as he or she sees fit, the National
President shall nominate a Vice-President of the National Union to be the person who
shall become acting National President in the event of a casual vacancy or illness arising
in the office of National President. The nomination shall be made in the form of a letter
from the National President to the members of the National Executive Council. No
special provisions shall apply in any event to any nominated person, unless and until
there is a casual vacancy or illness in the office of National President.
213. In the event of a casual vacancy or illness arising in the office of National President,
then the nominated person shall become acting National President. A casual vacancy
will cause a casual vacancy in that Vice-President’s own nominal office, and that
vacancy shall be subsequently filled according to the procedure below.
214. In the event of a casual vacancy arising in any other office named in Article 98 of the
core constitution, then the National President shall recommend to the National
Executive Council any member of the National Executive Council to carry out the duties
of that office on an acting basis, provided that such a person has given their consent to
be nominated, and provided that no other serving full time officer may be so
nominated. The National Executive Council shall have the final decision as to whether
such a person is appointed or not.
215. If any Full Time Officer resigns or is removed from office then they shall also vacate any
offices they hold on an ex-officio basis, including membership of the National Executive
Council, the Trustee Board if applicable, and any other committees of the National
Union.
216. The procedures for removal and casual vacancies in other Full Time Offices established
in accordance with Article 98 of the core constitution shall be separately defined in the
relevant rules.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Right, those involved in anti-cuts alliances, what link ups have you managed to achieve with students or student groups? What are your plans to ensure there's link ups?


 
Two students turned up at our meeting of around 50.  They were both in support of forming an alliance between the NUS at our local university as was everyone at the meeting, although they were reporting back from the AGM of that NUS and it had been decided there that they would not join and would fight only on the education cuts and increase in fees issue.

Since that meeting I've been rounding up individual students and NUS members who I personally know to come to the next meeting and show that their is sympathy within the student body to the general anti-cuts movement.  There are plans to go into the university and talk to students about why it is vital that no group fights their own battle on their own to make links.  I am also hoping that there will be a presence at the walk out on the 24th, before our next meeting on the 25th to gain more support from individuals.

The university in our city is a major part of the local economy, essentially, I think the idea is to not leave them alone until they give in.  It's madness for us to let the university suffer as a result of the cuts, and if the students think that the other cuts won't affect them too, even if they win their fees battle on their own (which they won't) they are being daft.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 14, 2010)

revol68 said:


> also his comment about letting the elderly die as "nature intended" let slip the horrible social darwinist utilitarianism that runs through his thought.


 
What he actually said was rather different. He suggested that if there are not enough recources to save everyone his preference would be for those recourses to be concentrated on saving the young. I fully agree with that.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Right, those involved in anti-cuts alliances, what link ups have you managed to achieve with students or student groups? What are your plans to ensure there's link ups?


 
not that I'm involved in any group yet, but with the help of Where To and anti-cuts uk, I've just had an email from a university of birmingham student and will be building links there, they are meeting on monday evening and I'll go down if I can as a non-student.
This is my plan to ensure link ups, I'm going to create them myself, and attend student group meetings when I can.
I'm shit at networking but I'm going to try really hard to help create networks in brum.  I'm really dissapointed that I missed out on the first of the occupations of vodafone in birmingham (I couldn't have made the second one) and I don't want that to happen again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> What he actually said was rather different. He suggested that if there are not enough recources to save everyone his preference would be for those recourses to be concentrated on saving the young. I fully agree with that.


 even when there are enough resources i can think of one person (^^) from whom they could usefully be withheld.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 14, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Just find the whole thing quite funny.  I guess it's what happens when you turn every portakabin in the UK into a university and let kids in with 2 Ds.



you know sometimes I think I'm too extreme and then I read shite like yours. Under the current "proposals" I wouldn't go to uni nor would most of my friends and nor would my sister. This government is one of the most reactionary I have ever heard about. People I speak to in other European countries are utterly shocked at what goes on here.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 14, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> I may not agree with a poster, but I definitely disagree with this. I'd hate it to become a political monk's circle.


 
I agree with this.


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 14, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> What he actually said was rather different. He suggested that if there are not enough recources to save everyone his preference would be for those recourses to be concentrated on saving the young. I fully agree with that.


 
No, he didn't say "I would rather save the young than the old" as if both were in peril, he clearly stated:


> Heartless though it may seem, at the extreme, if we couldn't do both, I would divert funding from keeping the old and infirm alive longer than nature intends and divert it to *improving the prospects* of the young.



That it is better to improve the _prospects_ of the young (ie by funding higher education) than funding the "old and infirm" elderly (and ill people too???) through (presumably) state funded care. 
And it was horrible.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 14, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> No, he didn't say "I would rather save the young than the old" as if both were in peril, he clearly stated:
> 
> 
> That it is better to improve the _prospects_ of the young (ie by funding higher education) than funding the "old and infirm" elderly (and ill people too???) through (presumably) state funded care.
> And it was horrible.


 
I paraphrased and used 'saved' in a very general way. In your quote it is clear to see the words, "if we couldn't do both". Everyone's preference is, of course, to find the nessessary recources, and I believe that can be done without having to sacrifice the old.


----------



## where to (Nov 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder, in the the NUS constitution is there a mechanism to recall Porter (or the entire EC)?


 
my understanding is that that is being looked at.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2010)

where to said:


> my understanding is that that is being looked at.


 
you too can look at it if you read my post where i quote from the nus constitution


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 14, 2010)

where to said:


> my understanding is that that is being looked at.


 
To what extent and by who?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> To what extent and by who?


 
at a guess by students and student unions


----------



## where to (Nov 14, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> To what extent and by who?


 
by not very many and not to a great extent.  but by people who would be in a good position to initiate things if they chose to.


----------



## Onket (Nov 14, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Have you read the article I linked to? It's very interesting.


 
Yes, it's an excellent article, thanks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2010)

where to said:


> by not very many and not to a great extent.  but by people who would be in a good position to initiate things if they chose to.


 
name names or stfu


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 14, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> you know sometimes I think I'm too extreme and then I read shite like yours. Under the current "proposals" I wouldn't go to uni nor would most of my friends and nor would my sister. This government is one of the most reactionary I have ever heard about. People I speak to in other European countries are utterly shocked at what goes on here.


 
The "kid they let in with two d's" is one of my best friends btw.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2010)

gunneradt said:


> Just find the whole thing quite funny.  I guess it's what happens when you turn every portakabin in the UK into a university and let kids in with 2 Ds.


i hope you die under a student surgeon's knife


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 14, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i hope you die under a student surgeon's knife


 
That's not very nice  That student surgeon will have to live with the guilt (unless they know what gunnerradt is like) for the rest of their lives.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> That's not very nice  That student surgeon will have to live with the guilt (unless they know what gunnerradt is like) for the rest of their lives.


 
i didn't say 'on the operating table'. and i didn't say 'by mistake'. and i most certainly did not say 'under anesthesia'.


----------



## madzone (Nov 14, 2010)

Is there anything I could be doing as a student?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2010)

madzone said:


> Is there anything I could be doing as a student?


 
your coursework.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 14, 2010)

madzone said:


> Is there anything I could be doing as a student?


 
You could ask your uni's NUS what they are doing, and put pressure on them to organise with the wants of the local student body rather than the national executive. You could speak to other students and try to encourage them to engage in some way, and for them to put pressure on the NUS as well.


----------



## winjer (Nov 14, 2010)

Oh, _brian_.

"Taking out and isolating the anarchists should have been a priority."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...l-reason-police-failed-stop-student-riot.html


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 14, 2010)

Interesting article about the internal politics involved. Shame he doesn't post here any more.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2010)

More FIT teams demands Paddick. Paddick the lib-dem mayoral candidate last time round. When he denounced public sector workers right to strike. I sense a common thread here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2010)

winjer said:


> Oh, _brian_.
> 
> "Taking out and isolating the anarchists should have been a priority."
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...l-reason-police-failed-stop-student-riot.html


 
i'm surprised you're surprised.


----------



## winjer (Nov 14, 2010)

I'm only surprised that you've inferred that I'm surprised.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2010)

winjer said:


> I'm only surprised that you've inferred that I'm surprised.


 
the oh _brian_ bit implied you were surprised. and/or disappointed.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 14, 2010)

This Gruan article is pretty decent:



> Those who inflict such violence through laws, budgets and the hypocritical language of shared pain feel entitled to demand non-violence. As the basis of protest, non-violence has been perverted from its once effective use as a weapon of the people – with actions such as sit-ins, boycotts, bonfires of goods and picketing – into a subterfuge for rulers, a pious excuse to protect them from the consequences of their actions. When that fails, out come the arrests and intimidation, as with the police hunt for those who occupied the Millbank building. We must not tolerate this demonisation of those who attempted to symbolically reclaim their country. (_edit - this ellusion to sybolism is most unfortunate imo - the expressive and catalytic role that property damage (not "violence") can play is the key here_)
> 
> As resistance to the destruction of our social and economic landscape gathers momentum, we need effective strategies of protest. Civil disobedience – a principled breaking of the law – can be a powerful tool. Genteel rallies do not put sufficient pressure on the political class. Tarnishing justifiably angry young people as thugs will not make the real problem – the violence of the entitled few against the disenfranchised many – magically disappear.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/13/student-fees-protest-the-real-vandals

Oh... and this:



> An analysis by the Chartered Institute for Taxation indicates that most graduates will be paying this debt of for the rest of their lives, and incurring a 45% tax rate into the bargain. This is because of the way in which the debt will increase by RPI inflation plus 3% over the years that the graduates pay it back. A teacher, say, starting on £21,000 and seeing his or her salary increase by 5% a year, will end up paying £64,239 over 30 years, and still have an unpaid debt of £26,406.



http://www.heraldscotland.com/comme...r-battle-in-a-looming-new-class-war-1.1067479

Fucking hell.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2010)

Jeff Robinson said:


> This Gruan article is pretty decent:


 only because it makes a few faltering steps towards decent politics.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 14, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> only because it makes a few faltering steps towards decent politics.


 
The comments underneath it, however ...


----------



## where to (Nov 14, 2010)

> A teacher, say, starting on £21,000 and seeing his or her salary increase by 5% a year, will end up paying £64,239 over 30 years, and still have an unpaid debt of £26,406.



so the new fees may actually lead to national debt _increasing_?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2010)

where to said:


> so the new fees may actually lead to national debt _increasing_?


 
yes


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 14, 2010)

moon23 said:


> That's the nature of coalition politics, sometimes things you promised and want as part of your manifesto don't get enacted. It's better to work and try and make the proposals more progressive which is what the party has done. I'm proud of the work Lib Dem MPs have done in improving on the Browne review recomendations, even if I am dissapointed we didn't get elected and couldn't deliver our complete manifesto.


 
Not read all the thread, but would like to know if your arse was served on a plate over this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/nov/12/nickclegg-danny-alexander



> Secret documents show Liberal Democrats drew up plans to drop flagship student pledge before election...


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 14, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> yes


 
It's no secret that the reason for the cuts/fee increases etc are not intended to reduce national debt though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> It's no secret that the reason for the cuts/fee increases etc are not intended to reduce national debt though.


 
which part of 'yes' suggested otherwise?


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 14, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> which part of 'yes' suggested otherwise?


 
I was agreeing with you


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2010)

i've been too long at work


----------



## Nylock (Nov 14, 2010)

Jeff Robinson said:


> This Gruan article is pretty decent:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/13/student-fees-protest-the-real-vandals



Yeah, that is a decent write-up... It's a shame that the comments section which follows is largely populated by the usual fuckwits and morons... 



Jeff Robinson said:


> Oh... and this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is scary stuff


----------



## goebfwai (Nov 14, 2010)

With such massive increases in the cost of University study, it is understandable that many students are upset and aggrieved. But the scenes of violence and wanton vandalism seen in London last week (including the appalling act of a fire extinguisher thrown from a roof top, which could have killed a student protestor, journalist or police officer) are not the answer. Follow the path of peace and love as epitomised by notable figures such as Gandhi, Jesus, Mandela, Martin Luther King and Aung Sang Suu Kyi.


----------



## creak (Nov 14, 2010)

Herald Article said:
			
		

> An analysis by the Chartered Institute for Taxation indicates that most graduates will be paying this debt of for the rest of their lives, and incurring a 45% tax rate into the bargain. This is because of the way in which the debt will increase by RPI inflation plus 3% over the years that the graduates pay it back. A teacher, say, starting on £21,000 and seeing his or her salary increase by 5% a year, will end up paying £64,239 over 30 years, and still have an unpaid debt of £26,406.



These are really quite incredible figures.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2010)

goebfwai said:


> With such massive increases in the cost of University study, it is understandable that many students are upset and aggrieved. But the scenes of violence and wanton vandalism seen in London last week (including the appalling act of a fire extinguisher thrown from a roof top, which could have killed a student protestor, journalist or police officer) are not the answer. Follow the path of peace and love as epitomised by notable figures such as Gandhi, Jesus, Mandela, Martin Luther King and Aung Sang Suu Kyi.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 14, 2010)

goebfwai said:


> With such massive increases in the cost of University study, it is understandable that many students are upset and aggrieved. But the scenes of violence and wanton vandalism seen in London last week (including the appalling act of a fire extinguisher thrown from a roof top, which could have killed a student protestor, journalist or police officer) are not the answer. Follow the path of peace and love as epitomised by notable figures such as Gandhi, Jesus, Mandela, Martin Luther King and Aung Sang Suu Kyi.


 
Jesus who smashed up the merchants in the temple? Ghandi who beat his wife? Mandela who was involved in the ANC's armed struggle? Martin Luther who didn't condemn property destruction?

Fuck off.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 14, 2010)

goebfwai said:


> notable figures such as Gandhi, Jesus, Mandela, Martin Luther King and Aung Sang Suu Kyi.



And Goebfwai. Don't be so modest.


----------



## audiotech (Nov 14, 2010)

No riots in Nick Cleggs garden. Oh the irony!


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 14, 2010)

goebfwai said:


> With such massive increases in the cost of University study, it is understandable that many students are upset and aggrieved. But the scenes of violence and wanton vandalism seen in London last week (including the appalling act of a fire extinguisher thrown from a roof top, which could have killed a student protestor, journalist or police officer) are not the answer. Follow the path of peace and love as epitomised by notable figures such as Gandhi, Jesus, Mandela, Martin Luther King and Aung Sang Suu Kyi.



Lol


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 14, 2010)

goebfwai said:


> With such massive increases in the cost of University study, it is understandable that many students are upset and aggrieved. But the scenes of violence and wanton vandalism seen in London last week (including the appalling act of a fire extinguisher thrown from a roof top, which could have killed a student protestor, journalist or police officer) are not the answer. Follow the path of peace and love as epitomised by notable figures such as Gandhi, Jesus, Mandela, Martin Luther King and Aung Sang Suu Kyi.


 
Jesus was crucified wasn't he? And weren't Ghandi and Martin Luther King assassinated?

I assume that's the same Ghandi who offered this sage-like advice to the British when the Nazis were trying to invade: "I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them." 

Along with this comment on the Jews of Europe: "Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs... It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany... As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions."

Are we really supposed to take this seriously?


----------



## revol68 (Nov 14, 2010)

Ghandhi really was a cunt, political violence against oppression is bad, beating your wife is good.


----------



## winjer (Nov 14, 2010)

goebfwai said:


> With such massive increases in the cost of University study, it is understandable that many students are upset and aggrieved. But the scenes of violence and wanton vandalism seen in London last week


Try looking up 'wanton' before you next thinking of using it.



> Follow the path of peace and love as epitomised by notable figures such as Gandhi, Jesus, Mandela, Martin Luther King and Aung Sang Suu Kyi.


Gandhi, who said: "I always thought that I would have to wait till the country was ready for a non-violent struggle. But my attitude has undergone a change. I feel that if I continue to wait I might have to wait till doomsday. [...] We have to take the risk of violence to shake off the great calamity of slavery. [...] And therefore I have to take a risk, if I cannot curb their violence. I cannot remain inactive. I will certainly launch a non-violent movement. But if people do not understand it and there is violence, how can I stop it? I will prefer anarchy to the present system of administration because this ordered anarchy is worse than real anarchy. I am sure that the anarchy created by our efforts to mitigate this dangerous anarchy will be less dangerous. The violence exerted then would be just a trifle compared to the existing violence."

Nelson Mandela who led a bombing campaign by the armed wing of the ANC? Who rejected an offer to be released from prison if he denounced the use of political violence? That Nelson Mandela?

And Jesus, as in "I came not to bring peace, but with a sword" ?


----------



## magneze (Nov 14, 2010)

Jeff Robinson said:


> This Gruan article is pretty decent:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Shocking figures. In what sense does doing this serve ANYONE??!!


----------



## revol68 (Nov 14, 2010)

magneze said:


> Shocking figures. In what sense does doing this serve ANYONE??!!


 
it's a giant step towards full marketisation of universities, £9000 will quickly become £20,000.


----------



## ymu (Nov 14, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Ghandhi really was a cunt, political violence against oppression is bad, beating your wife is good.


 
It's not like India got independence without violent protest - and his Hindu nationalism had a large part to play in partition (ah, what a great solution that has been down the ages),


----------



## magneze (Nov 14, 2010)

revol68 said:


> it's a giant step towards full marketisation of universities, £9000 will quickly become £20,000.


Who ultimately benefits from these changes though? I can't see the reasoning.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 14, 2010)

magneze said:


> Who ultimately benefits from these changes though? I can't see the reasoning.


 
If only the wealthiest can afford a university education they have a monopoly on high-powered jobs. In addition, it is very difficult to make an educated populace vote against their own interests, a less well educated population is easier to manipulate and if funding is cut in education income tax doesn't have to be as high. Guess who benefits the most from low income tax rates.


----------



## goebfwai (Nov 14, 2010)

I am not suggesting that Gandhi, Mandela et al are perfect - few would.

But most people would agree that in the struggles they undertook, in the movements they became figure heads in, they endeavoured - on the whole - to do so non-violently, with peace, love and respect for humanity - including their perceived enemies and adversaries.  They may never have achieved that all of the time, but the key point is their movements were never ever short-sightedly sidelined or quagmired by short term hysterics or theatrics.  They kept an eye on the long goal, and paid attention to how ill thought out actions and behaviours might play into their opponents hands.  And how these actions might be mediated, viewed in the wider world by the public, and used to discredit their movements.  

It could be argued that a protest, even a temporary, symbolic, vandalism free occupation are largely centre ground activities, that few people in the wider world of non activists (which is the majority of people) would disagree with or take umbrage to.  But the vandalism was going a bit far.  And the throwing of the fire extinguisher off the roof was an absolute disgrace, and should be condoned by no-one.  

Such actions could potentially hang like an albatross around the necks of any future student anti-cuts protests, haunting and marginalising public support for the movement.  If continued, it could ultimately cause the highly counterproductive side-lining of the actual issue that is the focus of the protest, and - even worse - manufacture public consent for a state crackdown, and possibly in time a heavy handed one.

Surely this then makes it absolutely essential that some sort of discipline is restored and code of conduct maintained on any future protest?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2010)

Mandela wasn't non-violent.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 14, 2010)

At the anti-cuts meeting I was at yesterday, one person condemned the occupation and "violence" on Wednesday.  At least five condoned it.


----------



## Nylock (Nov 14, 2010)

The extinguisher incident was a fucking stupid act which i doubt anyone supports. However, the events of the demo at millbank did considerably more to catapult not only the student's cause but also the wider reality of the cuts program into public conscience than a polite walk around the block would have done. It may also help to remind those fuckers that people will only put up with being sidelined and ignored by their elected 'representatives' for so long...


----------



## Santino (Nov 14, 2010)

goebfwai said:


> I am not suggesting that Gandhi, Mandela et al are perfect - few would.
> 
> But most people would agree that in the struggles they undertook, in the movements they became figure heads in, they endeavoured - on the whole - to do so non-violently, with peace, love and respect for humanity - including their perceived enemies and adversaries.  They may never have achieved that all of the time, but the key point is their movements were never ever short-sightedly sidelined or quagmired by short term hysterics or theatrics.  They kept an eye on the long goal, and paid attention to how ill thought out actions and behaviours might play into their opponents hands.  And how these actions might be mediated, viewed in the wider world by the public, and used to discredit their movements.
> 
> ...



Do you want a punch in the gob?


----------



## love detective (Nov 14, 2010)

Pickman's model;11236173][QUOTE=madzone said:


> Is there anything I could be doing as a student?


your coursework.[/QUOTE]


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 14, 2010)

SpineyNorman said:


> I assume that's the same Ghandi who offered this sage-like advice to the British when the Nazis were trying to invade: "I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."


 
I'm not a pacifist, but I respect the pacifism of the likes of Ghandi and Tolstoy. They believed that it was better to die than to allow yourself to kill. These were the boundaries beyond which they were not willing to act. It is a kind of example-setting – presenting 'an ocean of benevolence' when faced with aggression. It's not an easy position to take up, not at all, and I admire those that do. If enough of us did, we would win out in the end – maybe they are right.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 14, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> At the anti-cuts meeting I was at yesterday, one person condemned the occupation and "violence" on Wednesday.  At least five condoned it.


 
Same at ours. Almost everyone who spoke said their piece then said 'Oh and by the way....' with regard to the students.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 14, 2010)

goebfwai said:


> I am not suggesting that Gandhi, Mandela et al are perfect - few would.
> 
> But most people would agree that in the struggles they undertook, in the movements they became figure heads in, they endeavoured - on the whole - to do so non-violently, with peace, love and respect for humanity - including their perceived enemies and adversaries.  They may never have achieved that all of the time, but the key point is their movements were never ever short-sightedly sidelined or quagmired by short term hysterics or theatrics.  They kept an eye on the long goal, and paid attention to how ill thought out actions and behaviours might play into their opponents hands.  And how these actions might be mediated, viewed in the wider world by the public, and used to discredit their movements.
> 
> ...


 
Well, as has been pointed out, Mandela certainly did not subscribe to the idea of non-violence. But let's forget about that for a moment. How many marched, peacefully, against the Iraq war? Wasn't it somewhere in the region of 2million? Where did it get us?

When fees were originally introduced, the NUS marched peacefully. Can you remember that? Is it imprinted in the public consciousness? What did it do to raise awareness? Nothing. Why? Because nobody listens when you don't kick up a stink.

On the other hand, I do not know anyone who doesn't know about last Wednesday's march. Why? Because people kicked up a fuss. It works. The "violence" of which you speak was not on actual people, it was windows. What is more violent? Smashing a couple of windows or introducing spending cuts that WILL damage real people, removing essential services from the sick, elderly and disabled? Bearing in mind how the suicide rate increased under Thatcher, this alone will cause people to DIE.

People are talking about these issues precisely because there was "violence", or rather destruction of property. Take for instance my 65 year-old church going mother, who has never had so much as a parking ticket in her life. She is 100% behind the students and approves of their techniques. When non-violent resistance has consistenly failed us, as it has in this country, what other option is there? 

Please don't just say "look what Gandhi achieved" as that's utterly irrelevant. We aren't in India and we aren't fighting an imperial power that needs to withdraw in order to defend its own interests. Tell us exactly how your non-violent resistance will work - what's the plan?


----------



## winjer (Nov 14, 2010)

goebfwai said:


> Surely this then makes it absolutely essential that some sort of discipline is restored and code of conduct maintained on any future protest?


Oh yes, it worked so well at Peterloo.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 14, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not a pacifist, but I respect the pacifism of the likes of Ghandi and Tolstoy. They believed that it was better to die than to allow yourself to kill. These were the boundaries beyond which they were not willing to act. It is a kind of example-setting – presenting 'an ocean of benevolence' when faced with aggression. It's not an easy position to take up, not at all, and I admire those that do. If enough of us did, we would win out in the end – maybe they are right.


 
I think if we'd have followed Gandhi's advice when confronted by the Nazis, rather than withdrawing in disgust at themselves, they'd just have thought, "fuck me, it's Christmas!" and killed the lot of us, particularly as Gandhi told us we should do this at the same time as refusing to submit to their rule.

If it's possible to win via non-violent method's I'd be more than happy to do so. If anyone has any ideas as to how we might actually achieve this (you say if everyone did it we'd win, but how to we persuade them? They're not even all on our side) I would be delighted to hear it, I'd much rather do it peacefully, apart from anything else fighting hurts, even when you win.  

However, the lessons of history, and the nature of the government that is trying to inflict this on us, leads me to think that the only way we're going to get anywhere is through force. I'm not big on the idea of violence against individuals, unless it's in direct self-defence, but I have no problem with damaging property, provided it's in line with a wider strategy.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 14, 2010)

madzone said:


> Is there anything I could be doing as a student?


 


Pickman's model said:


> your coursework.


 
This made me lol.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2010)

Gahndi would have been crushed beneath the imperial boot had he not operated against a background of the empire in serious financial peril due to wars.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 14, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> Gahndi would have been crushed beneath the imperial boot had he not operated against a background of the empire in serious financial peril due to wars.


 
Exactly.


----------



## rioted (Nov 14, 2010)

revol68 said:


> it's a giant step towards full marketisation of universities, £9000 will quickly become £20,000.


Just as quickly as Labours £3000 became £9000?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2010)

'but Labour done this' is a hollow cry when most have written them off post-blair.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 14, 2010)

rioted said:


> Just as quickly as Labours £3000 became £9000?


 
Yes, pretty much.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 14, 2010)

50+ pages of replies.

yep, symbolic resistance is, er, pointless?!

maybe not...


----------



## goebfwai (Nov 14, 2010)

From what I've heard and read, it sounds as if any future anti cuts protests are going to be more broad based with a larger input and participation from the Trade Union movement.  I think the input from an older age group, with this type of wisdom and experience, and that kind of broadening out of the diversity of opinion on strategy and tactics etc will prove to be very important, if a more satisfactory people and planet friendly economic and policy settlement from the current coalition (or next govt) is ultimately to be achieved.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 15, 2010)

Daily Mirror supports the rioters:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/columnists/routledge/

As do the readers of the Daily Star:



> Daily Star readers remained split last night over whether the students were right to riot, with 54% saying yes and 46% saying no.



http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/162571/David-Cameron-Riot-students-will-be-caught-/

Fuck the union bureaucrats and "respectable" so called "leftists" that "condemned" the "violence". Anybody who even uses the langauge of "condemnation" is most likely a fucking twat in the first place.


----------



## where to (Nov 15, 2010)

the moment that confirmed to me Aaron Porter was a cunt was when Paxman asked him to tell Clare Solomon something like how violent protest was wrong, and he turned to her and then did as he'd been asked.  unbelievable that.  she should of smacked the weasle shit in the gob for that.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 15, 2010)

Paul O'Grady is from Birkenhead, so should be well aware that Thatcherism is a toxic pile of shit:


----------



## revlon (Nov 15, 2010)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Daily Mirror supports the rioters:
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/columnists/routledge/
> 
> ...


 
that itn footage on the star site - cameron in voiceover earnestly states  "they [the police] were extremely brave in the face of some pretty violent behaviour" as the footage cuts to a riot cop kicking the shit out of a studet curled up on the ground, then picks up another the hurls him down to the ground after him.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 15, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> All right. Fine. pk and db are both banned for the weekend for calling people cunts after it was posted that anyone calling anyone else a cunt would be banned for the weekend.


thank fuck for the unexpected outbreak of complete common sense.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 15, 2010)

I do think it should be noted how the thread got back on track once Detective Boy was banned, he reduces all threads into "poor me" whinges cos shock horror most people on Urban have little time for the apologetics of a pig.

Why doesn't he fuck off to cop forums or something?


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2010)

revol68 said:


> I do think it should be noted how the thread got back on track once Detective Boy was banned, he reduces all threads into "poor me" whinges cos shock horror most people on Urban have little time for the apologetics of a pig.
> 
> Why doesn't he fuck off to cop forums or something?


And you think this shit-stirring personal attack is just what's needed to keep it on track, so you?

You're behaving every bit as badly as him here.


----------



## where to (Nov 15, 2010)

you've not been posting much since he was banned either though 

personally i sometimes find his police info and perspective quite interesting/ useful.

[@ revol 68]


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 15, 2010)

editor said:


> And you think this shit-stirring personal attack is just what's needed to keep it on track, so you?
> 
> You're behaving every bit as badly as him here.


he has got a point tbh, at least on the first half.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 15, 2010)

editor said:


> And you think this shit-stirring personal attack is just what's needed to keep it on track, so you?
> 
> You're behaving every bit as badly as him here.


 
screw the behaviour, what is this a church coffee morning?

what matters is the politics.

I'd have thought the actions of the students might have helped you find your political balls.

Why you let a cop on here to disrail and spread disinformation is beyond me.

Talking of which did you see your chum Paddock out attacking the protesters? That prick is more hateful than your average pig because he is the velvet glove for the iron fist.


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2010)

revol68 said:


> Why you let a cop on here to disrail and spread disinformation is beyond me.


Ah, I see. You don't want the board rules about personal attacks to apply to you, and you also want to censor and ban posters based on your own personal politics. How very progressive.


revol68 said:


> Talking of which did you see your chum Paddock out attacking the protesters?


His name is 'Paddick' and he's not my 'chum.'


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 15, 2010)

editor said:


> Ah, I see. You don't want the board rules about personal attacks to apply to you, and you also want to censor and ban posters based on your own personal politics. How very progressive.
> His name is 'Paddick' and he's not my 'chum.'


----------



## dylans (Nov 15, 2010)

editor said:


> And you think this shit-stirring personal attack is just what's needed to keep it on track, so you?
> 
> You're behaving every bit as badly as him here.


 
Here here



> what matters is the politics.



Indeed. Something you should remember and leave out the childish "fuck off pig" remarks which serve no purpose whatsoever. You are just as responsible for derailing this thread. Get over yourself

thanks for your concerned attempts to protect us all from "disinformation" by censoring what we can read but I will  make up my own mind and respond accordingly thanks


----------



## revol68 (Nov 15, 2010)

I don't think a constant and deliberate and political motivated derailer/professional victim like detective boy should be allowed to spread disinformation in productive threads about resisting these waves of cuts.

As for me wanting him banned, well I'd rather you banned a hideous and explicitly anti working class troll like him for his motives and politics, instead arbitrarily coming in and introducing a ban on calling someone a cunt. Like you said threads like this are too important to be derailed and I that is what detective boy seeks to do, he wants to push every thread into a blind alley of legalism, a channel which automatically castrates any real opposition to these cuts. Banning him for that is more progressive, justifiable and in my mind more useful than banning him for calling someone a cunt.

I'm aware it's "Paddick", Paddock was a failed attempt to play on the fact he is full of shit, and no he's not your chum that was a low dig at the fact you entertained the piece of shit for reasons lost on me.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 15, 2010)

and yes I'm aware that me giving dogs abuse to detective boy and complaining about his presence in a sense is derailing the but thread too, but I do so in the hope that he will be excluded or flonce and so be ultimately worth it.


----------



## dylans (Nov 15, 2010)

give it a rest for fucks sakes


----------



## editor (Nov 15, 2010)

revol68 said:


> I'm aware it's "Paddick", Paddock was a failed attempt to play on the fact he is full of shit, and no he's not your chum that was a low dig at the fact you entertained the piece of shit for reasons lost on me.


He actually contributed to some of the best discussions we've ever had in the Brixton forum and it's a shame that your blind and blanket hatred of anything police-related can't see past that. 

Just because posters here engaged in that debate with him, that doesn't make them pro-police or anything else. 

This thread is already being dragged off topic again, so if you want to discuss why he was able to post on urban75, please start a new thread.

And, once again, I would ask posters to refrain from repeated and relentless personal attacks and discuss _the politics _here. These are the rules of this board and they apply to everyone.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 15, 2010)

I'd actually be more interested in hearing the thoughts of a straight up typical cop than a sneaky slithering git like Paddock, like I said he's just the velvet glove and he's let the mask fully slip with his comments on the protesters.

Anyway regarding Pig Boy I'd rather you banned him from these kind of threads for political reasons rather than jumping in and arbitrarily putting a ban on the next use of the cunt word, afterall the cunt word wasn't really the problem, it was the fact he was determined to derail the thread into a) a deadend of legalistic bullshit and/or b) his usual "everyone is ganging up on me" bleating. 

I'll say something for Pig Boy though he certainly is capable of bringing posters who normally dislike each other together.

That's my last post on the issue on this thread, I just hope you give some thought to the role of these sort of political threads and what they should be aiming towards.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 15, 2010)

editor said:


> He actually contributed to some of the best discussions we've ever had in the Brixton forum and it's a shame that your blind and blanket hatred of anything police-related can't see past that.
> 
> Just because posters here engaged in that debate with him, that doesn't make them pro-police or anything else.
> 
> ...


this took me 2 minutes to compile.



detective-boy said:


> No Collective.
> 
> No circle jerk.
> 
> ...





detective-boy;11234332]Which bit of "Just fuck off.  I have no interest in ever engaging with you again" are you having difficulty with?  :confused:[/QUOTE][QUOTE=detective-boy;11235102]Except I said:


> Why don't you fuck off?
> 
> You're an idiot.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 15, 2010)

anyway, students eh?


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 15, 2010)

Is nobody else a claire solomon fanboy then?

I think the contrast between her and that useless labour aarron porter is pretty striking.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 15, 2010)

revol68 said:


> I don't think a constant and deliberate and political motivated derailer/professional victim like detective boy should be allowed to spread disinformation in productive threads about resisting these waves of cuts.
> 
> As for me wanting him banned, well I'd rather you banned a hideous and explicitly anti working class troll like him for his motives and politics, instead arbitrarily coming in and introducing a ban on calling someone a cunt. Like you said threads like this are too important to be derailed and I that is what detective boy seeks to do, he wants to push every thread into a blind alley of legalism, a channel which automatically castrates any real opposition to these cuts. Banning him for that is more progressive, justifiable and in my mind more useful than banning him for calling someone a cunt.
> 
> I'm aware it's "Paddick", Paddock was a failed attempt to play on the fact he is full of shit, and no he's not your chum that was a low dig at the fact you entertained the piece of shit for reasons lost on me.


 
If you can form a reasonable argument, based on and backed up with facts, against any point that he puts forward, it doesn't matter whether _he_ comes round to your way of thinking, anyone else reading that discourse will see that your side of the argument is balanced and sensible, and potentially come round to your way of thinking.  Open and transparent debate will ultimately show the bullshitters from the people who've actually got somethin sensible to say for themselves.  Unfortunately, saying 'fuck off pig' undermines your argument and him calling people a cunt and madzone a 'lying bitch' undermines his argument.  This tends to result in a bit of a cluster fuck that just pisses everyone else off.

If what he is saying is soooo wrong and rubbish, just counter it with a proper argument, ffs.  You're not exactly giving a good impression of either yourself or anyone else on the left really, are you?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 15, 2010)

Very good Revol - you've said something on the money at last.



revol68 said:


> I don't think a constant and deliberate and political motivated derailer/professional victim like detective boy should be allowed to spread disinformation in productive threads about resisting these waves of cuts.
> 
> As for me wanting him banned, well I'd rather you banned a hideous and explicitly anti working class troll like him for his motives and politics, instead arbitrarily coming in and introducing a ban on calling someone a cunt. Like you said threads like this are too important to be derailed and I that is what detective boy seeks to do, he wants to push every thread into a blind alley of legalism, a channel which automatically castrates any real opposition to these cuts. Banning him for that is more progressive, justifiable and in my mind more useful than banning him for calling someone a cunt.
> 
> I'm aware it's "Paddick", Paddock was a failed attempt to play on the fact he is full of shit, and no he's not your chum that was a low dig at the fact you entertained the piece of shit for reasons lost on me.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> If you can form a reasonable argument, based on and backed up with facts, against any point that he puts forward, it doesn't matter whether _he_ comes round to your way of thinking, anyone else reading that discourse will see that your side of the argument is balanced and sensible, and potentially come round to your way of thinking.  Open and transparent debate will ultimately show the bullshitters from the people who've actually got somethin sensible to say for themselves.  Unfortunately, saying 'fuck off pig' undermines your argument and him calling people a cunt and madzone a 'lying bitch' undermines his argument.  This tends to result in a bit of a cluster fuck that just pisses everyone else off.
> 
> If what he is saying is soooo wrong and rubbish, just counter it with a proper argument, ffs.  You're not exactly giving a good impression of either yourself or anyone else on the left really, are you?


 
I take it you don't read p&p where he has destroyed all hope of having any discussion of law and order type debates despite being taken apart time after time in the manner you suggest?


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I take it you don't read p&p where he has destroyed all hope of having any discussion of law and order type debates despite being taken apart time after time in the manner you suggest?


 
So if he can't engage in a sensible debate why not just walk away from it?  What purpose does name calling serve other than to make the people doing it look like nobs?


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 15, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> So if he can't engage in a sensible debate why not just walk away from it?  What purpose does name calling serve other than to make the people doing it look like nobs?


 
Because it disrupts decent discussion.  You can't walk away from it without walking away from the discussion.  The way this thread degenerated is a good example.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 15, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Because it disrupts decent discussion.  You can't walk away from it without walking away from the discussion.


 
Yes you can.  If the person you are attempting to engage with is not being engaged what discussion is there to be had anyway?


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 15, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Because it disrupts decent discussion.  You can't walk away from it without walking away from the discussion.  The way this thread degenerated is a good example.


 
True


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 15, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> Yes you can.  If the person you are attempting to engage with is not being engaged what discussion is there to be had anyway?


 
This thread is not about d_b.  He made it about d_b.  Discussion ruined.

ducy?


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 15, 2010)

editor said:


> His name is 'Paddick' and he's not my 'chum.'


 
So det6ective boy is Brian Paddick then? 

Potty mouthed little chap isn't he?! Didn't act like this on 'Come dine with me'.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 15, 2010)

Well that's your opinions and you're entitled to them.  Personally I think the best way to deal with pointless attention seeking is just to ignore it and carry on with what you were doing.  Perhaps if more people had just done that on this thread, it would have stayed a bit more on topic.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 15, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> If you can form a reasonable argument, based on and backed up with facts, against any point that he puts forward, it doesn't matter whether _he_ comes round to your way of thinking, anyone else reading that discourse will see that your side of the argument is balanced and sensible, and potentially come round to your way of thinking.  Open and transparent debate will ultimately show the bullshitters from the people who've actually got somethin sensible to say for themselves.  Unfortunately, saying 'fuck off pig' undermines your argument and him calling people a cunt and madzone a 'lying bitch' undermines his argument.  This tends to result in a bit of a cluster fuck that just pisses everyone else off.
> 
> If what he is saying is soooo wrong and rubbish, just counter it with a proper argument, ffs.  You're not exactly giving a good impression of either yourself or anyone else on the left really, are you?



To be honest, this is liberal nonsense. Some people ie cops, are NEVER going to change and thus any input (and Db is a good example) is suspect. You have got to realise that we live in a seriously class divided society, and some people are so immersed in their class positions, some more towards the top (ideologically at least) and some towards the bottom, that expecting 'reasoned discussion' is just a liberal pipe dream.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 15, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> This thread is not about d_b.  He made it about d_b.  Discussion ruined.
> 
> ducy?


 
then he got banned and it briefly went back on topic.  then some more people came back (not d-b) and made it about d-b again. do you see?


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 15, 2010)

urban though my point was so good it posted it twice


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 15, 2010)

Well, I'm going to take my own advice now.  I appreciate what you're saying but I don't think that excluding certain people from debates (and lets face it its not like he's trying to sneak into some closed socialist meeting in disguise, is it?) on open internet forums is going to achieve anything.  Additionally, if it were decided that certain people were not welcome in certain topics name calling is hardly the way to go about dealing with enforcing it, is it?

Anything further to that is not relevent to this topic and I won't defend my point any further.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 15, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> So det6ective boy is Brian Paddick then?



No he's not.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> So if he can't engage in a sensible debate why not just walk away from it?  What purpose does name calling serve other than to make the people doing it look like nobs?


 
I want to talk about law and order stuff. I can't because he turns every thread to shit. Me walking away changes nothing except stopping me and others talking about what we want. I gave you dome context and some background because you're obviously in need of it as regards this poster. 

And look, here i am as well, discussing this knob.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> Yes you can.  If the person you are attempting to engage with is not being engaged what discussion is there to be had anyway?


 
With other people. Is this your first time on a d-b thread? Go look at the graveyard of threads destroyed by him in p&p before taking this utopian position.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> With other people. Is this your first time on a d-b thread? Go look at the graveyard of threads destroyed by him in p&p before taking this utopian position.


 
My point is, if you literally just ignore him, you don't need to tell him to fuck off there will be no fuel for his fire.  That doesn't stop you talking to other people, does it?

Anyway, on a totally different subject, does anyone know what is actually going to happen when tutition fees go up?  Are students really going to take out loans to cover them or will they abandon their studies instead?  What impact will that have on benefits claimed as there are unlikely to be loads of jobs about for them to do instead?


----------



## Nylock (Nov 15, 2010)

i'd imagine the amounts on offer from the SLC will rise accordingly...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

His fuel doesn't come from people telling him to fuck off but from people disagreeing with him. And no, individual ignorals have not worked at all.

What effect will it have? Poorer people dropping out, not applying or fucking up their degrees through over-work. Better off people relying on parents and doing ok. Class polarisation to pre-ww2 levels.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 15, 2010)

Crispy said:


> No he's not.


 
Cheers Crispy.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> His fuel doesn't come from people telling him to fuck off but from people disagreeing with him. And no, individual ignorals have not worked at all.
> 
> What effect will it have? Poorer people dropping out, not applying or fucking up their degrees through over-work. Better off people relying on parents and doing ok. Class polarisation to pre-ww2 levels.


 
I realise that will be the general overall effect.  I've not really thought to ask any of the students I know what they will actually do when push comes to shove.  Also would be interested to see if anyone's done any clever sums that illustrate what additional strain students dropping out or not applying in the first place will put on the benefits system in general.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 15, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> I realise that will be the general overall effect.  I've not really thought to ask any of the students I know what they will actually do when push comes to shove.  Also would be interested to see if anyone's done any clever sums that illustrate what additional strain students dropping out or not applying in the first place will put on the benefits system in general.


On a purely personal level, it's made my son very wary and concerned about the possibility of going to university next year and finding himself owing 10's of thousands of pounds by the time he's finished his studies. We, his parents, aren't in a position to say "Don't worry about it son" because we're not rich enough to have a few thousand lying idle.

I would imagine that there are similar concerns amongst many of his peer group, from what he's said. So basically, students from less-moneyed backgrounds are now facing an even larger disincentive to pursue higher education (and probably further education, with the EMA being scrapped and childcare provision significantly reduced). I don't think you need any clever sums to understand that tbh.


----------



## dylans (Nov 15, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> On a purely personal level, it's made my son very wary and concerned about the possibility of going to university next year and finding himself owing 10's of thousands of pounds by the time he's finished his studies. We, his parents, aren't in a position to say "Don't worry about it son" because we're not rich enough to have a few thousand lying idle.
> 
> I would imagine that there are similar concerns amongst many of his peer group, from what he's said. So basically, students from less-moneyed backgrounds are now facing an even larger disincentive to pursue higher education (and probably further education, with the EMA being scrapped and childcare provision significantly reduced). I don't think you need any clever sums to understand that tbh.


 
My parents were really proud when I went to uni. I managed to leave a life framed by YTS schemes, the dole and shitty factory jobs to try and realise something of my potential. I think I'm quite smart academically and if I had been faced with a life of massive debt I may never have considered uni. 
My son is very gifted, consistantly top scores at school which he breezes through, a head for maths and science and given the opportunity a chance at a good life. Whatever the cost I will do my best to ensure he gets those chances but It breaks my heart to think he will only do that by taking on a life of debt.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 15, 2010)

dylans said:


> My parents were really proud when I went to uni. I managed to leave a life framed by YTS schemes, the dole and shitty factory jobs to try and realise something of my potential. I think I'm quite smart academically and if I had been faced with a life of massive debt I may never have considered uni.
> My son is very gifted, consistantly top scores at school which he breezes through, a head for maths and science and given the opportunity a chance at a good life. Whatever the cost I will do my best to ensure he gets those chances but It breaks my heart to think he will only do that by taking on a life of debt.


 
Onto the streets on the 24th then.


----------



## dylans (Nov 15, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> Onto the streets on the 24th then.


 
Absolutely


----------



## smmudge (Nov 15, 2010)

radio_atomica said:


> I realise that will be the general overall effect.  I've not really thought to ask any of the students I know what they will actually do when push comes to shove.  Also would be interested to see if anyone's done any clever sums that illustrate what additional strain students dropping out or not applying in the first place will put on the benefits system in general.



I guess all fees will be paid upfront by the SLC so it won't be a case of students having less money while studying, just coming out with larger debt. Also when they change tuition fees it stays as it was for current students, they just bring in the changes for new intakes, so anyone studying now won't be affected.

Can't imagine there would be many people at all who would want that level of debt, when they came out the other end. As it is now it's pretty daunting tbh.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 15, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Right, those involved in anti-cuts alliances, what link ups have you managed to achieve with students or student groups? What are your plans to ensure there's link ups?


I'm HAPS (Haringey); One of our main activists is a UCU branch sec at tyhe main FE here, so she's following that up. We also had a strong student presence on our demo in october, and I'll be hopefully establishing links with Middlesex Uni SU this week. Having said that, we're fairly hamstrung in that there's only one (small) campus in the whole borough.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 15, 2010)

apologise if this has already been posted, but I thought it may be of interest:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2010/11/millbank-property-young-break


----------



## creak (Nov 15, 2010)

I don't know if anyone can help, but I dimly remember the Student Loans Company being prepped as one of the organisations up for privatisation at some point... anyone know what's happening with that? What with the increased fees and much higher interest rates it's going to be a nice little earner for someone. Worth watching whose hands it ends up in- I'm guessing there are more than a few in the Tories' Leader's Group who wouldn't mind a piece of it.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 15, 2010)

creak said:


> I don't know if anyone can help, but I dimly remember the Student Loans Company being prepped as one of the organisations up for privatisation at some point... anyone know what's happening with that? What with the increased fees and much higher interest rates it's going to be a nice little earner for someone. Worth watching whose hands it ends up in- I'm guessing there are more than a few in the Tories' Leader's Group who wouldn't mind a piece of it.


 
It's allready a not for profit company.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

Yes, it's being flogged off -a revunue producing asset is going to be sold so the private sector can take that revenue - see also the tote and Royal Mail.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's allready a not for profit company.


 
It produces revenue for the govt. I thought you were off to get attacked in the street?


----------



## ExtraRefined (Nov 15, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> On a purely personal level, it's made my son very wary and concerned about the possibility of going to university next year and finding himself owing 10's of thousands of pounds by the time he's finished his studies.



Tell him not to worry, he already owes the government £100,000 or so, so another few grand is neither here nor there.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 16, 2010)

dylans said:


> My son is very gifted, consistantly top scores at school which he breezes through, a head for maths and science and given the opportunity a chance at a good life. Whatever the cost I will do my best to ensure he gets those chances but It breaks my heart to think he will only do that by taking on a life of debt.


reading this, and Paulie |Tandoori's post, makes me so fucking angry on your behalf. It really does.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 16, 2010)

yep.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 16, 2010)

love detective said:


> Never thought I'd see the day where I pretty much agreed with everything written by a student class war group! But I have to say most of that was spot on
> 
> Has anything been done across anti-cuts groups to establish any kind of legal/financial/practical support group/funds for anyone nicked yesterday/going ahead ?
> 
> ...


I thought I should put this up in response to your Q re; legal support.
This, btw, is the post that caused those poor sensitive ickle petals in the Met to get Fitwatch pulled, but it's been posted in so many other places by now, I can't see it causing a problem by being posted here.
Were you or anyone you know at the National March against Cuts or at the Conservative HQ in Millbank London ?
Posted on November 10, 2010 by nov10 
WERE YOU OR ANYONE YOU KNOW AT THE MARCH AGAINST TUITION FEES OR NEAR TO THE CONSERVATIVE HQ AT MILLBANK ON 10TH NOVEMBER 2010?

Last updated at 14:22 on Friday 12th November 2010

SEE YOUR OR YOUR FRIENDS’ FACE HERE?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pic...-recognise-these-student-rioters.html?image=1

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ST-Hardcore-leaders-student-mob-unmasked.html

******DO NOT PANIC. FIRST READ THIS******

WHO ARE WE AND WHY WE ARE HERE

We are a network of people committed to unconditional solidarity with those demonstrating at the Conservative Party HQ in Millbank on 10th November 2010.

This is the least we can do. The state and corporate media have already started a campaign of repression. We have experience of dealing with state repression with defence campaigns. From the Poll Tax Rioters to the Demonstrators against the Israeli Invasion of Gaza (Dec 08-Jan 09) and the EDO Decommissioners (Jan 09-May 2010) experience tells us you should be calm and careful what you say and do from now on.
Irrespective of whether you did anything you feel was criminal, the fact that you were at the Conservative HQ on the day in question means you will be treated as a criminal if the police can get away with it.

-ADVICE NOW-

1. READ THIS FROM THE BRILLIANT FITWATCH BLOG

http://fitwatch.org.uk/2010/11/beating-police-repression-after-the-student-occupation.html

2. DO NOT say anything to anyone

You have the right to silence and the right not to incriminate yourself. So we recommend you do NOT. SAY NOTHING TO NO-ONE ONLINE OR OFFLINE, ON THE PHONE OR IN PERSON about the events. These are valuable resources for the Police to find you via internet trawling and phone tapping in order to pin a prosecution on you.

DO NOT SAY ANYTHING TO THE POLICE even if they say “it is in your best interests”. The Police are the arm of the State and a bureaucratic military organisation NEVER to be trusted. Even if the Police put your name and photo in the newspaper, arrest you, take your photo request a solicitor (see Christian Khan below) and demand your Solicitor advises you to say nothing. That way you can say the Solicitor advised you to say nothing in the event the State tries to infer guilty from the fact you said nothing!

Even if they have your picture, and say you committed an offence it does not mean you committed THAT offence or any offence at all. A picture of you holding an item that could cause damage to property does not amount to evidence of you causing damage with that item. So on these matters, like everything else, SAY NOTHING!

3. BE EXTREMELY CAREFUL IN ATTENDING FUTURE DEMOS considering what has happened.

4. KEEP A SOLICITORS NAME AND EMERGENCY NUMBER ON YOU AT ALL TIMES

We personally recommend anyone that MAY need a solicitor to opt for Christian Khan Solicitors 020 7631 9500 (ask for Kat Craig) & on EMERGENCY 24 HOURS 07659105246 or Hodge Jones & Allen Solicitors (ask from Raj) on 08004370080 or 07659111192.

5. DO STAY WITH FRIENDS UNASSOCIATED WITH THE DEMO OR CAMPAIGN SO YOU ARE NOT ISOLATED IF ARRESTED

6. IF THE NEWSPAPERS NAME AND DEFAME YOU DO PURSUE A NO-WIN NO-FEE CLAIM AGAINST THEM FOR DEFAMATION (LIBEL)

Already people are pursuing the Torygraph and the Daily Wail for defamation. We recommend Carter Ruck for making claims.

Leo.Dawkins@carter-ruck.com

7. WE ARE HERE TO HELP BUT ONLY CONTACT US AFTER CREATING A NEW EMAIL ADDRESS WITH A DIFFERENT NAME AND FACEBOOK

The mere fact that we are advertising ourselves as a place to get help means that the Police will attempt to gain access to our accounts to identify people to pin prosecutions upon.

If you want to contact us,

(i) go to a location unrelated to you – i.e. unrelated to your home, work, educational establishment or family/friends.

(ii) use private browsing (so no cookies are left)

(iii) create a new email address, and facebook

(iv) then contact us

8. KEEP LOOKING AT THIS WEBSITE (the one linked to below, that is) 

In the coming weeks we will provide more information but sign up to keep updated.
If you have any questions and would like ANY HELP please contact us. If there is anything you would like to talk about in person please arrange to meet.
We will be raising funds and collating evidence for defence cases and will be in touch with further information in the coming weeks.

Stay in Touch

In Solidarity

http://nov10.wordpress.com/


----------



## winjer (Nov 16, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> This, btw, is the post that caused those poor sensitive ickle petals in the Met to get Fitwatch pulled, but it's been posted in so many other places by now, I can't see it causing a problem by being posted here.


It links to, but is not, the post the Met objected to. The Fitwatch post is reproduced here:
http://libcom.org/library/beating-police-repression-after-student-occupation


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 16, 2010)

winjer said:


> It links to, but is not, the post the Met objected to. The Fitwatch post is reproduced here:
> http://libcom.org/library/beating-police-repression-after-student-occupation


sorry folks, must have misread it then. i thought the bit which caused the collective constabulary knickertwisting was the bit about destroying clothes i.e. evidence, repro'ed in my post above?
Especially as the two posts are 95% identical?


----------



## audiotech (Nov 16, 2010)

Violent London.

A discussion on the history of violent protest in London.


----------



## plurker (Nov 16, 2010)

_The website Fitwatch was suspended after the its hosting company received contact from C011, the Metropolitan's public order branch, stating that the blog was "being used to undertake criminal activities"._

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/16/student-anti-police-website-closed


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 16, 2010)

Seems odd that they're seeking to criminalise the act of stating the bleeding obvious.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 16, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Seems odd that they're seeking to criminalise the act of stating the bleeding obvious.


 
what, ACAB


----------



## winjer (Nov 16, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> sorry folks, must have misread it then. i thought the bit which caused the collective constabulary knickertwisting was the bit about destroying clothes i.e. evidence, repro'ed in my post above?


There's nothing about clothes in what you posted.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 16, 2010)

winjer said:


> There's nothing about clothes in what you posted.


ah yes, how sloppy of me. good point. I should also point out I asked the mods to check my post, as i certainly don't wanna drop mike in it.


----------



## love detective (Nov 16, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Seems odd that they're seeking to criminalise the act of stating the bleeding obvious.


 
'the new politics'


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 16, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> All right. Fine. pk and db are both banned for the weekend for calling people cunts after it was posted that anyone calling anyone else a cunt would be banned for the weekend.


Whilst _entirely_ ignoring the shenanigans by revol68 _et al_ ... no surprises there then ...


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 16, 2010)

dylans said:


> When the strikers act to defend their interests by stopping the scabs crossing the picket line the police act to enforce the "peace" and allow the strike breakers to cross.


What about the right of the "scabs" to make their own decision (rightly or wrongly) and their right to carry out any legal activity (in this case continuing to work) without being threatened with violence if they do?

Whilst I understand the points that you make about the relative positions fo "workers" and employers, any avoidance of the rights of individual "workers" to disagree with the union / their striking colleagues requires an assumption that the union / strikers are _always_ assumed to be _absolutely right_.  I am afraid I cannot see the justification for anything that _any_ people are required to do by threat or use of force.  That is, to my mind, simply impossible to incorporate with any view of a genuine democracy.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 16, 2010)




----------



## Blagsta (Nov 16, 2010)

which is why and claims to the law being impartial are nonsense


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 16, 2010)

dylans said:


> ... and restricting ourselves to only peaceful or legal means will mean defeat and that is simply unthinkable.


You should note that I have not ruled out _all_ unlawful means - I have specifically discussed that relatively minor offending should be tolerated as part of a wider protest, etc.  I would draw the line at anything which caused (or threatened) significant injury to anyone (including their being terrorised or intimidated in any deliberate way) or which caused serious (defined in the context of the individual facts - eg. putting graffiti on a police vehicle does not cause "serious" harm to the police as an organisation as putting the same graffiti on the single vehicle owned by a small business would) damage or damge likely to endanger life (e.g. arson)


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 16, 2010)

I think we are in danger of following the media agenda on the student demo. That is, to waste time discussing aspects of the action at Millbank. The media just want to discredit opponents of government policy. Let's ignore the media on this story. 

The real topic is the effect of the cuts as it affects not only students but the rest of us. The students have lead the way with their massive march and now we need to follow up with protests by all of us whether public sector employees or users of public sector provision. This is everyone really. We must support each other across the groups we belong to and not allow ourselves to be picked off group by group.

Also protests at the failure of Nick Clegg and the Libdems to hold to pre-election promises are a reasonable start, but really the enemy is the whole of the coalition government with its 18 millionaires. They do not represent the people and the people did not vote for them.


----------



## belboid (Nov 16, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> What about the right of the "scabs" to make their own decision (rightly or wrongly) and their right to carry out any legal activity (in this case continuing to work) without being threatened with violence if they do?
> 
> Whilst I understand the points that you make about the relative positions fo "workers" and employers, any avoidance of the rights of individual "workers" to disagree with the union / their striking colleagues requires an assumption that the union / strikers are _always_ assumed to be _absolutely right_.  I am afraid I cannot see the justification for anything that _any_ people are required to do by threat or use of force.  That is, to my mind, simply impossible to incorporate with any view of a genuine democracy.


 
by that logic i should ignore any law passed i dont like. Fair play.


----------



## goebfwai (Nov 16, 2010)

Some useful and highly transferable words of advice in the article below:


> *Projecting Power or Promoting Peace: The Prophetic
> Call For Justice, Kindness, Humility *
> By Robert Jensen
> 15 November, 2010, Countercurrents.org
> http://www.countercurrents.org/jensen151110.htm


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 16, 2010)

the legality of undermining your fellow worker does not affect the fact that it is a moral wrong- and yes I invoked morality. Because the law has no basis in morality save a shadow of judeo-christian stuff when it suits the suits.


----------



## revlon (Nov 16, 2010)

today's evening standard is a beauty.



> Today a detective leading the hunt for the rampaging students revealed that most of the 59 people arrested so far had little or no history of trouble.
> 
> Acting Detective Inspector Will Hodgson, who is leading Operation Malone, said the vast majority of those arrested were students.
> 
> He said: “Unfortunately, we are finding that many of these people are young students who do not seem to have been in any trouble before. It appears they may have been provoked by more anarchist groups.





> Mr Hodgson said that after studying images of the riot it appeared the protest was mainly a peaceful march but once protesters broke into the Millbank Tower a “pack mentality” took over. He added: “They seemed to lose all reason, yet when you interview these youngsters they are thoughtful, articulate people.”
> 
> Of the 59 arrested so far, 21 are women. Most are aged between 18 and 26 years but one is in their early thirties and 10 are aged 17 or under.



http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23897962-police-release-pictures-of-studnent-tuition-fee-riot-suspects.do


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 16, 2010)

revlon said:


> today's evening standard is a beauty.


Police investigation finds that most students arrested at student riot were students!!!

Fuck me, now there's a surprise....


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 16, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> And now he's shown his true colours.


So you would spend resources on keeping the old and infirm alive for longer than nature intends and NOT fund education for the young then, yes?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 16, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Ham-fisted though the attempt was, there's a little more to it than you quoted.


You don't _really_ expect them to accurately portray what I post, do you?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 16, 2010)

I wouldn't necessarily agree that this should be an "_either... or_" thing, but it is surprising how many resources remain being funnelled towards the older end of the population at the expense of the younger ends.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 16, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So you would spend resources on keeping the old and infirm alive for longer than nature intends and NOT fund education for the young then, yes?


 
Yeah, because there's our two choices right there.

Forget wars and tax avoidance of the rich, you can choose to punish the young or the old. Which is it to be?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 16, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Yeah, because there's our two choices right there.
> 
> Forget wars and tax avoidance of the rich, you can choose to punish the young or the old. Which is it to be?


 
Can't we narrow the focus to individuals?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 16, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Can't we narrow the focus to individuals?


 
Best to keep it to whole sections of society. Because as we know, the rich can afford the best education _and_  private hospital treatment. So they don't get affected by either decision. 

Much like these cuts that are happening.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 16, 2010)

winjer said:


> "Taking out and isolating the anarchists should have been a priority."


I suspect some pressure to inject something a little more interesting into a pretty interesting but, for most people, arcane piece about Scotland Yard internal politics ...

(The sidelining of Micky Messenger was one of Blairs _biggest_ mistakes and the subsequent loss of other highly experienced senior officers coincided with the increasing lack of "grip" over public order officers (particularly the TSG) which culminated in the criticism in "Adapting to Protest" after G20.  To go from where the Met was in Micky Messenger's day to where it is now in a handful of years is a dreadful example of how quickly experience and expertise can be squandered).


----------



## revlon (Nov 16, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I suspect some pressure to inject something a little more interesting into a pretty interesting but, for most people, arcane piece about Scotland Yard internal politics ...
> 
> (The sidelining of Micky Messenger was one of Blairs _biggest_ mistakes and the subsequent loss of other highly experienced senior officers coincided with the increasing lack of "grip" over public order officers (particularly the TSG) which culminated in the criticism in "Adapting to Protest" after G20.  To go from where the Met was in Micky Messenger's day to where it is now in a handful of years is a dreadful example of how quickly experience and expertise can be squandered).


 
ah micky. A coppers cop. Old school. I watched him squirm like fuck at the mayday 2001 unlawful containment hearing, when he and every senior copper on the stand refused to take repsonsibility for the decisons they made on the day and passed the blame down the line so some other poor sod would take the blame. A coppers cop and no mistake.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 16, 2010)

revol68 said:


> I do think it should be noted how the thread got back on track once Detective Boy was banned, he reduces all threads into "poor me" whinges cos shock horror most people on Urban have little time for the apologetics of a pig.
> 
> Why doesn't he fuck off to cop forums or something?


As opposed to your enlightening contributions ... such as your first response to me on the thread, totally out of nowhere:



revol68 said:


> cunt off pig.


People may think that the downward trajectory of the thread can be traced back to your arrival ...


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 16, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> So det6ective boy is Brian Paddick then?


No.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 16, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> which is why and claims to the law being impartial are nonsense


Please explain how allowing one group of people to enforce their views on another group by threats and / or force whilst not allowing that other group to simply go about their (entirely lawful) business would be "impartial".  It would, I suggest, be _entirely_ partial - it would intervene to enforce the views of the "workers" / strikers.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 16, 2010)

belboid said:


> by that logic i should ignore any law passed i dont like. Fair play.


No.  You should be able to ignore _any action taken by / opinion expressed by any other group of citizens_ ... which, of course, you are.  The strikers do not pass a _law_, they express a particular opinion ...


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 16, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> the legality of undermining your fellow worker does not affect the fact that it is a moral wrong- and yes I invoked morality.


Only according to _your_ morals ... which is why morals should have no place in the criminal law - they are entirely subjective ...


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 16, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Yeah, because there's our two choices right there.
> 
> Forget wars and tax avoidance of the rich, you can choose to punish the young or the old. Which is it to be?


I have never said that they are our _only_ two choices, have I?


----------



## winjer (Nov 16, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> (The sidelining of Micky Messenger was one of Blairs _biggest_ mistakes and the subsequent loss of other highly experienced senior officers coincided with the increasing lack of "grip" over public order officers (particularly the TSG)


He's supposedly editing a book on Public Order Law & Practice, it's been pushed backed regularly for four years now. And from his evidence in Austin v Commissioner, it would seem Messenger was in charge when the methods most criticised in Adapting to Protest were introduced, and personally responsible for much of it..


----------



## winjer (Nov 16, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Please explain how allowing one group of people to enforce their views on another group by threats and / or force whilst not allowing that other group to simply go about their (entirely lawful) business would be "impartial".  It would, I suggest, be _entirely_ partial - it would intervene to enforce the views of the "workers" / strikers.


If picketing was not entirely lawful in itself, why were specific laws enacted to criminalize it?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 16, 2010)

winjer said:


> He's supposedly editing a book on Public Order Law & Practice, it's been pushed backed regularly for four years now. And from his evidence in Austin v Commissioner, it would seem Messenger was in charge when the methods most criticised in Adapting to Protest were introduced, and personally responsible for much of it..


I would draw a distinction between the tactics themselves (which he certainly was involved in developing, not least because those used (dispersal, primarily) during the Poll Tax disturbances had a serious downside (running mobs looting shops in all directions)) and the _application_ of those tactics which became significantly more robust / blunt instrument-like after his time.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 16, 2010)

winjer said:


> If picketing was not entirely lawful in itself, why were specific laws enacted to criminalize it?


Because _peaceful_ picketing was not, as you well know, what it still was - it was threats and intimidation, and taking the dispute to other places not directly associated with the issue, which the legislation sought to confront, not picketing _per se_ which remains perfectly legal.  Picketing is a perfectly legitimate way of getting your message to the people who you wnat to get your message to at a time and place that they are likely to take note of it.


----------



## revol68 (Nov 16, 2010)

> Please explain how allowing one group of people to enforce their views on another group by threats and / or force whilst not allowing that other group to simply go about their (entirely lawful) business would be "impartial". It would, I suggest, be entirely partial - it would intervene to enforce the views of the "workers" / strikers.



you silly muppet, the existence of workers and employers isn't some natural eternal law of nature, the state used the full force of itself to create it and it uses the full force of itself to make sure that this power imbalance is maintained.

this is why your universal law is a sham, because one class has nothing but themselves to sell and the other owns the means by which that class can re/produce itself and allows them access to it only on it's draconian terms, on the basis that it expands their capital and their interests. The fundamental role of the police is to ensure the sanctity of property.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 16, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I have never said that they are our _only_ two choices, have I?


 
So why pose the question that way?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 17, 2010)

revlon said:


> today's evening standard is a beauty.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Indeed. That is just fantastic.


----------



## dylans (Nov 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> What about the right of the "scabs" to make their own decision (rightly or wrongly) and their right to carry out any legal activity (in this case continuing to work) without being threatened with violence if they do?
> 
> Whilst I understand the points that you make about the relative positions fo "workers" and employers, any avoidance of the rights of individual "workers" to disagree with the union / their striking colleagues requires an assumption that the union / strikers are _always_ assumed to be _absolutely right_.  I am afraid I cannot see the justification for anything that _any_ people are required to do by threat or use of force.  That is, to my mind, simply impossible to incorporate with any view of a genuine democracy.


 
The guy who disagrees with a strike does have a right to oppose it. He has that right in the democratic  vote for strike action. He has the right to put his case and vote against. He has the right to try to persuade others to oppose it.Once that vote has been taken and the decision for strike action has been made however he has lost his argument and is then obliged by the principles of workers democracy to abide by the decision of his fellow workers. Just as those who support strike action are obliged to abide by any decision NOT to strike. He does not have the right to selfishly ignore that democratic decision and break the strike. If he does he is a scab and his fellow workers have a moral and democratic right to enforce the picket line by kicking his stinking scabbing teeth in.


----------



## dylans (Nov 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  You should be able to ignore _any action taken by / opinion expressed by any other group of citizens_ ... which, of course, you are.  The strikers do not pass a _law_, they express a particular opinion ...


 
They pass a democratic decision when they vote for strike action. A picket line is intended to enforce that democratic decision. A picket line is never intended to peacefully express a point of view. A picket line is a form of workers policing. Without physical enforcement or the possibility of enforcement, a picket line is worthless.


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 17, 2010)

rioted said:


> Just as quickly as Labours £3000 became £9000?


 
Yep they were always going to go up, once the principle had been introduced basically.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Please explain how allowing one group of people to enforce their views on another group by threats and / or force whilst not allowing that other group to simply go about their (entirely lawful) business


 
Lol irony.


----------



## goebfwai (Nov 17, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> I wouldn't necessarily agree that this should be an "_either... or_" thing, but it is surprising how many resources remain being funnelled towards the older end of the population at the expense of the younger ends.


 
There is a simple reason for that. Voter turn-out at elections is proportionately higher amongst pensioners than young people. That may be about to change, certainly political mobilisation and activism amongst the young looks set to increase markedly.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 17, 2010)

goebfwai said:


> There is a simple reason for that. Voter turn-out at elections is proportionately higher amongst pensioners than young people. That may be about to change, certainly political mobilisation and activism amongst the young looks set to increase markedly.


Well of course the demographic and voting potential plays a large part, but even so, some of the spending commitments and the lack of obvious cuts for services to the older population still strikes me as being surprisingly skewed. The discontent amongst the crumblies probably won't start surfacing until local authority spending cuts to local services properly kicks in over next few months and years.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Because _peaceful_ picketing was not, as you well know, what it still was - it was threats and intimidation,


can we PLEASE get rid of this ridiculous tabloidesque bollox that all 80s pickets were rentathug types. They were not;they were workers showing solidarity with other workers and telling scabs, to their face, what they thought of them, and it is precisely that class solidarity the bosses and their meejah mates fear, and would love  to destrtoy - and you're falling for their lies.
That isn't to say feelings don't run high on a picket line - they do, inevitably so where people's livelihoods are concerned - but that's a mile away from the 'line' peddled as all pickets beeing braindead bootboys


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 17, 2010)

dylans said:


> The guy who disagrees with a strike does have a right to oppose it. He has that right in the democratic  vote for strike action. He has the right to put his case and vote against. He has the right to try to persuade others to oppose it.Once that vote has been taken and the decision for strike action has been made however he has lost his argument and is then obliged by the principles of workers democracy to abide by the decision of his fellow workers. Just as those who support strike action are obliged to abide by any decision NOT to strike. He does not have the right to selfishly ignore that democratic decision and break the strike. If he does he is a scab and his fellow workers have a moral and democratic right to enforce the picket line by kicking his stinking scabbing teeth in.


absolutely spot on, that's what TU membership _means_


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 17, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> can we PLEASE get rid of this ridiculous tabloidesque bollox that all 80s pickets were rentathug typesd. They were not;they were workers showing solidarity with other workers and telling scabs, to their face, what they thought of them


It's the "_give a dog a bad name_" approach essentially. If we say that all of the pickets were violent thugs often enough, people will start to believe us. Same as if we say that Ian Tomlinson was involved in aggressive behaviour against the police, and that when ambulance crews attended, they were bottled, then they will believe us. Same as if we say that the student rioters were actually anarchist deviants often enough, then people will believe this too.

It wears thin after a while.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  You should be able to ignore _any action taken by / opinion expressed by any other group of citizens_ ... which, of course, you are.  The strikers do not pass a _law_, they express a particular opinion ...


not if you are a member of the TU and you have exercised to the fullest, your right to take part in a strike debate and ballot by campaigning against a strike, but then lost that ballot. There is such a thing as solidarity, and standing by your own, and anyone who betrays that is vermin


----------



## belboid (Nov 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  You should be able to ignore _any action taken by / opinion expressed by any other group of citizens_ ... which, of course, you are.  The strikers do not pass a _law_, they express a particular opinion ...


 
Fine.  you dont understand a thing about democracy then.  Which is hardly surprising.

Scabs are thieves, it is perfectly sound to use all reasonable for ce to stop them.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 17, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> The discontent amongst the crumblies probably won't start surfacing until local authority spending cuts to local services properly kicks in over next few months and years.


 hope it does, cos IME the old 'uns make great campaigners, and give ballast gto just about any community campaign. They've all thatfree time, and they remember a more militant age


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Because _peaceful_ picketing was not, as you well know, what it still was - it was threats and intimidation, *and taking the dispute to other places not directly associated with the issue*, which the legislation sought to confront, not picketing _per se_ which remains perfectly legal.  Picketing is a perfectly legitimate way of getting your message to the people who you wnat to get your message to at a time and place that they are likely to take note of it.


 
Like the solidarity between steel workers, miners and railway workers?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## BlackArab (Nov 17, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Same as if we say that the student rioters were actually anarchist deviants often enough, then people will believe this too.



No no no you've got it wrong, the poor dears were lead into trouble by those deviant anarchists 

_Acting Detective Inspector Will Hodgson, who is leading Operation Malone, said the vast majority of those arrested were students.

He said: “Unfortunately, we are finding that many of these people are young students who do not seem to have been in any trouble before. It appears they may have been *provoked *by more anarchist groups._ - Evening Standard


----------



## goebfwai (Nov 17, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Well of course the demographic and voting potential plays a large part, but even so, some of the spending commitments and the lack of obvious cuts for services to the older population still strikes me as being surprisingly skewed. The discontent amongst the crumblies probably won't start surfacing until local authority spending cuts to local services properly kicks in over next few months and years.



Yeah, I agree there are problems. Free concessionary bus passes for millionaire pensioners I have never agreed with. Clearly they should be means tested. It would certainly be better for those with aspirations to be more economically active (which would help with that) such as the unemployed and those on low incomes to get them. 

The moves to lengthen retirement ages and even abolish them altogether are highly problematic too. The very act of retirement usually frees up a job, as long as the company has a need to replace the lost labour with a new start. A worker retiring can also stimulate a re-shuffle, and promotions here and there, putting more wages (and spending power) in the hands of a younger worker.

People working excessive hours, in one or more jobs needs to be tackled too. Unemployment could be slashed within weeks if people selfishly hogging too many working hours or too many jobs was tackled.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 17, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> So why pose the question that way?


It wasn't a _question_ - I was simply _emphasising_ just how important I felt it was for us to invest in the young.

But, as usual, the usual suspects waded in, entirely misrepresenting what I had said and the context I had said it in.  And everyone else that believed what _*they* said I said_ rather than what _*I* said I said_.  Go read my original post and you'll see exactly how I used it.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 17, 2010)

dylans said:


> Once that vote has been taken and the decision for strike action has been made however he has lost his argument and is then obliged by the principles of workers democracy to abide by the decision of his fellow workers.


I understand the point you are making ... but I am not sure at all that there are well understood and accepted "principles of worker's democracy" that _obliges_ the individual to do anything.  Even if they did, it would only be something which could be enforced as a type of contract.  _Nothing_ can be enforced by force or threats of force.  (And I _certainly_ don't agree that if those who wanted to strike are outvoted that they _have_ to continue working - they are still perfectly entitled to make their own decision and, if they want, to withdraw their labour and no-one can force them to do otherwise by use or threat of force).


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It wasn't a _question_ - I was simply _emphasising_ just how important I felt it was for us to invest in the young.



No you didn't. You included the 'infirm' to your list of social cleansing.

You've really showed your true colours.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 17, 2010)

dylans said:


> Without physical enforcement or the possibility of enforcement, a picket line is worthless.


You talk of "worker's democracy".  It is a strange democracy that can only enforce it's decisions by physical means ...  (And, in law, there is absolutely no basis for your claim that a strike decision can be enforced by physical action ... you can argue that is _should_ be, and that the law should be changed, but, as things stand, there is simply no basis for it and the police have no option but to prevent it - they cannot unilaterally decide to make new law.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 17, 2010)

goebfwai said:


> That may be about to change, certainly political mobilisation and activism amongst the young looks set to increase markedly.


Not before time.  Preparing students for exercising their vote in our system should be a compulsory part of the curriculum (for 15-16 year olds every year, not just with some focused attention every four years at election time, though that should be increased too - schools, colleges and universities should make it their target to ensure that _every_ student exercises their right to vote or, if they choose not to do so, they do it from an informed position).


----------



## ernestolynch (Nov 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Not before time.  Preparing students for exercising their vote in our system should be a compulsory part of the curriculum (for 15-16 year olds every year, not just with some focused attention every four years at election time, though that should be increased too - schools, colleges and universities should make it their target to ensure that _every_ student exercises their right to vote or, if they choose not to do so, they do it from an informed position).


 
Oh do shut up.


----------



## belboid (Nov 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> _Nothing_ can be enforced by force or threats of force.


 Every contract can only be enforced by the threat of force.  It's how the system works.

The rest of your post shows you dont have a clue about the principal of workers', or really any other kind of, democracy.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 17, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> The discontent amongst the crumblies probably won't start surfacing until local authority spending cuts to local services properly kicks in over next few months and years.


Don't you believe it ... try listening to You and Yours on Radio 4 ...


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 17, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> can we PLEASE get rid of this ridiculous tabloidesque bollox that all 80s pickets were rentathug types.


I have not suggested all 80s pickets were "rentathug types".  I have simply pointed out that by then there was significantly more force, threats of force and general intimidation being used than had previously been the case and that this was principally what much of the legislation (not all, I accept) and the policing tactics were concerned with.  To deny that there was much more violence is simply either blinkered or revisionist.

To clarify: I have absolutely no problem at all with non-violent picketing.  I have no problem with some degree of pushing, shoving and shouting.  But violence, threats of violence and general intimidation of people who choose not to strike simply cannot be justified, any more that the State physically dragging people _in_ to a place of work could be justified.   (I assume that you broadly agree with this, as you are at pains to point out that not all pickets are "rentathug types" using violence, threats and intimidation ... )


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 17, 2010)

But that intimidation in the 80s didn't happen in a political vacuum did it. It was a reaction to assaults on the working class and organised labour by Thatcher et al; an attack that was supported and carried through on the back of the legislative changes to which you refer.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 17, 2010)

belboid said:


> Scabs are thieves, it is perfectly sound to use all reasonable for ce to stop them.


So you would not take issue if, say, Mr Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells and his mates claimed that "Dole cheats are thieves, it is perfectly sound to use all reasonable force to stop them" (which would be exactly the same thing - force being used to enforce people fulfilling their _responsibilities_ and not just taking advantage of their _rights_ from a particular social contract).


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 17, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Like the solidarity between steel workers, miners and railway workers?


Yes (though there was a clear and direct link between some of that action where it was stopping activity intended to break the strike).


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So you would not take issue if, say, Mr Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells and his mates claimed that "Dole cheats are thieves, it is perfectly sound to use all reasonable force to stop them" (which would be exactly the same thing - force being used to enforce people fulfilling their _responsibilities_ and not just taking advantage of their _rights_ from a particular social contract).


force in which way? you seem to be talking about a situation in which mr disgusted and his mates report people to the authorities.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 17, 2010)

goebfwai said:


> Clearly they should be means tested.


I have to say that I have always believed that giving things to people that don't actually need them is basically fuckwitted.  I don't get 2.5 seats in school even though I have no kids, just so I get may share.  I don't get a free cataract operation just because I'm entitled to it.  We all pay into the welfare state, according to ability to do so (though that could do with some evening out) and we should be entitled to draw on it according to need (though that means some would get more than their money's worth, some would get less - it's not called National Insurance for nothing - it covers you for the RISK of you falling in need and it only works if some (most even) put in more than they ever need to take out just like _any_ insurance).

I appreciate that for "low-cost" benefits it is cheaper to make them universal as the cost / hassle of means testing is far more than it is worth ... but in this day and age can it _really_ be so difficult for a computerised system to know our personal income, savings, etc. and to readily reconfigure joint income, savings, etc. as our relationships change so that _everything_ could be means tested?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 17, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> No you didn't. You included the 'infirm' to your list of social cleansing.


And so the lying and misrepresentation starts ... 

Where, liar?  Link to the post or shut the fuck up.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 17, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> Oh do shut up.


And so the substantive content-free abusive posts begin ...


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 17, 2010)

belboid said:


> Every contract can only be enforced by the threat of force.


No.  Things are enforced by the threat of legal action between parties.  Only the State/Courts have the ultimate power / right to use force on behalf of us all.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 17, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> But that intimidation in the 80s didn't happen in a political vacuum did it. It was a reaction to assaults on the working class and organised labour by Thatcher et al; an attack that was supported and carried through on the back of the legislative changes to which you refer.


No, of course not.  And there is _much_ (most!) to condemn about what Thatcher did.  But we have been talking about the use or threat of force against individuals, not the State.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 17, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> force in which way? you seem to be talking about a situation in which mr disgusted and his mates report people to the authorities.


If you read my posts you will see that I suggest that any failure by a particular union member to fail to comply with a strike decision should be pursued as a matter of breach of contract, not by threatening to kick their head in.


----------



## discokermit (Nov 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  Things are enforced by the threat of legal action between parties.  Only the State/Courts have the ultimate power / right to use force on behalf of us all.


 
in that case, when people vote to strike democratically, why don't the police use force on the side of the majority instead of using force to assist a minority of scabs and management?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I understand the point you are making ... but I am not sure at all that there are well understood and accepted "principles of worker's democracy" that _obliges_ the individual to do anything.  Even if they did, it would only be something which could be enforced as a type of contract.  _Nothing_ can be enforced by force or threats of force.  (And I _certainly_ don't agree that if those who wanted to strike are outvoted that they _have_ to continue working - they are still perfectly entitled to make their own decision and, if they want, to withdraw their labour and no-one can force them to do otherwise by use or threat of force).


#you're missing something very large here, and I think it's because a) you have no class politics, or so it seems, and b) your politics, such as I have beern able to discern, are unquestioningly pro-state, -establishment and -status quo.
There is nothing which can legally bind people to respect a picket line. There is nothing illegal about crossing that line. There is something hugely immoral, wrong, loathesome about scabbing, and something VERY morally right about doing everything possible to prevent it; it;'s about community, in the workplace or wherever, and it's about loyalty to that cmmunity, that class, and the fact that that class, and your workmates, and your community, have an absolute moral right to your solidarity in their hour of need. Every working class person in this country understands this, everyone who lives in an embattled w/c community understands that, everyone who has reluctantly gone on strike understands this, and knows this very clear moral point. And that is why feelings about scabs run so very high, and i for one say 'fuck the law - you owe it to your comrades'. 
tbh, you're a copper (or were) and I feel that the inevitable consequences of that job, and the dialectiical implications of a class analysis of the police role, means you can't help b ut see things in narrow legalistic terms - you're just never gonna have that instinctive feel needed for class solidarity. In the final reckoning, the cops ARE the repression tool of the ruling class.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So you would not take issue if, say, Mr Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells and his mates claimed that "Dole cheats are thieves, it is perfectly sound to use all reasonable force to stop them" (which would be exactly the same thing - force being used to enforce people fulfilling their _responsibilities_ and not just taking advantage of their _rights_ from a particular social contract).


it is NOT the same thing, for the reasons in my last post; the one is about individual atomised mean-spiritedness that comes with affluence, the other is about standing by your own.


----------



## phildwyer (Nov 17, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Every working class person in this country understands this, everyone who lives in an embattled w/c community understands that, everyone who has reluctantly gone on strike understands this, and knows this very clear moral point. And that is why feelings about scabs run so very high, and i for one say 'fuck the law - you owe it to your comrades'.



Is that what you learned at public school?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I understand the point you are making ... but I am not sure at all that there are well understood and accepted "principles of worker's democracy" that _obliges_ the individual to do anything.  Even if they did, it would only be something which could be enforced as a type of contract.  _Nothing_ can be enforced by force or threats of force.  (And I _certainly_ don't agree that if those who wanted to strike are outvoted that they _have_ to continue working - they are still perfectly entitled to make their own decision and, if they want, to withdraw their labour and no-one can force them to do otherwise by use or threat of force).


if people don't feel compelled at all to stand by the end result of a democratic process they fully participated in, whilst expecting the other side to, had the result gone the other way - why bother having the democratic process in the first place?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> You talk of "worker's democracy".  *It is a strange democracy that can only enforce it's decisions by physical means ..*.  (And, in law, there is absolutely no basis for your claim that a strike decision can be enforced by physical action ... you can argue that is _should_ be, and that the law should be changed, but, as things stand, there is simply no basis for it and the police have no option but to prevent it - they cannot unilaterally decide to make new law.



How on earth do you think Parliament enforces decisions?  By giving everyone fairy cakes with chocolate on the top?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> So you would not take issue if, say, Mr Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells and his mates claimed that "Dole cheats are thieves, it is perfectly sound to use all reasonable force to stop them" (which would be exactly the same thing - force being used to enforce people fulfilling their _responsibilities_ and not just taking advantage of their _rights_ from a particular social contract).


 
abstracted arguments, always a winner


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  Things are enforced by the threat of legal action between parties.  Only the State/Courts have the ultimate power / right to use force on behalf of us all.


 
Yes, that's the point!  Contracts are enforced by the law.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> If you read my posts you will see that I suggest that any failure by a particular union member to fail to comply with a strike decision should be pursued as a matter of breach of contract, not by threatening to kick their head in.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It wasn't a _question_ - I was simply _emphasising_ just how important I felt it was for us to invest in the young.
> 
> But, as usual, the usual suspects waded in, entirely misrepresenting what I had said and the context I had said it in.  And everyone else that believed what _*they* said I said_ rather than what _*I* said I said_.  Go read my original post and you'll see exactly how I used it.


 
I didn't misrepresent what you said. You chose your example to be a contentious one. No doubt deliberately.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 17, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> How on earth do you think Parliament enforces decisions?  By giving everyone fairy cakes with chocolate on the top?


made me laugh


----------



## belboid (Nov 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> No.  Things are enforced by the threat of legal action between parties.  Only the State/Courts have the ultimate power / right to use force on behalf of us all.


 
Wow.  you really are far, far, thicker than even I thought you were. Your understanding of law and contracts is even worse than your understanding of democracy.  Typocal copper


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 17, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> How on earth do you think Parliament enforces decisions?  By giving everyone fairy cakes with chocolate on the top?


 
Homophobe!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 17, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> made me laugh


 
Encourager of homophobia!!!


----------



## belboid (Nov 17, 2010)

Blagsta said:


>


 
What do you mean?  It's a great idea. Let's sue scabs for every penny they've gained from union membership.


What a cock d-b is


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 17, 2010)

belboid said:


> Wow.  you really are far, far, thicker than even I thought you were. Your understanding of law and contracts is even worse than your understanding of democracy.  Typocal copper


 
People often forget that the threat of force isn't always merely implicit. For all too may people it's the exact opposite.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> How on earth do you think Parliament enforces decisions?  By giving everyone fairy cakes with chocolate on the top?


 
Made me lol.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 17, 2010)

belboid said:


> What do you mean?  It's a great idea. Let's sue scabs for every penny they've gained from union membership.



Yep, that'd pay, what, a fiftieth of the legal fees accrued presenting the case!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 17, 2010)

8ball said:


> Made me lol.


 
Another evil homophobe! 

Everyone knows "fairly cake" is a homophobic insult! It's almost as bad as "drama queen"!


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 17, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Homophobe!!!


dough!


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 17, 2010)

my partner and little girl were making fairy cakes with chocolate on the top today. Very nice they were too.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 17, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> How on earth do you think Parliament enforces decisions?  By giving everyone fairy cakes with chocolate on the top?


 


Paulie Tandoori said:


> made me laugh


 
The funniest aspect is that he's explaining it to someone whose job it was to do exactly that.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 17, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> The funniest aspect is that he's explaining it to someone whose job it was to do exactly that.


 
It's like raaaeeeeaaaiiinnnnn on your wedding day . . .


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 17, 2010)

8ball said:


> It's like raaaeeeeaaaiiinnnnn on your wedding day . . .


 
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...-cuts-10.11.10-London?p=11245166#post11245166


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 17, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> Don't you believe it ... try listening to You and Yours on Radio 4 ...


more of this please


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 17, 2010)

ffs...


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 17, 2010)




----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 17, 2010)

Wasn't aimed at you. Tried to put up Alanis on youtube and it was like "not available" and then i lost interest and swore.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 17, 2010)

is Alanis, like, your favorite late nite lady?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 17, 2010)

Yeah.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 17, 2010)

hairy muff


----------



## winjer (Nov 18, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I would draw a distinction between the tactics themselves (which he certainly was involved in developing, not least because those used (dispersal, primarily) during the Poll Tax disturbances had a serious downside (running mobs looting shops in all directions)) and the _application_ of those tactics which became significantly more robust / blunt instrument-like after his time.


I don't think it's ever been more blunt-instrument like than Mayday 2001, when he was Gold, and he had the great plan to kettle everybody except the _troublemakers_.



detective-boy said:


> Because _peaceful_ picketing was not, as you well know, what it still was - it was threats and intimidation, and taking the dispute to other places not directly associated with the issue, which the legislation sought to confront, not picketing _per se_ which remains perfectly legal.  Picketing is a perfectly legitimate way of getting your message to the people who you wnat to get your message to at a time and place that they are likely to take note of it.


Threats and intimidation are the basis of various specific offences, whereas the legislation was directed at all picketing, creating offences purely based the character of the assembly. The picketing which "remains perfectly legal" is the result of concessions won by earlier illegal industrial action.

Oh, and as I wasn't at all clear before: when I say criminalizing pickets I'm talking about the Combination Acts, the Statute of Artificers, and so on, not the 1980s.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 18, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> How on earth do you think Parliament enforces decisions?  By giving everyone fairy cakes with chocolate on the top?


 even tho' I _kinda_ get what d-b is getting at - i _think_


----------



## audiotech (Nov 19, 2010)




----------



## detective-boy (Nov 19, 2010)

discokermit said:


> in that case, when people vote to strike democratically, why don't the police use force on the side of the majority instead of using force to assist a minority of scabs and management?


The point is that they don't use force on _either_ side - they use force to do their best to keep the peace and allow _all_ sides to carry on their _lawful_ business.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The point is that they don't use force on _either_ side - they use force to do their best to keep the peace and allow _all_ sides to carry on their _lawful_ business.


 
Yeah. The miners' strike footage shows _exactly_ that.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 19, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> #you're missing something very large here, and I think it's because a) you have no class politics, or so it seems, and b) your politics, such as I have beern able to discern, are unquestioningly pro-state, -establishment and -status quo.


In respect of (a) you're sort of right.  I certainly don't recognise the "class struggle" as usually drawn as being at all relevant to modern society.  But I am deeply concerned about differential _wealth_ and the power that is associated with great wealth.  So much of our societies problems can be traced back to the gap between the richest and the poorest and I would support anything which reduced that gap.  Personally I would like to have a maximum cap on income (_no-one_ is worth many millions of pounds a year) and a bar on inherited wealth (_everyone_ should be born equal and should be responsible for living their own lives (if they are able) and _certainly_ no-one should be able to live their lives in unbelievable luxury without having ever to work themselves).  I appreciate that there are serious practical difficulties with both of these ... but would support anything which moved in that general direction.

In relation to (b) I am probably "pro-State" as I very much believe in the Rule Of Law (applied equally to all) as one of our greatest benefits as a society (this probably also explains my reference to the legal basis of issues) ... but I am most definitely _not_ pro-establishment.  I _detest_ the "Great and the Good" who have politics, directorships, committees, quangos and every fucking thing else sewn-up and passed around between them.  If I had stayed in the police, and continued to seek promotion, I would have become one of the "establishment" ... that was one reason I left - I had no desire to do that at all.  Positions of responsibility / power within our society should _always_ be based on merit - _what_ you know, not _who_ you know (and usually brownnose).  And I am not pro-status quo at all - our society is pretty good overall but has some _very_ bad aspects which need to be addressed as a matter of some urgency before they cause more damage.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 19, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> if people don't feel compelled at all to stand by the end result of a democratic process they fully participated in, whilst expecting the other side to, had the result gone the other way - why bother having the democratic process in the first place?


You may have an argument there (though there are counter arguments about the nature of the process and what exactly was being "decided") ... but if there is an issue it should be resolved through some legal or other process and _not_ through the use of force.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 19, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> How on earth do you think Parliament enforces decisions?


The State enforces the _vast_ majority of it's decisions without recourse to force.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 19, 2010)

winjer said:


> I don't think it's ever been more blunt-instrument like than Mayday 2001, when he was Gold, and he had the great plan to kettle everybody except the _troublemakers_.


To be fair, I'm not at all sure that his _plan_ was to contain "everyone except the troublemakers" - the fact that a significant number were missed was due to the fact that (a) they don't wear badges (bastards - life would be _much_ easier for everyone if they did!) and (b) live intelligence gathering about who was, who wasn't and where thet were wasn't perfect.



> Threats and intimidation are the basis of various specific offences, whereas the legislation was directed at all picketing, creating offences purely based the character of the assembly. The picketing which "remains perfectly legal" is the result of concessions won by earlier illegal industrial action.


I would certainly agree that the laws went further than they needed to address the threats and intimidation aspect and that their is scope to allow more robust picketing than is currently the case.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 19, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The State enforces the _vast_ majority of it's decisions without recourse to force.


 
You miss the point - the threat of force is always there.  It's what the state ultimately relies on.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 19, 2010)

It's batshit nuts finding yourself having to explain that to someone who was employed in the position of upholding the law.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 20, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Yeah. The miners' strike footage shows _exactly_ that.


 
How can anyone still think, a quarter of a century later, that the miners strike was anything but a disaster for the sensible left?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 20, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> How can anyone still think, a quarter of a century later, that the miners strike was anything but a disaster for the sensible left?


So the miners should have just rolled over and allowed thatcher and co to destroy their communities and economies?


----------



## madzone (Nov 20, 2010)

Jeeeeezuz - is this still going on?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 20, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> How can anyone still think, a quarter of a century later, that the miners strike was anything but a disaster for the sensible left?


 
Have I taken the opportunity to welcome you back yet, you fucking loon?


----------



## belboid (Nov 20, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The State enforces the _vast_ majority of it's decisions without recourse to force.


 
lol, jesus, this is astounding stuff.  I wouldn't expect a 14 year old Government & Politics student to say anything as stupidly naive as this.

Yes, dear, they do, but only with the threat of force behind it.  That's wht you were there for, the threat of force.


----------



## belboid (Nov 20, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> How can anyone still think, a quarter of a century later, that the miners strike was anything but a disaster for the sensible left?


 
Anyone who uses a phase like 'the sensible left' obviusly has no interest in it (the 'left') or understanding of it.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 20, 2010)

belboid said:


> Anyone who uses a phase like 'the sensible left' obviusly has no interest in it (the 'left') or understanding of it.


 
If I'd said that someone would have asked me to add "IMO".


----------



## belboid (Nov 20, 2010)

Well, that might be your opinion...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The point is that they don't use force on _either_ side - they use force to do their best to keep the peace and allow _all_ sides to carry on their _lawful_ business.


 
Ideally, that would be what happens.
In reality, however, policing is inextricably tied (and it *shouldn't be*) to politics, whether that's the politics of self-advancement by individual officers, or the politics of the government.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> The State enforces the _vast_ majority of it's decisions without recourse to force.


 
Without recourse to the *use* of force.
There is, and always has been, as we both know, the implicit threat of it. The iron hand behind the velvet glove, which is often enough of a threat to enforce (good choice of words by the way) the decisions of the executive.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 20, 2010)

Theoretically it is Parliament's approval of the decisions of the executive which gives them force.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> You miss the point - the threat of force is always there.  It's what the state ultimately relies on.


 
Is deeply dependent on, I'd say.
That's why the coalition may be making such a mistake in believing that they can cut police and army numbers with no harm to their "threat of force".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 20, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Theoretically it is Parliament's approval of the decisions of the executive which gives them force.


 
Except, of course, insofar as the executive acts outside of parliamentary convention, which the executive has the discretion to do, in some circumstances.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 20, 2010)

The executive is always dependent on the approval of parliament, even retrospectively.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 20, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> Is deeply dependent on, I'd say.
> That's why the coalition may be making such a mistake in believing that they can cut police and army numbers with no harm to their "threat of force".


 
apparently greater manchester police are facing serious front line losses due to the cuts. While the serious crime bods will still be kept mint I can see the fraying that leads to rioting happening.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 20, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> You miss the point - the threat of force is always there.  It's what the state ultimately relies on.


_Ultimately_, yes.  If all else fails.  But, as I said, it enforces the _vast_ majority of it's decisions without recourse to force.  So it is hardly an argument for the strikers being able to enforce their decisions by force, is it?


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 20, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Theoretically it is Parliament's approval of the decisions of the executive which gives them force.


It's surely the _judiciary's_ approval of the decisions of the executive which gives them force.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 20, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> apparently greater manchester police are facing serious front line losses due to the cuts. While the serious crime bods will still be kept mint I can see the fraying that leads to rioting happening.


ALL forces are facing serious front line cut backs.  Serious crime teams will NOT be exempt (and some of them were serious understaffed to start with).  The fucking idiot who claims she is Home Secretary simply hasn't got a _clue_ what the police do on a day to day basis and keeps parroting that "The only job of the police is to cut crime".  She thinks that the massive cuts being imposed on the police can be achieved without impact on the front line.  Frankly she's deluded ...

Things will start getting worse in a variety of ways over the next twio or three years.  Expect more reported crime, less solved crime, more complaints over lack of action, more "anti-social behaviour", less proactive policing of _anything_, more fiddling of statistics by / for bosses whose bonuses rely on figures going down, etc.


----------



## winjer (Nov 20, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> _Ultimately_, yes.  If all else fails.  But, as I said, it enforces the _vast_ majority of it's decisions without recourse to force.  So it is hardly an argument for the strikers being able to enforce their decisions by force, is it?


That would only make sense if strikers were claiming force as a first resort.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 20, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's surely the _judiciary's_ approval of the decisions of the executive which gives them force.


 
I think the judiciary decides if decisions are legal, but it's parliament that has the power of life or death over the executive.


----------



## treelover (Nov 20, 2010)

'Serious crime teams will NOT be exempt'

Thats appalling, if there is one element of the police that is crucial it is this, the global crime gangs who utilmately through drugs and people trafficking make life misery for many will make hay


----------



## treelover (Nov 20, 2010)

DB , will the police consider striking? yes i know they are not allowed to, but these are not normal times.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 20, 2010)

treelover said:


> DB , will the police consider striking? yes i know they are not allowed to, but these are not normal times.


I don't think so.  There may well be things like "work to rules" (if every job was done to the letter of every policy and procedure (rather than cutting corners to get things _actually_ done and risking criticism and sanction if things go wrong) and withdrawal of goodwill (huge amounts of police work only gets done / done effectively because of goodwill - in the Met the vast majority of Detective Inspectors (who are the lowest salaried ranks) have huge numbers of rest days that they have been required to work one way or another, for which they got no reward and for which they will never get the opportunity to take another day off in lieu of it (as would normally be the case with a salaried job).  This would bring the police service to a grinding halt within a couple of weeks.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 20, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> _Ultimately_, yes.  If all else fails.  But, as I said, it enforces the _vast_ majority of it's decisions without recourse to force.



Because everyone is aware that the state likes to hold the monopoly on force.



detective-boy said:


> So it is hardly an argument for the strikers being able to enforce their decisions by force, is it?



No one has made the argument that force is a first resort.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 21, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> No one has made the argument that force is a first resort.


They have though.  It was in the post which first started this discussion ...



dylans said:


> When the strikers act to defend their interests by stopping the scabs crossing the picket line the police act to enforce the "peace" and allow the strike breakers to cross.The workers have no choice but to engage in conflict or to face defeat. So they act to stop the scabs and of course they are presented as the aggressors. And this is because the "peace," the status quo is not neutral. It's a bosses peace and the law defends it by defending the status quo.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 21, 2010)

Read it again.


----------



## dylans (Nov 21, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> They have though.  It was in the post which first started this discussion ...


 
Actually force, or the threat of force is always a  LAST resort. No worker wants to have to physically defend a picket line. The most successful strike is one where the picket line is respected, even by those who opposed the decision to strike. The first resort is an appeal to class solidarity and an assumption of loyalty between workers. The very thing that makes the word scab such an awful label is the shared understanding that to be a scab is to be a traitor to your fellow workers. A picket line underlines this.For a worker with any sense of of working class values the mere sight of a picket line is enough for him/her to refuse to cross. Force becomes a last resort when appeals to solidarity and class ethics have been exhausted and an individual selfishly acts to betray his colleagues by breaking a democratically agreed decision to strike.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 22, 2010)

dylans said:


> Actually force, or the threat of force is always a  LAST resort. No worker wants to have to physically defend a picket line. The most successful strike is one where the picket line is respected, even by those who opposed the decision to strike. The first resort is an appeal to class solidarity and an assumption of loyalty between workers. The very thing that makes the word scab such an awful label is the shared understanding that to be a scab is to be a traitor to your fellow workers. A picket line underlines this.For a worker with any sense of of working class values the mere sight of a picket line is enough for him/her to refuse to cross. Force becomes a last resort when appeals to solidarity and class ethics have been exhausted and an individual selfishly acts to betray his colleagues by breaking a democratically agreed decision to strike.


 
This is very reasonable.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Nov 24, 2010)

Edward Woollard, the one who was charged with violent disorder for throwing a fire extinguisher, has just pleaded guilty! What a stupid cunt


----------



## Santino (Nov 24, 2010)

He should have stuck to being in The Equaliser.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 24, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Edward Woollard, the one who was charged with violent disorder for throwing a fire extinguisher, has just pleaded guilty! What a stupid cunt


Probably on the advice of his solicitor, as any sentence is reduced by the maximum amount possible (~a third as I understand it).


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 24, 2010)

Bottom left, exactly how not to do it:


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Bottom left, exactly how not to do it:


 priceless bit of class solidarity there...


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 24, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> It's surely the _judiciary's_ approval of the decisions of the executive which gives them force.


nope. British constiutution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament, ergo, Parliament is the highest body.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 24, 2010)

dylans said:


> Actually force, or the threat of force is always a  LAST resort. No worker wants to have to physically defend a picket line. The most successful strike is one where the picket line is respected, even by those who opposed the decision to strike. The first resort is an appeal to class solidarity and an assumption of loyalty between workers. The very thing that makes the word scab such an awful label is the shared understanding that to be a scab is to be a traitor to your fellow workers. A picket line underlines this.For a worker with any sense of of working class values the mere sight of a picket line is enough for him/her to refuse to cross. Force becomes a last resort when appeals to solidarity and class ethics have been exhausted and an individual selfishly acts to betray his colleagues by breaking a democratically agreed decision to strike.


absolutely spot-fucking-on


----------



## revol68 (Nov 25, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Bottom left, exactly how not to do it:


 
as a graduate of the arts I can only dream of being a waste management officer.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 25, 2010)

Santino said:


> He should have stuck to being in The Equaliser.


That was Edward _Woodward_ ...

(Which gives me the opportunity to share one of the most appropriate nicknames ever ... when I moved to a new station I was introduced to one of my new supervisors (who turned out to be one of the most boring men in the world) with the words "You've heard of Edward Woordward, The Equaliser?  Well this is Dave Woodward, The Tranquilliser ..."  )


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 25, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> nope. British constiutution is based on the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament, ergo, Parliament is the highest body.


I appreciate that ... but the point was that it had been suggested that it was Parliament's approval of the decisions of the executive which gives them force.  I was saying that surely the decisions of the executive were approved by the judiciary.  Obviously Parliament can subsequently overrule those decisions by _changing the law_ but the basic rule is Parliament makes law, executive acts on it, judiciary rule on whether the actions of the executive are lawful.  I wasn't suggesting that the judiciary were the highest power, just that it was their approval of the executive's decisions which gave those decisions force.


----------



## madzone (Nov 25, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> That was Edward _Woodward_ ...


----------



## Santino (Nov 25, 2010)

:d

:d

:d


----------



## Santino (Nov 25, 2010)

Someone's nicked my smilies.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 25, 2010)

Otherwise he'd be called Ewar Woollar.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 25, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Bottom left, exactly how not to do it:


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 25, 2010)

detective-boy said:


> I appreciate that ... but the point was that it had been suggested that it was Parliament's approval of the decisions of the executive which gives them force.  I was saying that surely the decisions of the executive were approved by the judiciary.  Obviously Parliament can subsequently overrule those decisions by _changing the law_ but the basic rule is Parliament makes law, executive acts on it, judiciary rule on whether the actions of the executive are lawful.  I wasn't suggesting that the judiciary were the highest power, just that it was their approval of the executive's decisions which gave those decisions force.


Ok yeah, that makes more sense


----------



## audiotech (Nov 25, 2010)

The familiar film clip used frequently, this time adopted in response to the student protests, but nevertheless had a guffaw viewing it. The line; 'Reports are coming in that someone has took a huge smelly shit in your toilet' I found both hilarious and followed the fine British tradition of toilet humour alongside political satire, used to good effect. Keep giving this present bunch of political opportunists the shit they deserve, in every way possible and keep the pressure on relentlessly. Satire is just one way to use to subvert. There are other worthwhile actions to consider, perhaps being moremore effective in the outciome than passive  humour. It would depend on the outcome you wish to achieve? I like the the times when subversion becomes almost part of present culture and is not deemed as a threat as it is most of the timer.These periods don't come along very often, but when they do don't miss out on taking the necessary steps to move forward creatively and progressively. Future generatiions will thsnk you for it. Avoid reactive and dumb thought out nihilism which presents itself at the same time. Little to be gained from that pathway to nowhere. I would suggest a laugh to weaken their mostly potty ideas. Other means if things turn nasty maybe worth considering? This too depends on circumstance and the forces involved.


----------



## treelover (Nov 25, 2010)

for an old meme, its quite good..


----------



## audiotech (Nov 26, 2010)

To parody Lenin's words and as a reference to the subversive final phrase from the incisive message contained in that video clip, depending on class forces moving from passive support to practical action

'All power to the insolent oiks.'


----------

