# National Walkout Against Fees 24.11.10



## where to (Nov 11, 2010)

> *WALKOUT OF YOUR SCHOOL, COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY ON 24 NOVEMBER*
> 
> Walkouts have been one of the major ways school and college students in Britain have traditionally shown their discontent.
> 
> ...



Summary:
http://anticuts.org.uk/?p=655

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

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

Student networking site:
http://anticuts.com/


DISTRIBUTE DETAILS AS APPROPRIATE.


----------



## where to (Nov 11, 2010)

Liverpool callout:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=100821293322538

Wednesday, November 24 · 12:00pm - 3:00pm
Liverpool Guild of Students
(Mountford Hall, next to the Catholic cathedral)


----------



## where to (Nov 11, 2010)

I've refreshed the main Facebook page for this, it seems people are joining the Facebook group literally every minute.  i refreshed from an hour ago and the number went from 4800 to 5000.

Students - what sort of chat is there for this in your campuses?

Are school students supporting this?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 11, 2010)

Jolly good, shall pass it around.

I do, however, question the effectiveness of scheduling it for a Wednesday. Historically the day most universities have little teaching, the day reserved for sports/societies etc.


----------



## where to (Nov 12, 2010)

Edinburgh University meeting, 17th November:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=140003336051319


----------



## where to (Nov 12, 2010)

.


----------



## grit (Nov 12, 2010)

I'm went to the march, I wont be doing this.


----------



## Ground Elder (Nov 12, 2010)

grit said:


> I'm went to the march, I wont be doing this.


Why not?


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 12, 2010)

What's the point of marching? We did that shit in the run up to the Iraq war and it stopped nothing.


----------



## ymu (Nov 12, 2010)

Is this just me, or does anticuts.org.uk look like exactly what we've all been looking for in our desperation not to be led by CoR?



> This site is non-aligned, non-partisan and non-sectarian.
> 
> We don’t believe that organising down ideological or party political lines will be successful. And we believe that strategy and tactics will be far more important than ideology in stopping the cuts.  For that reason only links to alliance/ coalition type anticuts groups will be published.
> 
> ...



What more do we need? It's a fantastic site - it's all there.


----------



## sim667 (Nov 12, 2010)

Kid_Eternity said:


> What's the point of marching? We did that shit in the run up to the Iraq war and it stopped nothing.


 
This isnt a march its a walkout, and will cause issues for colleges/unis/schools as they'll have to pay their staff for doing nothing for a day.

As a member of staff, feel free to walkout, thursdays are manic for me and i could do with a chilled day 

I think they're being a bit hopeful to get schoolkids to join in though.


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 12, 2010)

grit said:


> I'm went to the march, I wont be doing this.


 

Clearly not a student of English.......


----------



## grit (Nov 12, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Clearly not a student of English.......


 
 yeah engineer here.

I had reservations about the effectiveness of the march, regarding this it feels as it will be completely ineffective.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 12, 2010)

grit said:


> yeah engineer here.
> 
> I had reservations about the effectiveness of the march, regarding this it feels as it will be completely ineffective.


 
Walk outs and marches won't change policy.


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2010)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Walk outs and marches won't change policy.


So best they do nothing yes?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2010)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Walk outs and marches won't change policy.


 
Walkouts and marches when linked with or acting as a catylst for wider actions can stop policies being imposed.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

sim667 said:


> I think they're being a bit hopeful to get schoolkids to join in though.


actually, the walkout over Iraq in 2003 was started by schoolgirls


----------



## plurker (Nov 12, 2010)

editor said:


> So best they do nothing yes?


 
Oh yes. Absolutely. We should all just wait 4 years and use our democratic vote wisely.


----------



## killer b (Nov 12, 2010)

sim667 said:


> I think they're being a bit hopeful to get schoolkids to join in though.


 
what makes you think that?


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Walkouts and marches when linked with or acting as a catylst for wider actions can stop policies being imposed.


Exactly. It's a starting point, and an opportunity for people to get together, gauge the kind of support they're mustering and plan future actions and strategies. On an individual level it's also quite empowering to realise that a lot of people feel the same as you too.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

ymu said:


> Is this just me, or does anticuts.org.uk look like exactly what we've all been looking for in our desperation not to be led by CoR?


great site, but I don't think its'/their intention is to be any sort of alternative to CoR, but simply a central resource


----------



## grit (Nov 12, 2010)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Walk outs and marches won't change policy.


 
I put a lot more weight on a large march such as the student one this week over a walk out. Unfortuntely though you are correct they will not directly change policy, its a start though innit.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 12, 2010)

editor said:


> Exactly. It's a starting point, and an opportunity for people to get together, gauge the kind of support they're mustering and plan future actions and strategies. On an individual level it's also quite empowering to realise that a lot of people feel the same as you too.


 
This, absolutely. No, sitting in a corridor won't stop them raising fees. Walking out of a class room won't stop them cutting funding. But it helps build: awareness, personal involvement, empowerment, comradeship, and so on. 

You don't start running from a complete stand-still. You perform a few warm up exercises to get the body moving first.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 12, 2010)

There's a reason people don't get involved in things, or are 'apathetic', or believe there's no point - it's because they aren't already engaged. These small events help get people engaged in small, manageable actions which can then lead to a lifetime of political engagement.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 12, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Walkouts and marches when linked with or acting as a catylst for wider actions can stop policies being imposed.


 
This I'd agree with, them on their own will solve/ change nothing.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 12, 2010)

editor said:


> So best they do nothing yes?


 
Yeah cos that was what I said...*facepalm*


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Nov 12, 2010)

grit said:


> I put a lot more weight on a large march such as the student one this week over a walk out. Unfortuntely though you are correct they will not directly change policy, its a start though innit.


 
The problem is unless a constructive direct action strategy is in place from the off most people will just turn up, walk the march and go home with no further action and the press will undermine the whole thing based on the actions of a few. The Iraq protests had the same vanguardist stuff said about them, we need to get people to the marches then they'll be radicalised etc...came to nothing.


----------



## grit (Nov 12, 2010)

Kid_Eternity said:


> The problem is unless a constructive direct action strategy is in place from the off most people will just turn up, walk the march and go home with no further action and the press will undermine the whole thing based on the actions of a few. The Iraq protests had the same vanguardist stuff said about them, we need to get people to the marches then they'll be radicalised etc...came to nothing.


 
That is partly the fault of the current lefties from what I can tell. I've had an extremely interesting time the past 6 months. I've been going back on forth on starting a thread about my situation, as i am (or would like to think were) a textbook case of a complacent part of the middle class. I post on Urban to try and understand more of others views. I find it extremely irritating that the term middle class is used here as an insult, as it seems so fucking blind to the fact that if the general urban75 outview got more people like me on side you would be a lot fucking stronger and together might actually have a chance of really doing something. Instead the knee jerk reaction is to sneer and tell people like me to fuck off, when in fact we are actually in this together.

I await the stream of abuse.


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 12, 2010)

Kid_Eternity said:


> The problem is unless a constructive direct action strategy is in place from the off most people will just turn up, walk the march and go home with no further action and the press will undermine the whole thing based on the actions of a few.



What like breaking windows, setting fire to stuff and other random mindless vandalism?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 12, 2010)

grit said:


> That is partly the fault of the current lefties from what I can tell. I've had an extremely interesting time the past 6 months. I've been going back on forth on starting a thread about my situation, as i am (or would like to think were) a textbook case of a complacent part of the middle class. I post on Urban to try and understand more of others views. I find it extremely irritating that the term middle class is used here as an insult, as it seems so fucking blind to the fact that if the general urban75 outview got more people like me on side you would be a lot fucking stronger and together might actually have a chance of really doing something. Instead the knee jerk reaction is to sneer and tell people like me to fuck off, when in fact we are actually in this together.
> 
> I await the stream of abuse.


 
I'm also middle class lol. I think you should start the thread as it may be more constructive than you might think. Go for it.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 12, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> This, absolutely. No, sitting in a corridor won't stop them raising fees. Walking out of a class room won't stop them cutting funding. But it helps build: awareness, personal involvement, empowerment, comradeship, and so on.
> 
> You don't start running from a complete stand-still. You perform a few warm up exercises to get the body moving first.


 
yes


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

Kid_Eternity said:


> , we need to get people to the marches then they'll be radicalised etc...came to nothing.


people _were_ radicalised, loads of them. we just got totally ignored by the govt


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 12, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> There's a reason people don't get involved in things, or are 'apathetic', or believe there's no point - it's because they aren't already engaged. These small events help get people engaged in small, manageable actions which can then lead to a lifetime of political engagement.


yes, absolutely


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 12, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> What like breaking windows, setting fire to stuff and other random mindless vandalism?



Ah yes, his master's voice again.


----------



## where to (Nov 12, 2010)

Kid_Eternity said:


> The problem is unless a constructive direct action strategy is in place from the off most people will just turn up, walk the march and go home with no further action and the press will undermine the whole thing based on the actions of a few. The Iraq protests had the same vanguardist stuff said about them, we need to get people to the marches then they'll be radicalised etc...came to nothing.


 
to be honest you just seem to be parroting the usual line without paying attention to what is happening on the ground.  that's not a dig as its easy done but for example, the first half of your post there sits really badly in the context of the last few days (i.e. Wednesday).

this is a chance for all those from Wednesday to go and carry the energy we saw back locally, to use it as a catalyst for getting more folk involved, active and organised.  without that as a second step your direct action is going nowhere outside of national demo's attended by the usual suspects in London potentially kicking off (which they won't from now on anyway as they will be policed to death).

you're allowing cynicism to cloud your judgement tbh (and IMO), again though, its understandable, i'd normally feel similarly to you, there's just such a weight of opposition out there ready to be tapped into this time that optimism is genuinely warranted.

if you read up on the 2006 campaign against the CPE measure in France (which was succesful and, got the measure repealed having already been passed into law) it started with boring marches, more boring marches, walkouts and occupations, then, _once support was solid_ thousands engaged in direct action and the like.  then they won.


----------



## ymu (Nov 12, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> great site, but I don't think its'/their intention is to be any sort of alternative to CoR, but simply a central resource


That's my point. What more do we need? What can a central committee do? We can't rely on the TUC or the left grouplets to tell us what to do - we just need to do it. A means of communicating is all we need.

I think we should announce a national day of mayhem on 27th November, to capitalise on the publicity from the walkout on 24th. No need to contact anyone - just pick a target in London or your local town and get a group together to have some fun.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 12, 2010)

where to said:


> you're allowing cynicism to cloud your judgement tbh (and IMO), again though, its understandable, i'd normally feel similarly to you, there's just such a weight of opposition out there ready to be tapped into this time that optimism is genuinely warranted.
> 
> if you read up on the 2006 campaign against the CPE measure in France (which was succesful and, got the measure repealed having already been passed into law) it started with boring marches, more boring marches, walkouts and occupations, then, _once support was solid_ thousands engaged in direct action and the like.  then they won.


 
good post.


----------



## dylans (Nov 12, 2010)

The tabloid hysterics and fake outrage over what was in fact a very mild bit of aggro really are deliberately exaggerated of course, and they are exaggerated for a reason. They want to set the outrage standard very low from the beginning in anticipation of real street violence over the next couple of years. If a lousy broken window can merit a national manhunt and calls for a return to public flogging etc then imagine the cries for punishment when something like the poll tax riot occurs. It's about intimidating the opposition and trying to set the rules of the coming game. 

For us too. It's not often that I agree with Ian Bone but his blog piece was spot on here. The student demo should be seen as the first step in breaking down the so called "acceptable" or "respectable" rules of protest that are intended to paralyse an effective fight back.  Our answer should be more civil disobedience, more mayhem and now. 
To this end, this is a brilliant idea. I love it. 



> I think we should announce a national day of mayhem on 27th November, to capitalise on the publicity from the walkout on 24th. No need to contact anyone - just pick a target in London or your local town and get a group together to have some fun.
> Reply


----------



## where to (Nov 12, 2010)

ymu said:


> I think we should announce a national day of mayhem on 27th November, to capitalise on the publicity from the walkout on 24th. No need to contact anyone - just pick a target in London or your local town and get a group together to have some fun.


 
someones had the same idea - only for the 4th of next month not the 27th of this month.

http://anticuts.org.uk/?p=679

theres a pretty good flow of events for momentum now to continue imo.


----------



## ymu (Nov 12, 2010)

where to said:


> someones had the same idea - only for the 4th of next month not the 27th of this month.
> 
> http://anticuts.org.uk/?p=679
> 
> theres a pretty good flow of events for momentum now to continue imo.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 12, 2010)

ok, so I work in a school as a teaching assistant.  I would love to help students to walkout on the 24th - there is a 6th form at the school so there are people applying to university right now - but I am at a loss as to how I could/should go about this, so any suggestions/help would be welcome.. please bear in mind that as a TA the students I have contact with have SEN and are in the bottom sets of subjects, they are not looking at university and I don't work with any 6th formers.  The school is 99% muslim (reflective of the area it is in) and the year 11s (15/16 year olds) that I work with had not heard of the EDL, so they really are not politically/socially aware.
I don't have citizenship or tutorial time with them where such things could be legitimately broached.

The only thing that I can think to do is to slyly drop some flyers/info about it in the 6th form common room and maybe the yr 11 social area and see if anything come of it, I can't imagine the school being supportive of my actions, though privately they might be happy, I'm not sure I could agitate for the students to walkout and not take some heat from senior management (which I'm only half-bothered about - I like the school and need the job, don't know how long it would take me to find another one, but at the same time, I can't be shy about taking heat from management in these situations). 
It'd be easy enough to talk to students in the classroom, but from my conversations with them about EDL, I don't think there's much point with the ones I work with, I'm not sure what they need to be more aware but they aren't at the moment and 10 days is not enough time to do it.





ymu said:


> a national day of mayhem



come the revolution this will definitely be a bank holiday.  I'll be out somewhere on the 4th for sure, hopefully will get mentioned at the meeting in brum tomorrow or at least I can start to build my own political networks which have been lost over the years so I can be informed about what might go on in birmingham


----------



## where to (Nov 12, 2010)

the EMA being scrapped may be relevant Tom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Maintenance_Allowance


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 13, 2010)

http://www.starwars.com/kids/activity/crafts/f20041027/index.html

Masking up using these as templates would be super cool.


----------



## where to (Nov 13, 2010)

lol


----------



## ska invita (Nov 13, 2010)

look forward to seeing how the 'nick clegg was always going to cut revelation' plays into this <huge development i would speculate - will make the coalition so fragile, perhaps all it needs is a few kicks and a push. definitely will add more fuel to the fire of the student side of the anticuts movement.

 problem is the best case scenario is bringing down the government and getting the not-so-thin-end-of-the-wedge-labour back. anyhow, getting too ahead there. great stuff to see seemingly non-aligned groups in action.


----------



## where to (Nov 13, 2010)

spot on ska - will definitely alter the narrative. aside from anything else the focus will now move from the rioters to Alexander and Clegg.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 13, 2010)

the more i think about it the more perfect this move is. no doubt this week every young tory is being paid up to go and infiltrate and snitch - the genius with this move is its decentralised, spontaneous and next to impossible to police. here's hoping it kicks off! (<for any sky reporters looking for a pulitzer!)

going to be great having reports coming in from actions around the country... cities other than london in the spot light for a change. what student in leeds say who saw the footage of london isnt going to want to represent their neck of the woods? university challenge is on! come on scumbag!







dylans said:


> The tabloid hysterics and fake outrage over what was in fact a very mild bit of aggro really are deliberately exaggerated of course, and they are exaggerated for a reason. They want to set the outrage standard very low from the beginning in anticipation of real street violence over the next couple of years. If a lousy broken window can merit a national manhunt and calls for a return to public flogging etc then imagine the cries for punishment when something like the poll tax riot occurs. It's about intimidating the opposition and trying to set the rules of the coming game.


 couldnt agree more. but then again, it wasnt two windows in a bus shelter, it was tory hq (with libdem hq narrowly avoiding it). it was tory hq! ha ha! still sinking in!


----------



## BigTom (Nov 13, 2010)

where to said:


> the EMA being scrapped may be relevant Tom:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Maintenance_Allowance


 
cheers, somehow I've completely missed ema being scrapped amongst everything else.
I'm going to have a chat with one of the teachers at the school who is politically active and the NUT rep and see what he thinks we could do.  I would have thought that the scrapping of EMA would be something that we could potentially get senior management to be alright with getting the students politically active about it.


----------



## lobster (Nov 13, 2010)

Kid_Eternity said:


> What's the point of marching? We did that shit in the run up to the Iraq war and it stopped nothing.


 
A March is just one of many ways of showing a disappointment which we can happily take part in. Many people in the world cannot even do that without risking there lives. Its not so much the effect that matters, its that we can assemble in groups and protest that is important. 
Similar to drinking alcohol, having sex or going abroad, anyone can take part in all three if they want to or don't want to, but the fact that we can, means a lot.  
I don't think the voters in this country understand the concept of coalition, the conservatives have 306 seats in the house of commons, libdem have only 57 , so the conservatives have the biggest influence of policies overall. coalitions are about compromising, otherwise there would be collapse, re-elections after re-elections. I am disgusted by the  fees news as much as you might be but the majority of voters chose the conservatives . A country gets what its voters chose. There is little reason to whine about that. In Scotland , there are no student fees, the elderly are looked after better  amongst other better policies in Scotland so why can;t we down south vote similarly ?  Conservatives have been for a very long time a minority party in the Scottish parliament, go figure. They don't just vote for party A because party B was naughty this time. 
I do worry that from now on protests may have huge presence of riot police that will put many people of going to them. 

The protests that happened throughout central and eastern Europe in 1989 made a huge difference, so just because the recent protests  over the years have done bugger all , does not automatically mean they won't do anything ever.


----------



## lobster (Nov 13, 2010)

Kid_Eternity said:


> The problem is unless a constructive direct action strategy is in place from the off most people will just turn up, walk the march and go home with no further action and the press will undermine the whole thing based on the actions of a few. The Iraq protests had the same vanguardist stuff said about them, we need to get people to the marches then they'll be radicalised etc...came to nothing.


 
i think your looking into protests a little to much, would you rather they be banned? and any attempt of organising them would throw you in the slammer?  Most people are never going be radicalised , its not part of the human gene. The Russian revolution is the best we have yet seen and that was destroyed early on by selfish humans.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 13, 2010)

lobster said:


> I don't think the voters in this country understand the concept of coalition, the conservatives have 306 seats in the house of commons, libdem have only 57 , so the conservatives have the biggest influence of policies overall. coalitions are about compromising, otherwise there would be collapse, re-elections after re-elections. I am disgusted by the  fees news as much as you might be *but the majority of voters chose the conservatives* . A country gets what its voters chose. There is little reason to whine about that.


 
the bolded bit is not true, iirc ~25% of eligible voters voted for the tories (i think they got 36% of the vote on a 62% turnout).
Many people voted for the lib dems against the tories, especially in the south west
the vast majority of voters did not get what they voted for
democracy is not about voting every four or five years and then accepting whatever happens because a party got enough votes to get power.

As someone else said, if the tories were in a minority government, do you think that they would be trying to introduce 9K fees?


----------



## lobster (Nov 13, 2010)

BigTom said:


> the bolded bit is not true, iirc ~25% of eligible voters voted for the tories (i think they got 36% of the vote on a 62% turnout).



Of course people who did not vote are not to blame for any mess , i never said otherwise. 



BigTom said:


> Many people voted for the lib dems against the tories, especially in the south west




Then those voters cannot bitch, they could have spent time doing something more constructive than voting for libdems if they feel let down by them.




BigTom said:


> the vast majority of voters did not get what they voted for



If they did not get what they voted for, what did they get then? 
I go into a pub, order a guinness and get a guinness not a cider, same with asking for a libdem to govern....




BigTom said:


> democracy is not about voting every four or five years and then accepting whatever happens because a party got enough votes to get power.



I agree, that's why any protest however minimal is not a waste of democracy. As well as petitions, conventions and anything else you might think of.



BigTom said:


> As someone else said, if the tories were in a minority government, do you think that they would be trying to introduce 9K fees?



That's my point about the libdems, or to put it another way if they were the majority in the coalition, more of their policies would pass , possible changed a bit to fit the whole coalition but more of their policies would be up for debate and enacted.

I say if the Scots can do well , we should be able to as well..


----------



## BigTom (Nov 13, 2010)

lobster said:


> Of course people who did not vote are not to blame for any mess , i never said otherwise.



fair enough



> Then those voters cannot bitch, they could have spent time doing something more constructive than voting for libdems if they feel let down by them.



my point though was that many people voted lib dem believing that they would not form a coalition with the tories, they actively voted against the tories.. are you actually suggesting they build a time machine and go back to change their actions in the past? because that's what it sounds like.  Obviously in the future they should do something more constructive but they can't change the past - and they absolutely have the right to whinge about it now.




> If they did not get what they voted for, what did they get then?
> I go into a pub, order a guinness and get a guinness not a cider, same with asking for a libdem to govern....



75% of people did not vote for the tories.  these are the people who did not get what they voted for, I have no understanding of your reply here, it doesn't make any sense to me, please explain further.



> I agree, that's why any protest however minimal is not a waste of democracy. As well as petitions, conventions and anything else you might think of.



but you say people shouldn't whinge? do you only mean those who voted for the tories? they are not the ones who are whinging.. 



> That's my point about the libdems, or to put it another way if they were the majority in the coalition, more of their policies would pass , possible changed a bit to fit the whole coalition but more of their policies would be up for debate and enacted.



I don't understand this at all. sorry.  Could you answer my question please.



> I say if the Scots can do well , we should be able to as well..



total agreement with you on this one


----------



## lobster (Nov 13, 2010)

BigTom said:


> my point though was that many people voted lib dem believing that they would not form a coalition with the tories, they actively voted against the tories.. are you actually suggesting they build a time machine and go back to change their actions in the past? because that's what it sounds like.  Obviously in the future they should do something more constructive but they can't change the past - and they absolutely have the right to whinge about it now.



Your right on that one, i too would be pissed off . 





BigTom said:


> 75% of people did not vote for the tories.  these are the people who did not get what they voted for, I have no understanding of your reply here, it doesn't make any sense to me, please explain further..



Your totally correct, imagine if a lot more people voted and chose smaller parties, we would have much more interesting coalitions.. Its going to take a lot of will power, the bbc debates with just the three parties was a shamble, no wonder not many people voted who could. For a lot of its unbiased reporting that was very disappointing.  




BigTom said:


> but you say people shouldn't whinge? do you only mean those who voted for the tories? they are not the ones who are whinging.. .



yeah, tory voters cannot complain. 




BigTom said:


> I don't understand this at all. sorry.  Could you answer my question please..



I was just trying to say that the libdems policies however much people like them, they are only going to be effective if the conservatives agree with them not the other way around. I hope that answers your question .


----------



## BigTom (Nov 13, 2010)

ok, I think it's clearer now, you are saying that tories and lib-dems who support the coalition have no right to whinge because the lib dems can't expect (all) their views to be represented when they are the minority partner in the coalition.
But it seems a bit pointless to be in the coalition if the lib dems policies are only going to be effective if the conservatives agree with them.  To me, that says that the lib dems can't do anything without the tories say so, and the tories can do what they want without the lib dems.


----------



## lobster (Nov 13, 2010)

BigTom said:


> ok, I think it's clearer now, you are saying that tories and lib-dems who support the coalition have no right to whinge because the lib dems can't expect (all) their views to be represented when they are the minority partner in the coalition.
> But it seems a bit pointless to be in the coalition if the lib dems policies are only going to be effective if the conservatives agree with them.  To me, that says that the lib dems can't do anything without the tories say so, and the tories can do what they want without the lib dems.



That's great, i am understood , it is pointless  coalition, of course the libdems are loving the fact that they are in power and don't want to upset their boss as it were.


----------



## where to (Nov 13, 2010)

this facebook for a high school walkout was set up 2 hours ago.  they already have 60 signed up to walking out.  amazing how quickly these things can spread.  the potential for the 24th is massive.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=128881170503266


----------



## where to (Nov 13, 2010)

Aaron Porter (NUS Pres) on why NUS won't support the 24th:



> "NATIONAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST FEES AND CUTS ACTION - 24th November
> Some of you will be aware that NCAFC have a day of action planned for the
> 24th November.  This not an action or activity being organised by NUS.
> With regards to the next steps of the campaign I have outlined clearly
> ...



he won't be stopping folk getting involved though !  unbelievable arrogance.


----------



## treelover (Nov 14, 2010)

Whatever you think of Porter, he is the first NUS president in perhaps many many years to endorse non violent direct action, just think of Jim Murphy or Woolas, 

btw, the endorsement of outrigh violence by a fair few on here has been a bit of a shocker, i may take my leave of P/p


----------



## where to (Nov 14, 2010)

> Make the 24th November DAY X for the Coalition
> November 14, 2010
> by educationactivistnetwork
> 
> ...



http://educationactivistnetwork.wor...november-day-x-for-the-coalition/#comment-113


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 15, 2010)

where to said:


> this facebook for a high school walkout was set up 2 hours ago.



A High school walkout - what - like extended playtime?

How wadical - keeeewl!


----------



## BigTom (Nov 15, 2010)

you're a tosser cobbles.
I've never insulted anyone on here before I don't think, so you should probably feel proud.

any kid who walks out of schools risks temporary or possibly permanent exclusion for it.

For many 6th formers/college students from deprived backgrounds, the £30 EMA makes the difference between being able to do a-levels/nvq's and not being able to do them.
For many 6th formers/college students from deprived backgrounds £3,000 in fees and the debts that will produce stops them from applying for university, and that number will only increase if/when they raise the fees to £9,000.

Do you think that further and higher education should only be for people from wealthy backgrounds?


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Nov 15, 2010)

He/she is a troll.  

Cameron's dead spastic baby unemployed benefit scrounger.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 15, 2010)

yeah I know. I never respond to his car crap in transport. I knew he was  troll even as I was replying to the post, but I replied anyway.
I should have just said:

0/10
but unfortunately it's evident that he scored somewhat higher than that.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 15, 2010)

BigTom said:


> you're a tosser cobbles.
> I've never insulted anyone on here before I don't think, so you should probably feel proud.
> 
> any kid who walks out of schools risks temporary or possibly permanent exclusion for it.
> ...


 
the rich deserve their money coz they is harder working and cleverer than everyone else. call it darwinism.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Nov 15, 2010)

The spastic thing isn't me by the way, just an example of OMG, _controversial _words!


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Nov 15, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> the rich deserve their money coz they is harder working and cleverer than everyone else. call it darwinism.



The cream rises to the top, but another way of looking at it - shit floats.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 15, 2010)

Captain Hurrah said:


> The spastic thing isn't me by the way, just an example of OMG, _controversial _words!


 
plain talking common sense.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Nov 15, 2010)

Just telling it like it is.


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 15, 2010)

BigTom said:


> Do you think that further and higher education should only be for people from wealthy backgrounds?



On the other hand, why should I have to pay so that some muppet who clearly didn't have the basic smarts to gather in a load of toilet paper (current dumbed down A level exam "passes" are somewhat suspect) during their first 5 years at high school wastes another year dredging up enough D "passes" to spend 3 years at some crap ex-Poly studying "Meeja"?

Fine if folk want a 3 year holiday - no problem - just dont whinge about having to face the reality of paying for it. 

Some real universities clearly can't provide a quality education for 3 grand a year so what's wrong with allowing them to charge the full cost?

Nothing.


----------



## Santino (Nov 16, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> On the other hand, why should I have to pay so that some muppet who clearly didn't have the basic smarts to gather in a load of toilet paper (current dumbed down A level exam "passes" are somewhat suspect) during their first 5 years at high school wastes another year dredging up enough D "passes" to spend 3 years at some crap ex-Poly studying "Meeja"?
> 
> Fine if folk want a 3 year holiday - no problem - just dont whinge about having to face the reality of paying for it.
> 
> ...


 
You forgot 'Mickey Mouse', you baggy-eyed cunt.


----------



## Ground Elder (Nov 16, 2010)

> For many 6th formers/college students from deprived backgrounds, the £30 EMA makes the difference between being able to do a-levels/nvq's and not being able to do them.


As well as risking getting kicked out students who walk out on the 24th will lose that week's EMA.


----------



## where to (Nov 16, 2010)

Press release for 24th by NCACF group who are organising.  Only refers to London tho:

http://anticuts.com/2010/11/15/press-release-24-november-london-event/

(Trafalgar Sq from noon basically, but could change)


----------



## where to (Nov 18, 2010)

.


----------



## where to (Nov 18, 2010)

.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 18, 2010)

Birmingham, university of birmingham - students are going to be out in support of the unison workers demo, their facebook page is here (not for the event, general facebook group): 
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=158810544141687


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 18, 2010)

Anything going on in Reading?


----------



## grogwilton (Nov 19, 2010)

I've been told there is something in the pipeline. Watch this space. At the moment it's helping out the UCU.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 19, 2010)

Some of the plans for Wednesday are very very innovative and funny.


----------



## madzone (Nov 19, 2010)

We're taking part at Falmouth.

I bet it pisses down.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2010)

grogwilton said:


> I've been told there is something in the pipeline. Watch this space. At the moment it's helping out the UCU.


 
OK because I was going to go back and see how it was doing , i really care about that place having been a student there.


----------



## Ungrateful (Nov 19, 2010)

This must be big, cos even in the sleepy backwater of Dumfries the students are taking part.


----------



## madzone (Nov 20, 2010)

I posted the link about our walkout to a friend. She replied by saying she'd be in lectures then but she could come along when they were finished


----------



## where to (Nov 20, 2010)

anyone with a Guardian CIF account fancy spamming this thread:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/19/students-school-pupils-protest

with this link:
http://anticuts.org.uk/?page_id=778

ta!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 20, 2010)

madzone said:


> I posted the link about our walkout to a friend. She replied by saying she'd be in lectures then but she could come along when they were finished


 
Oh my fucking god. Seriously. There are no words.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 20, 2010)

I can find zero information about anything happening at my uni. Their NUS website is shite, and has nothing at all. On facebook all they have is an Ents group, no main NUS group. There is a campaigns group, which was updated once ahead of the 10.11.10 demo, and before that nothing since 2008. I've emailed the president asking if they have anything planned and haven't received a reply. They are a shower of motherfucking shit.


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 20, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> Oh my fucking god. Seriously. There are no words.


 

I know - a student - actually wanting to learn something (as opposed to having a 3 year party on free credit).

Amazing!


----------



## madzone (Nov 20, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> I know - a student - actually wanting to learn something (as opposed to having a 3 year party on free credit).
> 
> Amazing!


 She's studying an MA.


----------



## where to (Nov 20, 2010)

Update: please circulate.

London

9.30am QMUL students gather at Library Sq.  Circle Line tube to ULU for approx 10.30am.  (See QMUL Facebook below).

10.30am Walkouts begin across London







11am Carnival of Resistance procession from Malet St, ULU to Trafalgar Square – all welcome

12noon Students from across London and surroundings assemble at Trafalgar Square (called by National Campaign Against Cuts & Fees)

1pm March from Horse Guards Avenue to Parliament (called by Youth Fight for Jobs)

5.30pm Mass protest at Downing Street to link student action with wider trade union movement

Kingston University:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=170329922986533#!/event.php?eid=164501303583681

KMUL:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=134638753257704

West Thames College:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=160099844025748&num_event_invites=0

UCU:  http://www.facebook.com/pages/UCA-Walkout-National-Day-of-Action-Against-Cuts/107657832637702?ref=mf

ULU:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=119857321410337



*Manchester*






12 noon Assemble at Uni Place (tin can)

12.30pm March to MMU

1.30pm March to town hall

http://standagainstcuts.wordpress.com/

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=177964952219969


*
Glasgow*

12 noon Co-ordinated walkouts of educational establishments throughout the city.  Glasgow Uni gathering point from 12 noon at main gate; Strathclyde Uni from 12noon at McCance building.  Feeder marches into city centre.






3pm UNITED ACTION in the city centre.  All Glasgow students assemble from 3pm at Royal Concert Hall (Donald Dewer statue), Buchanan St.

5pm Rally in George Square for all workers and students, supported by student groups & trade unions. Speakers include Dave Moxham (STUC), Pete Murray (NUJ), Phil Whyte (NUS) etc.

Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=141525512564838#!/event.php?eid=169860949704687


*
Liverpool*

11am LJMU walkout, head to Guild of Students, Mount Pleasant for noon.

12noon All students (school, college, university) from across the city to assemble outside Guild of Students, Mount Pleasant.  Followed by a march through the city centre to the Town Hall.

General:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=100821293322538

LJMU:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=173585069320186



*Bristol*

All are welcome – Universities, schools and public alike – from across the South West.

11:00 UWE Walkout begins across all campuses

12:00 UoB Walkout begings

12:30 All students (school, college, university) from across the city to assemble opposite Senate House, Tyndall Avenue

13:15 March to Wills Memorial Building

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=165161463516345



*Leeds*

8.30am Leafletting begins at Leeds University

11am Leeds University students walkout

12.30am Leeds University students march from Parkinson Steps, past Leeds Met and other colleges from Leeds, to unite students across Leeds, to a protest outside the Art Gallery to be joined by school students.

Thereafter – Really Open University programme runs at Leeds University:  http://reallyopenuniversity.wordpress.com



*Edinburgh*

Pick your nearest meeting point then march to Lib Dem HQ at Haymarket.

1pm Students from across the city (Edinburgh University, QMUC, high schools, Jewel and Esk College etc),  gathering at Bristo Place (one of two meeting points) and marching to Tollcross.

1.30pm All other students from across the city (Napier, ECA, Heriot Watt, high schools, Telford and Stevenson Colleges etc), meeting in front of the Bank of Scotland, Tollcross (second meeting point).  March to Lib Dem HQ, Haymarket.

2pm onwards, March arrives at Lib Dem HQ.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=176423545707934



*Brighton*

2pm  University, school and college students from across Brighton assemble on Dyke Road Park, just up the road from BHASVIC, march to Churchill Square and end up in Victoria Gardens.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=118106684918897

Oxford

1pm Students from across the city gather at Carfax, Cornmarket

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=167093526656004



*Bournemouth*

10.45am BU students meet outside the Atrium and march to join AUCB protesters at 11.00.

11:00am – Students and teachers from both uni’s will congregate outside AUCB canteen.

11:30am – Leave the campus and march on the Town Hall, via Meyrick Park where we will combine with hundreds of teachers students, from local schools and sixth-form colleges.

12noon – March from park to Bournemouth Town Hall!

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=149671685079025



*Other:*

ABERYSTWYTH:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=154145134629925

BIRMINGHAM:  Join phone tree- http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=158810544141687#!/group.php?gid=158810544141687&v=info

BROCKENHURST COLLEGE (HAMPSHIRE):  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=162283583810492

BURY:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=156816764361244

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=123388704388977

COLCHESTER:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=167680883263952

CARDIFF UNIVERSITY:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=161354780568633

DUNDEE:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=112072515526519

EALING, TWYFORD SCHOOL:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=102105446527586

HEREFORD:  http://anticuts.org.uk/?p=842

LEICESTER:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=123405477720241

LINCOLN:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=130118687042933

LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=163619150338046

MILTON KEYNES SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=166040690085441&ref=ts

NEW CROSS, HABERDASHER’s ASKE’s HATCHAM COLLEGE:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=177738032241069

SOUTHAMPTON:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=173994629293767&num_event_invites=0

SURREY UNIVERSITY:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=159719290733155

TAUNTON, RICHARD HUISH COLLEGE:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=148524455194222

TRURO:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=112493212149881

UCA: http://tinyurl.com/28zjwex

WARWICK UNIVERSITY:  http://www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk/?p=3885

WYEDEAN, MONMOUTH & CHEPSTOW:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=128881170503266



*Teachins and events between now and the 24th:*

CAMBRIDGE “FREE UNIVERSITY”:  http://www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk/?p=3847

GLASGOW OPEN SCHOOL:  http://gdiycommunity.wordpress.com/

LONDON STUDENTS GENERAL ASSEMBY:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=161582350546070


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 20, 2010)

Um, Mark Steel, what a bout the mention of going down to the LIdDem HQ?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 20, 2010)

heh! that's quite an impressive line-up 

fucking students!!!!


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 20, 2010)

Vintage Paw said:


> I can find zero information about anything happening at my uni. Their NUS website is shite, and has nothing at all. On facebook all they have is an Ents group, no main NUS group. There is a campaigns group, which was updated once ahead of the 10.11.10 demo, and before that nothing since 2008. I've emailed the president asking if they have anything planned and haven't received a reply. They are a shower of motherfucking shit.


You could always start to get involved and organise yourself you know?


----------



## where to (Nov 20, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> what a bout the mention of going down to the LIdDem HQ?


 
seems to have gone quiet that one.  not sure though.

some places are really well organised - 1000 bury college students are already signed up on facebook to walkout.  some places there's barely anything (Cardiff and Sheffield for example, strangely).


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 20, 2010)

So, they are being passified by Mark Steel in Trafalgar Square.


----------



## where to (Nov 20, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> You could always start to get involved and organise yourself you know?


 
all it needs is a Facebook page and a friends list to kickstart things.

the media will do the rest of the work in hyping this as of Monday.  wherever the info is out there and easy to be found, this will be big.


----------



## where to (Nov 20, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> So, they are being passified by Mark Steel in Trafalgar Square.


 
i don't think thats the idea, no.


----------



## madzone (Nov 20, 2010)

We never get mentioned on those lists


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 20, 2010)

madzone said:


> We never get mentioned on those lists


my boy told me that there was 80 people having a carry on in truro when the london stuff was going on.


----------



## where to (Nov 20, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Anything going on in Reading?


 
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=164267206946600


----------



## madzone (Nov 20, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> my boy told me that there was 80 people having a carry on in truro when the london stuff was going on.


 
Yeah, the truro group is mentioned but not the falmouth one.


----------



## where to (Nov 20, 2010)

madzone said:


> We never get mentioned on those lists


 
whats happening and where? ?


----------



## madzone (Nov 20, 2010)

where to said:


> whats happening and where? ?



http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=174070122619954

University College Falmouth - both campuses.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 20, 2010)

madzone said:


> http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=174070122619954
> 
> University College Falmouth - both campuses.


 
Is that massive cornish pastie I see?

Madzone I'm right behind you.

You are proper bad ass.


----------



## madzone (Nov 20, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> Is that massive cornish pastie I see?
> 
> Madzone I'm right behind you.
> 
> You are proper bad ass.



No, I'm not. I'll be the one with the hot chocolate and the blankets wrapped round me moaning about the noise


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 20, 2010)

madzone said:


> No, I'm not. I'll be the one with the hot chocolate and the blankets wrapped round me moaning about the noise


 
(will you be humping my leg underneath?)


----------



## madzone (Nov 20, 2010)

You're obsessed


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 20, 2010)

Proactive, not obsessed/
.

A community worker if you please/


----------



## where to (Nov 20, 2010)

not a bad poster there


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 20, 2010)

OOh lets go to Trafalgar that's always sorted the problems out.

"Yeah I know Tony Benn a bit of a bore but Mark Steel He's the boy!"


----------



## where to (Nov 21, 2010)

i cautiously predict you'll be feeling a bit silly come mid afternoon Wednesday.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 21, 2010)

i cautiously predict that the old bill might be a bit more lively come mid afternoon Wednesday.


----------



## where to (Nov 21, 2010)

the actual call out for Trafalgar square isn't talking about them staying there listening for speaches:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=161641453873444


Paulie: agreed.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 21, 2010)

In Cambridge, students are gathering around (rather than under the wing of) http://www.defendeducation.co.uk/

Went to the "what can the trade unions do" workshop organised by the students, to which reps from Unite, UCU & muggins with a PCS hat on. 

The really interesting thing is how http://www.cambridgeshireagainstthecuts.org.uk/ (which is the trades union/local coalition) is organised & structured completely differently. ( The former mirroring a traditional union branch, while the latter having a much more fluid "collective" based organisation).

Suffice to say, the students-based organisation has a much more dynamic feel to it than the trades union one. That said, the students-based one is currently lacking in strong local links beyond the university, & also funds are very tight.

The good news is that both sides are talking to each other - more than just the "formal plattitudes" of campaigns gone by. We've identified how we can support each other without needing to have one side taking over the other.


----------



## where to (Nov 21, 2010)

> Statement from National Union of Teachers executive members in support of the 24th November Walkout/Day of Action
> November 21, 2010
> 
> We the undersigned members of the National Union of Teachers National Executive wish to express our wholehearted support for, and solidarity with, the national day of protests and walkouts being organised by the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts on November 24th.
> ...


.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 22, 2010)

Look at the list of protests across the country - http://anticuts.org.uk/?page_id=778 - it's huge.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 22, 2010)

Prince Rhyus said:


> Look at the list of protests across the country - http://anticuts.org.uk/?page_id=778 - it's huge.


 
its an excellent listing - worth bookmarking


----------



## treelover (Nov 22, 2010)

that Bristol flyer is excellent


----------



## Santino (Nov 22, 2010)

SOAS students have started early and just occupied a building in their college.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 22, 2010)

Santino said:


> SOAS students have started early and just occupied a building in their college.


 
Was just going to post that they voted to occupy last night, not as part of a one-off but as part of a rolling plan.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 22, 2010)

Prince Rhyus said:


> The good news is that both sides are talking to each other - more than just the "formal plattitudes" of campaigns gone by. We've identified how we can support each other without needing to have one side taking over the other.


 
Woodcock won't be happy about that.


----------



## where to (Nov 22, 2010)

UWE (Bristol) and MMU (Manchester) occupied too


----------



## BigTom (Nov 22, 2010)

went to a general meeting about student activism at university of birmingham tonight and there were a couple of riot vans at the uni so I think the police were expecting something might happen tonight (which was never planned)


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Nov 22, 2010)

where to said:


> UWE (Bristol) and MMU (Manchester) occupied too


 
Where have you heard about MMU? Good on them.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 22, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> Woodcock won't be happy about that.


 
Why not?


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 22, 2010)

They're not all SWP.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Nov 22, 2010)

Threshers_Flail said:


> Where have you heard about MMU? Good on them.


 
Ignore that, just saw on beeb.


----------



## where to (Nov 22, 2010)

Threshers_Flail said:


> Where have you heard about MMU? Good on them.


 
http://mmuoccupation.wordpress.com/


----------



## where to (Nov 22, 2010)

apols if already posted

http://soasoccupation2010.wordpress.com/


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 22, 2010)

DrRingDing said:


> They're not all SWP.


 
Although both organisations have SWP people in them, they are not all SWP by any means. 

The general feeling that I'm picking up locally as well as in my workplace is that the scale of these cuts is going to be so big that any far left sect that tries to take over any movement will end up being swamped simply by both weight of numbers and the sheer complexity of the impact that the cuts will have on everyone.

What I mean by that is that there will be so many "Save our [insert name of public service/facility]" that no organisation will have the capacity for the traditional "command and control" model that was reminiscent of the "Stop the War" movement.

The students didn't ask for anyone's permission to turn up on the week before last on their march. Pressure came up from the roots to the leadership to put something together as quickly as possible after the Browne Review and the Comprehensive Spending Review documents were published. After that, it took on a life of its own - as it has done now.


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 22, 2010)

Good, I'm glad to hear it. I heard he got pooh pooh when trying to forced only members of LMHR should be able to participate.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2010)

It's the frenchay campus for UWE if anyone fancies going down.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 23, 2010)

Prince Rhyus said:


> The general feeling that I'm picking up locally as well as in my workplace is that the scale of these cuts is going to be so big that any far left sect that tries to take over any movement will end up being swamped simply by both weight of numbers and the sheer complexity of the impact that the cuts will have on everyone.


This is fucking cynical of me - but reading your post sends a certain hackneyed phrase incorporating clouds and silver linings, through my mind. THANK FUCK this won't be STWC II


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 23, 2010)

- was that criticism or praise?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2010)

Prince Rhyus said:


> - was that criticism or praise?


 
have you read streathamite's post?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 23, 2010)

Prince Rhyus said:


> - was that criticism or praise?


 

erm, praise, quite obviously I'd've thought 
e2a; in that we need a mass campaign, driven by grassroots anger, not just the usual left-sectlet circle-jerk (and that's what most of STWC ended up as, for all I met good people through it)


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 23, 2010)

for tomorrow; go studes! I'm with you.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 23, 2010)

University of Birmingham cancels post-grad open day (planned for tommorow, 24th) because of the protests

Birmingham Post article



> Worried bosses said they were unable to guarantee an excellent visitor experience because of the “threat of protests”.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Nov 23, 2010)

BigTom said:


> University of Birmingham cancels post-grad open day (planned for tommorow, 24th) because of the protests
> 
> Birmingham Post article


 
Done the same in M'cr.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2010)

Let's hope some people _do_ guarantee an excellent visitor experience...


----------



## love detective (Nov 23, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> for tomorrow; go studes! I'm with you.


 
setting off now?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 23, 2010)

love detective said:


> setting off now?


LD:
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





i rteally did walk straight into that one....


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 23, 2010)

apparently the theatre school 1 block away from me are planning a walkout. That'll be one of the more stylish, choreographed walkouts around...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 23, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> LD:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
When?


----------



## Santino (Nov 23, 2010)

Senate House Library is closed tomorrow to all students. Pre-emptive disruption without a finger being lifted by the protesters.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> When?


sorry?

(being pedantic, when the original event occurred...)


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 23, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> erm, praise, quite obviously I'd've thought
> e2a; in that we need a mass campaign, driven by grassroots anger, not just the usual left-sectlet circle-jerk (and that's what most of STWC ended up as, for all I met good people through it)


 
Sorry - had a slow afternoon.

Am already trying to pre-empt risks of the local movement turning into a "March of the Month" organisation.

I think the difference with StWC is that once Blair had stuck two fingers up at us, those who had taken part in the movement (but most likely to drift) were almost paralysed with a sense of: "Now what?"

At the same time, it was relatively easy for most people to return to life as normal.

This time around, what we are campaigning against isn't about rockets exploding far away; it's stuff that will hit us on our doorstep - again & again & won't go away. I said to a bloke working in a local cafe that the first thing he'd notice workwise is a reduced bus service down the road (Mill Road for those familiar with Cambridge). He commented that he'd never realised that the council subsidises thd bus routes.


----------



## Santino (Nov 23, 2010)

Royal Holloway have started early: http://de.justin.tv/rhul_anti_cuts/b/274484675 (live video feed)


----------



## where to (Nov 23, 2010)

hundreds joining the facebook page every few minutes just now, new pages opening, seems to have suddenly taken off ??


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 23, 2010)

Plymouth uni also occupied http://anticuts.com/2010/11/23/soas-royal-holloway-uwe-manchester-met-and-plymouth-occupied/


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 23, 2010)

Even the Woodcraft Folk are backing peaceful non-violent direct action by young people - http://anticuts.com/2010/11/23/statement-from-the-woodcraft-folk/


----------



## treelover (Nov 23, 2010)

> Ever thought of working for the things you get, rather than wasting all of your time on Facebook and expecting the government to cover your arse?
> Honestly, what's next? Are you dipshits going to have a whine because your cleaners expect to be paid? Go worship Stalin, you commie pricks.




some don't like it, the RW trolls are so original


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 24, 2010)

By all means "walk out" (nobody'll notice) but if anyone wants it all to "kick off" (e.g. mindless yob vandalism), let's hope that the police around the country have enough tasers and dog handlers..........


----------



## Santino (Nov 24, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> By all means "walk out" (nobody'll notice) but if anyone wants it all to "kick off" (e.g. mindless yob vandalism), let's hope that the police around the country have enough tasers and dog handlers..........


 
You're a dick.



There, you've got what you wanted, I've got what I wanted, now fuck off.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 24, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> By all means "walk out" (nobody'll notice) but if anyone wants it all to "kick off" (e.g. mindless yob vandalism), let's hope that the police around the country have enough tasers and dog handlers..........



"cameroonian arrogance" - it'll come back and bite your pimply arse posh boy. you and your class has bitten off much, much more than your PR education would have you believe you can chew


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 24, 2010)

treelover said:


> some don't like it, the RW trolls are so original


 
That doesn't even make sense, students aren't being paid to do anything, in fact they're the actual customers. I bet these idiots whinge like fuck if they don't get the service they expect in a shop etc.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 24, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> By all means "walk out" (nobody'll notice) but if anyone wants it all to "kick off" (e.g. mindless yob vandalism), let's hope that the police around the country have enough tasers and dog handlers..........


 
you sound scared cobbles


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 24, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> By all means "walk out" (nobody'll notice) but if anyone wants it all to "kick off" (e.g. mindless yob vandalism), let's hope that the police around the country have enough tasers and dog handlers..........


 
I really hope someone smashes the fuck out of your property, closely followed by smashing the fuck out of your face.

As Santino said, you've got what you wanted now please fuck off to another board because your trolling is so fantastically dull now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I really hope someone smashes the fuck out of your property, closely followed by smashing the fuck out of your face.


 
come now! don't you think you're being too restrained?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 24, 2010)

I don't normally do violence but sometimes, just sometimes and for some people it's richly deserved and Cobbles is one such person.  Fuck him anyway, he just wished dogs and tasers on 18 year old kids so he's fair game.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> I don't normally do violence but sometimes, just sometimes and for some people it's richly deserved and Cobbles is one such person.  Fuck him anyway, he just wished dogs and tasers on 18 year old kids so he's fair game.


 
yes. but what's wrong with the ribcage, elbows and kneecaps? not to mention ankles and wrists.


----------



## Santino (Nov 24, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. but what's wrong with the ribcage, elbows and kneecaps? not to mention ankles and wrists.



liberal


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2010)

Santino said:


> liberal


 
yes. when it comes to violence on cobbles' body i am liberal about which parts deserve to be whacked, not to mention catholic.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 24, 2010)

nice day for it, the god of weather clearly likes the student mob innit?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> nice day for it, the god of weather clearly likes the student mob innit?


 
it's turned out nice again


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 24, 2010)

Fucking Beeb coverage on Radio 5 this morning 

And now some Lib Dem MP moaning about how 'left wing extremists hijacked the protests' or something.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2010)

stephj said:


> Fucking Beeb coverage on Radio 5 this morning
> 
> And now some Lib Dem MP moaning about how 'left wing extremists hijacked the protests' or something.


 
i wonder what his excuse about the cause of the protests is. if they're reduced to the auld bullshit of 'outside elements' they've conceded people are right to protest.


----------



## creak (Nov 24, 2010)

Guardian Live said:
			
		

> 10.46am:
> 
> As we gear up towards the second mass protest in two weeks, the legacy of the first looms large: the Press Association is reporting that Edward Woollard has pleaded guilty to throwing a fire extinguisher from the roof of Millbank Tower during the riots on 10 November.



Ouch, what sort of sentence can he expect for that?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 24, 2010)

Probably attempted murder.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 24, 2010)

Violent disorder upto 5 years.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Nov 24, 2010)

what a dickhead, fancy pleading guilty! I suppose his parents said, "Come on son if you did it then you need to be honest about it and own up"


----------



## plurker (Nov 24, 2010)

for twitter users

@PennyRed 
_Just got hit in back of head by cop fuyck fuck #demo2010_

and @Paul__Lewis 
_Police van in the middle of the crowd being ripped up. Smoke bomb inside. #demo2010_

giving good coverage of today's activity...


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 24, 2010)

#demo2010 and #ukcuts not trending for some reason.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 24, 2010)

http://twitpic.com/39qg47


----------



## Flanflinger (Nov 24, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> what a dickhead, fancy pleading guilty! I suppose his parents said, "Come on son if you did it then you need to be honest about it and own up"


 
Prison is a good place to carry on with your studies.


----------



## plurker (Nov 24, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> #demo2010 and #ukcuts not trending for some reason.


not yet  

@simoncollister - Just seen plain clothes cop get himself out of the kettle. Agent prov? #demo2010


----------



## killer b (Nov 24, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> Prison is a good place to carry on with your studies.


 
and he'll get his fees paid. and a playstation in his cell.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 24, 2010)

plurker said:


> not yet



There's 60 a minute or something.  It's been turned off.


----------



## plurker (Nov 24, 2010)

aye, must have been - a bit sinister that!
. Unless more people actually are writing about Freddie Mercury (wtf?)


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 24, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> what a dickhead, fancy pleading guilty! I suppose his parents said, "Come on son if you did it then you need to be honest about it and own up"


 
How strong is the evidence against him? Perhaps he had no choice.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 24, 2010)

The circle A on this pic looks badly Photoshopped!






from BBC website


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 24, 2010)

^ any truth in the rumour that the polis van's reg is: TR0 JAN?


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 24, 2010)

It looks a bit sus doesn't it?


----------



## ddraig (Nov 24, 2010)

that ain't even shopped
just paint pisstake


----------



## creak (Nov 24, 2010)

No I saw the live BBC footage of it, it is graffiti rather than photoshop.


----------



## madzone (Nov 24, 2010)

I've just had a right go at the students in my studio. Lazy apathetic little cunts. I've told them they disgust me. Which was nice.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 24, 2010)

getting a bit pushy, shovey and hitty in the kettle. students are testing the lines and getting whacked by TSG in the process

it's more low key though.

there is some ex copper on Sky commentating on it all, not one of ours is it?


----------



## The Octagon (Nov 24, 2010)

Santino said:


> Royal Holloway have started early: http://de.justin.tv/rhul_anti_cuts/b/274484675 (live video feed)


 
Heh, I drink with some of those guys


----------



## bi0boy (Nov 24, 2010)

creak said:


> No I saw the live BBC footage of it, it is graffiti rather than photoshop.


 
Very kind of those police to leave a single van right in the middle of the crowd for so long wasn't it?


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 24, 2010)

That's the first time i've seen a kettle nearly breached (whitehall), 2 dozen more dedicated protesters and they would of been through.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 24, 2010)

http://www.channel4.com/news/live-blog-student-protest-against-tuition-fee-plans


----------



## creak (Nov 24, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> Very kind of those police to leave a single van right in the middle of the crowd for so long wasn't it?


 
Yep, they've easily got the numbers in reserve to take it back if they want to. Sounds like they're kettling outside Whitehall too, good way to raise the temperatures within.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 24, 2010)

http://storify.com/suellewellyn/demo2010


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 24, 2010)




----------



## Ungrateful (Nov 24, 2010)

Students hear had a good protest, linking up with the local FE students. It had some of the institutions' high hijuns worried. For a site which never usually has a copper in sight, we had a van load of them, plus six on foot and the region's 'unmarkled' police car - recogniseable by all those caught speeding on the M74. For a place with student numbers in their hundreds, it was an excellent turn out. BBC report here. Let's see what, if anything, develops....


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 24, 2010)

The BBC's coverage is infuriating.  Banging on about a little bit of shoving and that one police van being vandalised and yet they say absolutely nothing about this government's vandalising of young people's future and public services.  "Oh it doesn't matter, you can pay the debt back when you earn over 21k" fucking cunts .


----------



## machine cat (Nov 24, 2010)

Massive police presence here in central Leeds. I believe there was a good turn-out at the university and I'll have a walk through town on my way home tonight and see what's happening.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 24, 2010)




----------



## fractionMan (Nov 24, 2010)

Abandoned police van is apparently a different, older model than all the others being used.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 24, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Abandoned police van is apparently a different, older model than all the others being used.


that's all very convenient eh?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 24, 2010)

Oh yeah:


----------



## skyscraper101 (Nov 24, 2010)

Excatly, people STILL fall for this shit. 

Someone should have foresaw that happening and placed a couple of warning signs not to touch the van as it's an obvious ploy by the cops to get photos in the press when it was vandalised.


----------



## bi0boy (Nov 24, 2010)

I'm sure all police vans normally contain red smoke grenades and fire extinguishers inside them but no weapons or uniforms.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 24, 2010)

"There's a policeman there, just using a truncheon to calm down the students a bit" says BBC News.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 24, 2010)

Officially kettling now according to sky.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 24, 2010)

ha
TSG with broken arm!

heart bleeds


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 24, 2010)

Gove on beeb says it's been hijacked by extremist groups...


----------



## ddraig (Nov 24, 2010)

lol
Gove calling out the swappies


----------



## Dan U (Nov 24, 2010)

He just did that on sky. The extreme left, the swp....


----------



## ddraig (Nov 24, 2010)

"the socialist worker party seeking a confrontation" by Gove on beeb


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 24, 2010)

Beeb interviewer isn't buying his rhetorical flourishes


----------



## dennisr (Nov 24, 2010)

its a placard on top of the van


----------



## creak (Nov 24, 2010)

Ah, that would make more sense.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 24, 2010)

Nothing from @AaronPorter

No surprise there.


----------



## bi0boy (Nov 24, 2010)

I'm just waiting for some hack to say "demonstrators were burning wreaths from the cenotaph"


----------



## moon23 (Nov 24, 2010)

skyscraper101 said:


> Excatly, people STILL fall for this shit.
> 
> Someone should have foresaw that happening and placed a couple of warning signs not to touch the van as it's an obvious ploy by the cops to get photos in the press when it was vandalised.


 
Is there any evidence for this conspiracy theory?


----------



## moon23 (Nov 24, 2010)

Dan U said:


> He just did that on sky. The extreme left, the swp....


 
Well the exterme left to advocate the violence and encourage people to direct action to get their own way. You only have to look at the pictures of people wearing masks with black and red flags etc.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 24, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> I'm just waiting for some hack to say "demonstrators were burning wreaths from the cenotaph"


 
I prefer to hope that no demonstrator would be so foolish as to do it.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well the exterme left to advocate the violence and encourage people to direct action to get their own way. You only have to look at the pictures of people wearing masks with black and red flags etc.



Warms the cockles, don't it.


----------



## bi0boy (Nov 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well the exterme left to advocate the violence and encourage people to direct action to get their own way. You only have to look at the pictures of people wearing masks with black and red flags etc.


 
Yeah they're all extremist SWP members


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Is there any evidence for this conspiracy theory?


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well the exterme left to advocate the violence and encourage people to direct action to get their own way. You only have to look at the pictures of people wearing masks with black and red flags etc.


 
yeah, no need for direct action, they should have voted against it instead.  Or started a facebook group ideologically objecting to it.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well the exterme left to advocate the violence and encourage people to direct action to get their own way. You only have to look at the pictures of people wearing masks with black and red flags etc.


blah blah blah blah blah.......


----------



## moon23 (Nov 24, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> Yeah they're all extremist SWP members


 
Not all, just a violent group within it. Kid on the BBC saying most of the violent people are anarchists, including someone at least 45.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Nov 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Is there any evidence for this conspiracy theory?


 
No it's pure fruitloopery and never tried before in Toronto at the G20 or anything.


----------



## creak (Nov 24, 2010)

Kid on the BBC also said that there was something iffy about the unoccupied police van left in the middle of the demo.


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 24, 2010)

An anatchist at 45! Who'd have thought it.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 24, 2010)

skyscraper101 said:


> No it's pure fruitloopery and never tried before in Toronto at the G20 or anything.


 
If people decide to smash up a police car, that's their choice.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 24, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> An anatchist at 45! Who'd have thought it.


 
His words, not mine.


----------



## bi0boy (Nov 24, 2010)

creak said:


> Kid on the BBC also said that there was something iffy about the unoccupied police van left in the middle of the demo.


 
Guy on BBC just said the police used the protesters attacking the van as the key event to decide to stop the march and start kettling people.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 24, 2010)

creak said:


> Kid on the BBC also said that there was something iffy about the unoccupied police van left in the middle of the demo.


 
Conspiracy theories are popular.


----------



## creak (Nov 24, 2010)

Pieces are falling into place though, eh.


----------



## chilango (Nov 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Conspiracy theories are popular.


 


moon23 said:


> Well the exterme left to advocate the violence and encourage people to direct action to get their own way. You only have to look at the pictures of people wearing masks with black and red flags etc.


 
Innit.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Conspiracy theories are popular.


 
unlike the libdems and their lies.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 24, 2010)

soas occupation have just called for support as there is an eviction attempt now.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 24, 2010)

I'm encouraged by the fact that the protests have largely been peaceful. I'm sure idiotic Gove and other tories (and even the leftoids, come to think of it) would have loved some violence to fume/crow over but no; success.


----------



## editor (Nov 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Conspiracy theories are popular.


 It was careless, clumsy or intentional. Either way it adds up to the same thing: a stick to beat the protesters with and an easy way for the media to ignore the issues.


----------



## spliff (Nov 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Conspiracy theories are popular.


 
It's not a conspiracy it's a tried and tested tactic, going back to N30 and probably further.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 24, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Not all, just a violent group within it. Kid on the BBC saying most of the violent people are anarchists, including someone at least 45.


 
Oh noes!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 24, 2010)

Shades of the police van sacrificed at euston station a decade ago.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 24, 2010)

Do you think they'll claim on the insurance?


----------



## bi0boy (Nov 24, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Do you think they'll claim on the insurance?


 
Nah it'll come out of their wages.


----------



## killer b (Nov 24, 2010)

Are 45 year olds not allowed to be students? Or perhaps show solıdarıty wıth theır own kıds?


----------



## XR75 (Nov 24, 2010)

editor said:


> It was careless, clumsy or intentional. Either way it adds up to the same thing: a stick to beat the protesters with and an easy way for the media to ignore the issues.


 
What issues would they be?
Students holiday in uni land going up by a couple of grand?
Oh the calamity!


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 24, 2010)

XR75 said:


> What issues would they be?
> Students holiday in uni land going up by a couple of grand?
> Oh the calamity!



Issue is, my daughter won't be able to go to university 'cos we can't afford £9k fees per year.


----------



## boing! (Nov 24, 2010)

Just got back from whitehall, can't say I saw many obvious extremists there, just a lot of very normal looking, pissed off students and school children


----------



## plurker (Nov 24, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Nothing from @AaronPorter
> 
> No surprise there.



Not a NUS sanctioned demo though. He's being his usual self here today: http://www.nus.org.uk/en/News/News/NUS-comments-on-student-protests/

_"I am very aware of the overwhelming annger and strength of opposition from students and their families to the Government’s miserable vision for the future of our education – but I am also aware that we need to win over hearts and minds to our cause and violence will not help us to do that."_


----------



## plurker (Nov 24, 2010)

killer b said:


> Are 45 year olds not allowed to be students? Or perhaps show solıdarıty wıth theır own kıds?


 
or lecturers. I know Uni lecturers who are there today  in solidarity


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 24, 2010)

plurker said:


> Not a NUS sanctioned demo though. He's being his usual self here today: http://www.nus.org.uk/en/News/News/NUS-comments-on-student-protests/
> 
> _"I am very aware of the overwhelming annger and strength of opposition from students and their families to the Government’s miserable vision for the future of our education – but I am also aware that we need to win over hearts and minds to our cause and violence will not help us to do that."_


 
he's a careerist lackey.

fuck him.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 24, 2010)

Surely he should fully condone violence if he wants a foot in the door with the warmongering new labour party?


----------



## dennisr (Nov 24, 2010)

Students being arrested on the London demo are being taken to West End Central police station.
Please make calls demanding their release to :  tel: 0300 123 1212, then ask for 'West End Central station'
email: westminster@met.police.uk (this is the email address for all the stations in Westminster)


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 24, 2010)

Students are rioting in Brighton. The Town Hall's been evacuated too


----------



## dennisr (Nov 24, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Students are rioting in Brighton. The Town Hall's been evacuated too


 
 - well, they wanted a class war


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 24, 2010)

And they're going to fuckin' get one.


----------



## madzone (Nov 24, 2010)

XR75 said:


> What issues would they be?
> Students holiday in uni land going up by a couple of grand?
> Oh the calamity!


 Issues like my extremely intelligent son not being able to fulfil his potential because we can't send him to university. The surgeon who might one day be employed to remove your head from your arse was a student once you know. The scientist who helped develop the medicine that might save your kid one day was a student once. But hey, uni's just one big holiday isn't it?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 24, 2010)

madzone said:


> The surgeon who might one day be employed to remove your head from your arse was a student once you know.





LIKES


----------



## madzone (Nov 24, 2010)

I am fucking disgusted by the apathy at Falmouth. One can only assume that it's because they're spoilt middle class kids who haven't got a fucking scooby about what's about to happen to them. It rained so only about 25 people turned up. TWO campuses worth of students and only 25 people turned up. I've fallen out with so many people over it it's no longer funny. Fuck them, they deserve what's coming to them.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 24, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Students are rioting in Brighton. The Town Hall's been evacuated too


 
According to the local rag, they've occupied the Town Hall!


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 24, 2010)

XR75 said:


> What issues would they be?
> Students holiday in uni land going up by a couple of grand?
> Oh the calamity!


 
Why can't we just lose this cunt?


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 24, 2010)

madzone said:


> I am fucking disgusted by the apathy at Falmouth. One can only assume that it's because they're spoilt middle class kids who haven't got a fucking scooby about what's about to happen to them. It rained so only about 25 people turned up. TWO campuses worth of students and only 25 people turned up. I've fallen out with so many people over it it's no longer funny. Fuck them, they deserve what's coming to them.


 
ditto bath



> No Tweet results for bath #dayx.


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Nov 24, 2010)

Well the t.v. coverage from above has stopped due to nighttime flying rules so they can get away from murder. Well I was there and I can't see that the real reason for the kettling as the police van were across the road anyway into P Square and the protestor left the T Square without any trouble. So that's a puzzle, so my frist thought is that we gone back to the old days of kettling again. It was at this point the police came in from behind so I legged it. The said old police van got hit. It seem odd place to put it but it has been done before by "careless police". 

So we need to find the real reason why they were blocked in the first place so anyone out there with a phone number to the BBC can you give them a ring and find out why?


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 24, 2010)

stephj said:


> Why can't we just lose this cunt?


 
Freedom of speech? 

Even if it is clearly trolling...


----------



## Dan U (Nov 24, 2010)

just spoke to a mate who works for a national newspaper.

according to one of their photographers, the police van was 'very old with rusty wheels'

hhhmm etc


----------



## BigTom (Nov 24, 2010)

university of birmingham students went into occupation this morning - for some reason I couldn't log on at work, or I would have posted earlier - they are still in occupation, though I rode past earlier and you can't get into the Aston Webb building, and the Unison demo was no longer going on.. you can read the occupiers twitter feed here:
www.twitter.com/stopcutsbrum

Madzone, you have a wonderful way with words   I felt the same about university of birmingham when I was there, but there seem to be a few more people around now, still they only had 30 people take part in the occupation - I'll have to see how many students turned up for the demo and weren't able to get into the building though when I see them next.
I wish that there was more going on around the city though

Sounds like things kicked off in london, I hope none of the students were hurt.  Any idea of numbers there?


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 24, 2010)

Got there about 1.15 and the police kettle was already on, people being let in but not out.  Was at that point that they should have pushed out.

Then the noose tightened, nobody was going in either, the vans behind the line were positioned to form a tight barrier.  People were still gathering and soon there was about 1000 people outside the line, wanting to get in.  People were up on the building window ledges, on the corner of whitehall and king charles, graffiti started appearing.  The police started clearing them out, met with violence.  It looked like the line across whitehall was getting stretched too and I'm pretty sure some broke out.

Then the outer line of vans retreated up whitehall.  A fire was started in the street and a couple of explosions followed, as deoderant went on.  Saw a tweet from ukuncut saying we were about to be kettled and started walking up whitehall.  I could see a line of coppers, followed by mounted police coming down the whole of whitehall, sweeping up everyone leaving, tourists, onlookers.  Scrambled over fences through the Mod gardens and escaped the noose.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 24, 2010)

shaman75 i saw people doing that on sky news!


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Nov 24, 2010)

there's got to strategies developed for beating this kettle. I have some ideas but I'm not going to post them on a public forum


----------



## Balbi (Nov 24, 2010)

Met police said 'the van was surrounded, so the officers got out and left'...................

"DAVE! Remember where we parked!"


----------



## BigTom (Nov 24, 2010)

according to the right to work twitter, there's now a second occupation at the university of birmingham.. stupidly, I've just ordered pizza and in any case I've no idea where at the uni the second occupation is but I'd be heading down there if I knew.. might try to find out and go down after I've eaten


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 24, 2010)

The policing of the student demonstration in London (24.11.10) was nothing short of corrupt. The police play the 'innocent' game frequently, but in this case it is totally blatant as anybody with an authentically independent mind saw.

The placing of an empty police minibus (in Whitehall) in the path of a known militant march of student demonstrators is a 'red rag to a bull'. It is nothing short of entrapment and because of the huge policing resources and plans the police made to kettle demonstrators, is part of a deliberate 'newsmaking' for the right wing dominated media.

It is also intimidating for protestors to be pushed around and contained, and as such is an attack on the right to demonstrate. If there are any police still interested in real policing, I hope they will disassociate themselves from the operational plans and decision making of the Metropolitan police for that protest march.


----------



## plurker (Nov 24, 2010)

BigTom said:


> according to the right to work twitter, there's now a second occupation at the university of birmingham.. stupidly, I've just ordered pizza and in any case I've no idea where at the uni the second occupation is but I'd be heading down there if I knew.. might try to find out and go down after I've eaten


 
 arf!
don't let anything get in the way of yer domino's eh...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 24, 2010)

Balbi said:


> Met police said 'the van was surrounded, so the officers got out and left'...................
> 
> "DAVE! Remember where we parked!"


 
It's a fuckin' right off 

One down, thousands to go.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 24, 2010)

plurker said:


> arf!
> don't let anything get in the way of yer domino's eh...


 
purlease! papa johns (not got a domino's close enough).. anyway, have sent some messages to see if I can find out where the second occupation is and I'll head down there if I hear anything


----------



## Balbi (Nov 24, 2010)

Well spoken londoner on Sky News points out it turned violent when the kettling started and that the issues are more important, and that she and many others will NOT be put off by this.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 24, 2010)

Sit down protest on bridge next to Big Ben.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 24, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Students are rioting in Brighton. The Town Hall's been evacuated too




 But I've copied this from the Brighton Argus newsfeed/ live blog that shows the police are up for it;

"Still shaken by the police takedown on that kid. It was brutal. If parent had done half of that we'd have him in a place of safety #demo2010 [via Twitter]'="


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 24, 2010)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Students are rioting in Brighton. The Town Hall's been evacuated too


 
3.55pm Brighton;
Police have kettled hundreds of protesters outside the Town Hall now, but there are still about 100 - 150 people outside it.
4.12pm Police guarding town hall draw batons, cs spray - pictures: #brighton #dayx #demo2010 http://bit.ly/g89e1q [via Twitter]


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 24, 2010)

police have told him the protest is now focusing on the police station (in John Street) and North Street is about to open to eastbound traffic.
Wednesday November 24, 2010 5:44 brightonargus
5:46
Twitter	
CInspTaylor: 
Small group of protesters outside John Street police station have been _*swiftly moved on*_"   WTF does that mean? _Swiftly moved on_ indeed - 'pushed violently' sounds more like it...


----------



## paolo (Nov 24, 2010)

We had the rolling news on the TV at work today. Staff watching seemed supportive, plenty of grins watching the footage.

Interesting how the country's mood has soured to the point that 'normal people' now have an appetite for this stuff, and aren't afraid to show it even amongst colleagues. Good. Looking forward to the next one.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 24, 2010)

Sussex filth are well known for pushing people about.

Ta for the pics, wish i could have got down there with the camera.

Go Brighton!!!

Gotta laugh at plod with their cs cans at the ready - protecting fuckin' property down here is their forte!


----------



## where to (Nov 24, 2010)

Can people post up approximate turnouts from as many locations as possible. Sources of info would be helpful but not fundamental.

Looking to get a grand total figure for journalist.


----------



## madzone (Nov 24, 2010)

where to said:


> Can people post up approximate turnouts from as many locations as possible. Sources of info would be helpful but not fundamental.
> 
> Looking to get a grand total figure for journalist.


 
100 in Truro
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-11831603

About 25 - 30 in the pissing rain at Falmouth.


----------



## Ground Elder (Nov 24, 2010)

100 out in Truro, Cornwall 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-11831603
40 in Falmouth

SNAP - but I used the BBC numbers


----------



## madzone (Nov 24, 2010)

Ground Elder said:


> 100 out in Truro, Cornwall
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-11831603
> 40 in Falmouth


 


Ok - let's say 40 (even though it was nowhere near that )


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 24, 2010)

Today's photo


----------



## dennisr (Nov 24, 2010)

where to said:


> Can people post up approximate turnouts from as many locations as possible. Sources of info would be helpful but not fundamental.



11.30: 1,000 out protesting in Winchester, 400 in Leeds, 100 in Dundee.

11.40: 200 students just walked out of Kenilworth college in Warwickshire.

11.50: 100 walked out from Great Marlow school and 6 from Borlaise grammar in Marlow, first school students walkouts ever in Marlow! 200 out in Coventry. 800 college students in Leeds join the university protest.

12.30: 1,000 marching in Leeds

13.00: 8,000 marching from Whitehall to parliament
2,000 school, college and university students marching in Newcastle. 250 students demonstrating on Warwick university campus, and 60 have occupied the arts centre on the campus.
100 protesting in Southampton. 2,000 in Sheffield. 200 in Leicester. 1,400 in Bury. 1,000 in Bristol.

14.00: 3,000 now protesting in Leeds, and a similar number in Bristol. 200 in Lincoln.

14.20: 200 occupying Michael Sadler building at Leeds university. 80 in occupation at Sheffield university - send solidarity messages to 07810 285 353. 500+ students demonstrating in Oxford, Bodleian library occupied. 100 in Nottingham. 50 in Huddersfield.

14.45: 400 in Exeter. 50 in Truro.

15.00: 500 in occupation at Leeds university

15.10, report received: "Over 1,400 students from Holy Cross sixth form college and Bury College walked out and marched to a huge rally outside Bury town hall. 1,000 had joined a Facebook group and in the event even more turned out.

15.15: 2,000 school, college and university students have protested in Liverpool and 3,000 in Manchester.

15.30: 60 walked out and marched in Teignmouth. 350 marched in Bournemouth.

15.40: Around 300 FE students walked out and protested outside the gates of Gower College's Gorseinon campus near Swansea. A contingent then marched into Gorseinon centre. 

16.40: "The turnout for our protest against education cuts in Southampton was good with around 100 students from the university, local colleges and schools."

17.35: Portsmouth University - Around 60-70 students occupied the university offices.

Source: Socialist Party Website
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/ar...walkouts-against-higher-tuition-fees-and-cuts


----------



## DrRingDing (Nov 24, 2010)

nino_savatte said:


> Today's photo


 
Ouch!


----------



## BigTom (Nov 24, 2010)

30 odd students in occupation plus at least 500 on and supporting the unison demo at the university of birmingham outside the occupied building
e2a: eyewitness is the source


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 24, 2010)

i was at the Oxford demo and saw a couple guys run up to tehe one or two security guards there, and overpower them and occupy the library!  they are still in there - will post up number to send messages of supprot to when i have it


----------



## Dan U (Nov 24, 2010)

enjoying all the little breakaway protests in London, blocking westminster bridge, currently in traf square.

re: brighton, from someone on my facebook - 'not sure of the point of storming poundland'


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Nov 24, 2010)

I'd say 3,000 in Manchester is accurate. I missed the beginning of the walkout/march in M'cr as I had an interview for some shitty job. Got there about half 3 and there was a standoff as students were trying to block Oxford Rd. Supposedly just before I got there the police violently cleared a sit down on the road and in came the horses. The police were well up for it and out in numbers. So for the next two hours protesters just tried to out manoeuvre the police by marching up and down Oxford Rd. There were a few half hearted attempts to stop the police break it up but you could tell not many were willing to get arrested or hurt. As time went by numbers were dwindling and the police were just randomly snatching protesters so I made my exit. There were about 200 protesters getting kettled on the pavement as I was leaving. Was pleased to see how young the crowd was, and how normal.


----------



## XR75 (Nov 24, 2010)

madzone said:


> Issues like my extremely intelligent son not being able to fulfil his potential because we can't send him to university. The surgeon who might one day be employed to remove your head from your arse was a student once you know. The scientist who helped develop the medicine that might save your kid one day was a student once. But hey, uni's just one big holiday isn't it?



You should be thankful it's just a slight increase in fees,which I assume you will still get cheap loans for, and not the removal of all subsidies but even then we would still have doctors,scientists and even special therapists who could deal with your entitlement issues.

P.S,If your son's so smart then he can go and educate himself although he probably won't get much of a state handout that way so maybe you should ask yourself why universities should have such a hold over further education.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 24, 2010)

yeah, he could definitely educate himself in to being a Doctor.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 24, 2010)

XR75 said:


> maybe you should ask yourself why universities should have such a hold over further education.


 
Indeed, let the supermarkets get a slice of the education pie.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 24, 2010)

course he can, he just needs to pull himself up by his bootstraps.


----------



## ymu (Nov 24, 2010)

I don't know what the fuss is about really. You can buy a degree online for a few quid. Why would anyone waste their time and money going to university?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 24, 2010)

exactly, like gillian mckeith


----------



## madzone (Nov 24, 2010)

XR75 said:


> You should be thankful it's just a slight increase in fees,which I assume you will still get cheap loans for, and not the removal of all subsidies but even then we would still have doctors,scientists and even special therapists who could deal with your entitlement issues.
> 
> P.S,If your son's so smart then he can go and educate himself although he probably won't get much of a state handout that way so maybe you should ask yourself why universities should have such a hold over further education.


 
A slight increase in fees? Trebling them is a slight increase is it? I take it you failed gcse maths.

Educate himself to be a scientist? 

I'd quite like my surgeons not to have taught themselves via Slicing for Dummies 


Who _are_ these fuckwits like XR75? Where do they come from?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 24, 2010)

ymu said:


> I don't know what the fuss is about really. You can buy a degree online for a few quid. Why would anyone waste their time and money going to university?


 
I bought my Phd in Waitrose. Cashback!


----------



## madzone (Nov 24, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> I bought my Phd in Waitrose. Cashback!


 Actually if Tesco did Phd's think of the clubcard points!


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 24, 2010)

Twitter feed here.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 24, 2010)

madzone said:


> Actually if Tesco did Phd's think of the clubcard points!


 
i think i'd prefer the cheap version from lidl.


----------



## madzone (Nov 24, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> i think i'd prefer the cheap version from lidl.


 
You're so low rent


----------



## madzone (Nov 24, 2010)

Here we are. If you look closely at one point you can see me banging my red biscuit tin with a spoon


----------



## ethel (Nov 24, 2010)

they've smashed my office windows. why are civil servants being targeted? oh, and a bus stop


----------



## bi0boy (Nov 24, 2010)

madzone said:


> Here we are. If you look closely at one point you can see me banging my red biscuit tin with a spoon


 
I should bring a triangle to my next riot.


----------



## madzone (Nov 24, 2010)

bi0boy said:


> I should bring a triangle to my next riot.


 
Innit. Bless em. At least they fucking turned up. At the last one they had bits of drainpipe that they were bashing with hammers and all sorts of stuff to make a great deal of noise. Today though it was raining


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 24, 2010)

Divisive Cotton said:


> there's got to strategies developed for beating this kettle. I have some ideas but I'm not going to post them on a public forum



I wouldn't advise the wombles path of gearing up to break through police lines. All it got them was a running conflict with the police that took up all their energies while not really helping anyone else. In my opinion of course - others may disagree 

I think the chief strategy would be to do what you want to do not at widely advertised demos...


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Nov 24, 2010)

at the P Square the police were letting out the gurls and small skool childrens so your f**ked if you are a bloke. After getting bored I headed off home only to find a mob of protestors running out of Great Scotland yard so I am asumming there was some kind of breakout. The police back up were bottled necked due to on going motor bike protest about parking fees around T Square and were unwilling to get out of thier warm vans. The mob then headed towards t Square and smashed a few buses windows and set fire to a number of rubbish bags. I loss sight of them the C Gardens area. Wondered through the town to find a diffrent lot of protestor getting bottled necked Dun St near T square.  A few coppers still screaming around town. Not much more to report. All in all pretty good stuff any more protest planned?


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Nov 24, 2010)

lopsidedbunny said:


> at the P Square the police were letting out the gurls and small skool childrens so your f**ked if you are a bloke. After getting bored I headed off home only to find a mob of protestors running out of Great Scotland yard so I am asumming there was some kind of breakout. The police back up were bottled neck due to on going motor bike protest about parking fees around T Square and were unwilling to get out of thier warm vans. The mob then headed towards t Square and smashed a few buses windows and set fire to a number of rubbish bags. I loss sight of them the C Gardens area. Wondered through the town to find a diffrent lot of protestor getting bottled necked Dun St near T square.  A few coppers still screaming around town. Not much more to report. All in all pretty good stuff any more protest planned?



Heard people mention something happening on the 30th? Which would be good as you lot could show us how it's done.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 24, 2010)

XR75 said:


> P.S,If your son's so smart then he can go and educate himself although he probably won't get much of a state handout that way so maybe you should ask yourself why universities should have such a hold over further education.


wot, educate himself to being a doctor? ahhh, I see why you're such a tosser, you were always so stunningly thick that when you talked to your teachers at school about uni, their fits of harsh, derisive laughter and advice on bin collection work scarred you for life!


----------



## Flanflinger (Nov 24, 2010)

So what's happening now ? Have their mums turned up to take them home.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 24, 2010)

_During the war_...


----------



## where to (Nov 24, 2010)

Threshers_Flail said:


> Heard people mention something happening on the 30th? Which would be good as you lot could show us how it's done.


 
NEXT NATIONAL DAY OF STUDENT PROTESTS CALLED FOR TUESDAY 30.11.10 http://tinyurl.com/382oqhj


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Nov 24, 2010)

once a week... nice... time for a momentum to build... week on week... Twitter away!


----------



## creak (Nov 24, 2010)

Guardian's reporting that the Met could keep the kettle up 'til midnight. Fucking  filth bastards.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 24, 2010)

creak said:


> Guardian's reporting that the Met could keep the kettle up 'til midnight. Fucking  filth bastards.


shift change at midnight


----------



## creak (Nov 24, 2010)

where to said:


> Can people post up approximate turnouts from as many locations as possible. Sources of info would be helpful but not fundamental.
> 
> Looking to get a grand total figure for journalist.


 
100+ in Taunton: http://www.somersetcountygazette.co...ts_protesting_throughout_Taunton_town_centre/


----------



## XR75 (Nov 24, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> wot, educate himself to being a doctor? ahhh, I see why you're such a tosser, you were always so stunningly thick that when you talked to your teachers at school about uni, their fits of harsh, derisive laughter and advice on bin collection work scarred you for life!



At least some of you could have read my post properly before going off on another one of your sarcasm tantrums because you've read something you didn't like.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 24, 2010)

XR75 said:


> At least some of you could have read my post properly before going off on another one of your sarcasm tantrums because you've read something you didn't like.


what's the point of reading the worthless dribblings of an imbecile? My time's far too precious (and well-remunerated) for that


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 24, 2010)

XR75 said:


> At least some of you could have read my post properly before going off on another one of your sarcasm tantrums because you've read something you didn't like.


 
your post was full of shit


----------



## trashpony (Nov 24, 2010)

creak said:


> Guardian's reporting that the Met could keep the kettle up 'til midnight. Fucking  filth bastards.


 
Fuckers 

This makes me really, really proud. I have been so scared that young people have been atrophied through a diet of X Factor and platitudes to have lost their political consciousness but this lot are as angry as I was when Thatcher got elected. Hurrah


----------



## free spirit (Nov 24, 2010)

apparently there were quite a lot of school kids out at the leeds protests, 2 of them were interviewed on the bbc local news, including one from my old school saying that the teachers had slapped their wrists because they had to then encouraged them to go protesting... good to see the place hasn't changed that much despite it's new building.


----------



## XR75 (Nov 24, 2010)

and if there's going to be this much fuss over increasing fees by a few thousand then they might as well take the opportunity to cut the funding some more.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 24, 2010)

30 mins ago:
Clare Solomon president of University of London Union 
"We're still illegally kettled in the freezing cold on Whitehall. No 
food,water or toilets despite what the lying police are telling the 
media. Plz spread the word 
and make complaints to whoever u can" New Scotland Yard on : 0300 123 1212


----------



## paolo (Nov 24, 2010)

Who are the Wombles


----------



## madzone (Nov 24, 2010)

I swear to god if one more of my pathetic facebook 'friends' says 'Oh I had a tutorial so I couldn't go' 'Oh I had an assessment so i couldn't go' I will fucking lose it. Self-interested middle class cunts


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 24, 2010)

madzone said:


> Here we are. If you look closely at one point you can see me banging my red biscuit tin with a spoon


 

A triangle?  A hippy with a triangle?  What kind of loud noise did he make then?


----------



## Bakunin (Nov 24, 2010)

Part of Plymouth University has been occupied as well.


----------



## DRINK? (Nov 24, 2010)

"Oh fuck the lot of them ....whiney little cunts, all busy getting pissed on a regular basis then whingeing they've got no money. The camera's and clothing seen today indicate that these idiots aren't short of cash and probably need to rethink what they spend their money on, if education is so important then some lifestyle changes need to be made.

Apparently now everyone has to go to University (we've even renamed every shit Polytechnic a University to help this objective) so there's even more of the self-obsessed pricks getting in the way, thinking the world owes them a living because they've got a degree.

Cut all student funding NOW and put it into apprenticeships, subsidising kids who learn to make and repair things, get out of bed and graft every day and who don't think they're Gods Gift to business at the age of 21.  Unitechnicolleges are just businesses and will take on any old dross as long as the money's right these days. I'm seeing the results with the quality of people coming in to my line of work now...thick as pigshit springs to mind. So does dumbed down sheep. Come the revolution they'll be completely fucked with zero common sense and no photocopier to hide behind.

I am of the opinion that what I witnessed today only consolidated my suspicions about what students are. Total cocks. At a time when the difficult choices about where the axe is going to fall need to be made, of course an oversubscribed lifestyle choice is going to get it in the neck.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 24, 2010)

being played down on the news, dont believe it, some of the fiercest fighting ive seen in ten years

would still be there but knackered my foot

next week it is then


----------



## gunneradt (Nov 24, 2010)

DRINK? said:


> "Oh fuck the lot of them ....whiney little cunts, all busy getting pissed on a regular basis then whingeing they've got no money. The camera's and clothing seen today indicate that these idiots aren't short of cash and probably need to rethink what they spend their money on, if education is so important then some lifestyle changes need to be made.
> 
> Apparently now everyone has to go to University (we've even renamed every shit Polytechnic a University to help this objective) so there's even more of the self-obsessed pricks getting in the way, thinking the world owes them a living because they've got a degree.
> 
> ...


 
dont agree with the expression but there are certainly too many low grade polys masquerading as unis


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 24, 2010)

DRINK? said:


> "Oh fuck the lot of them ....whiney little cunts, all busy getting pissed on a regular basis then whingeing they've got no money. The camera's and clothing seen today indicate that these idiots aren't short of cash and probably need to rethink what they spend their money on, if education is so important then some lifestyle changes need to be made.
> 
> Apparently now everyone has to go to University (we've even renamed every shit Polytechnic a University to help this objective) so there's even more of the self-obsessed pricks getting in the way, thinking the world owes them a living because they've got a degree.
> 
> ...


 
Where did you serve your apprenticeship and what trade was it in?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Nov 24, 2010)

Haven't read any of this thread. been down to UCL where about 100+ students and staff have occupied one of the halls near the library. Incredibly well organised with lots of discussions and debates going on. They've pretty much got free access in and out as the students _have banned security from stopping people_.

http://ucloccupation.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/ucl-occupation-press-notice/


----------



## grogwilton (Nov 24, 2010)

smokedout said:


> being played down on the news, dont believe it, some of the fiercest fighting ive seen in ten years
> 
> would still be there but knackered my foot
> 
> next week it is then




where?


----------



## madzone (Nov 24, 2010)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> A triangle?  A hippy with a triangle?  What kind of loud noise did he make then?


 
Like I said earlier, at least he turned up. More than can be said for the rest of the self obsessed fuckwits.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Nov 24, 2010)

Walked out of the uni where i both work and study today - dissapointing. Only about 100 students did so...


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 24, 2010)

News from Cambridge:

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Students-take-to-streets-of-Cambridge-in-protest-over-fees.htm - local rag


----------



## Ground Elder (Nov 24, 2010)

Apologies if this has already been posted - Colchester 500-600, 250 broke away and held sit down protest outside town hall.
http://www.clactonandfrintongazette.co.uk/news/8686341.Two_arrested_in_education_fees_protests/


----------



## madzone (Nov 24, 2010)

Is it just me or is Facebook creaking under the strain?


----------



## Emma Herself (Nov 24, 2010)

Edinburgh Uni occupied, adventures in consensus decision making with 70+ people ongoing!

Please see http://edinunianticuts.wordpress.com/

and http://twitter.com/EdinUniAntiCuts for updates.

Solidarity with all occupied Universities around the country!


----------



## stupid dogbot (Nov 24, 2010)

DRINK? said:


> "Oh fuck the lot of them ....whiney little cunts, all busy getting pissed on a regular basis then whingeing they've got no money. The camera's and clothing seen today indicate that these idiots aren't short of cash and probably need to rethink what they spend their money on, if education is so important then some lifestyle changes need to be made.
> 
> Apparently now everyone has to go to University (we've even renamed every shit Polytechnic a University to help this objective) so there's even more of the self-obsessed pricks getting in the way, thinking the world owes them a living because they've got a degree.
> 
> ...


 
You're clearly uniquely qualified to recognise total cocks, wanker.


----------



## e19896 (Nov 24, 2010)

Brigade members joined forces with Underclass Rising to offer our support to students in Sheffield today. First to turn up were thousands of 6th formers who are protesting against the loss of EMA. These youngsters were in fine voice and the anti-Tory songs took us straight back to the 80s – though I’m sure we never swore as much back then, honest ;-) Sadly we only had a few of AMP’s ‘Best Cut’ posters left to give out, which is a shame because they were very warmly received.We needn’t have worried though, the kids were on form with some brilliant banners. There were obscure ones – “Dis shit wouldn’t go down at hogwarts”, personal ones – a picture of Sam Cam which read “Not the only one being screwed by David!” and ‘to-the-point’ ones – a piece of paper that simply read ‘CUNTS’.

When the uni students turned up the protesters marched through the streets of Sheffield, down to the Town Hall. It was hard to gage how many people were involved, but West St was full from one end to the other with students. It was pretty obvious that the Yorkshire Post‘s estimate of 1000 was complete bollocks (as usual) – and the Posts ‘coverage’ is predictably negative. The support for the student’s cause is damn near universal in Sheffield and everybody was clapping as they passed. We doubt Sheffield has seen many protests like this since the days of CND or the Poll Tax.

Once at the Town Hall we attempted to get an aerial-photo from the upper floors of Barclays Bank – we were stopped on the stairs and asked what we were doing. When we told them, they said “We wouldn’t want to be associated with THEM!”, pointing at the students. There you have it, as if you didn’t know already – an official spokesman for Barclays wants nothing to do with people fighting for fairness, democracy and justice! FUCKING BANKERS!

There wasn’t much of a police presence at the Hall, but when we walked round the corner, to the Peace Garden, we found that vans and horses were lined up in force. Sadly the boys with billy-clubs would have been more than happy to vent their spleen on Sheffield’s wonderful children :-( C’mon lads, you really should have joined them on their demo instead of skulking in a corner like the school bully – after all, you’re gonna be victims of the cuts too!

This was one of the most inspirational protests we’ve seen in years. These kids can certainly teach the grown-ups a thing or to. If the adults are afraid to take to the streets because they might lose their jobs then they need to wake up and smell the coffee – cuz you’re definitely gonna lose them – and a whole lot more – if you don’t!

We need to fight the cuts, and then we need to fight the government. If not, then we get the future we deserve!

Images  http://www.flickr.com/photos/0742/sets/72157625334478839

More to follow:


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 24, 2010)

madzone said:


> I swear to god if one more of my pathetic facebook 'friends' says 'Oh I had a tutorial so I couldn't go' 'Oh I had an assessment so i couldn't go' I will fucking lose it. Self-interested middle class cunts


my son told me he didn't go along today cos he had maths and chemistry scheduled at the same time as the "truro riot", as i believe it's being called down that way. he's worried that if he doesn't make it into uni next year, then he doesn't want to do it at all cos he's worried about how much money he'd owe.

i don't know whether to laugh, cry or get pissed and angry tbh.....


----------



## The Octagon (Nov 24, 2010)

Out with some of the Royal Holloway students (my local's very studenty), they're fucking angry and talking about what else they can do. 

Considering it's traditionally a very middle class uni this is impressive to see


----------



## where to (Nov 24, 2010)

next Tuesday's (national day of action called by NCACF) protests are being added here:  http://anticuts.org.uk/?page_id=1258

Octagon - get them to organise for next Tuesday


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 24, 2010)

One of the best things about this is the apparent total absence of the usual suspects. I suspect that's what makes it work.

Edit: 'There go my people, I must find out where they are going so I can lead them.'


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 24, 2010)

i dunno, we saw a lot of swappie placards today lol. to be honest though who wants to NOT go to a protest because the swp are involved? thats just daft ...


----------



## temper_tantrum (Nov 24, 2010)

Yeah but they just hand them out and people take them, though. The fact that things are happening is surely good evidence of lack of Swappie strategic involvement?


----------



## where to (Nov 24, 2010)

#DAYX2 - NEXT NATIONAL DAY OF ACTION THIS TUESDAY COMING

NCACF Press Release:
http://anticuts.com/2010/11/23/next-day-of-action-30-november/

National Facebook Page:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=143365209046082

Protest details will be published here:
http://anticuts.org.uk/?page_id=1258


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 24, 2010)

madzone said:


> I swear to god if one more of my pathetic facebook 'friends' says 'Oh I had a tutorial so I couldn't go' 'Oh I had an assessment so i couldn't go' I will fucking lose it. Self-interested middle class cunts


 
I was intruiged by those kids who came into school with letters from their parents giving them permission to walk out of school to take part in the protests. How middle class is that?!? 

"_Dear Mrs Smith

Oliver won't be in school this afternoon as he is taking part in a nationwide demonstration on fees that seeks to overthrow the imperialist capitalist oppressive regime that currently holds this nation in chains.

He will be back in class tomorrow.

Yours sincerely

Oliver's Mummy"_


----------



## where to (Nov 24, 2010)

lol


----------



## paolo (Nov 24, 2010)

Prince Rhyus said:


> I was intruiged by those kids who came into school with letters from their parents giving them permission to walk out of school to take part in the protests. How middle class is that?!?
> 
> "_Dear Mrs Smith
> 
> ...


----------



## paolo (Nov 24, 2010)

temper_tantrum said:


> Yeah but they just hand them out and people take them, though. The fact that things are happening is surely good evidence of lack of Swappie strategic involvement?


 
They're like background noise. You can only hear it when everyone else stops talking.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 24, 2010)

Only two pigs injured? 

The students are slacking...


----------



## where to (Nov 24, 2010)

A figure of 130,000 has been mentioned in the Guardian...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/24/student-protests-school-children-streets


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Nov 24, 2010)

I reckon they're be able to get twice that out next Tuesday


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Nov 24, 2010)

temper_tantrum said:


> Yeah but they just hand them out and people take them, though. The fact that things are happening is surely good evidence of lack of Swappie strategic involvement?


 
Towards the end of the M'cr march today around 200ish students were getting kettled by the police. I overheard quite a prominent local Swappie say, "this is what happens when we don't run things," fucking sectarian cunt.


----------



## OneStrike (Nov 25, 2010)

I hope, and expect, next week to be even bigger.  I also expect more splintered and imaginative protests.  Even I have a few ideas and i am shit at that!


----------



## revlon (Nov 25, 2010)

i love to see the left, all angles all internet variants, explain to the kids in whitehall today how they should be organising.

YOU'RE NOT DOING IT RIGHT! etc etc


----------



## OneStrike (Nov 25, 2010)

The kids are allright!   I can't find it but i read a decent Guardian piece earlier about how today benefited without having certain group/s orchestrating things or having banners leading the protest from the front, i couldn't agree more.  This was about feeling not group action.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 25, 2010)

Smurker said:


> The kids are allright!   I can't find it but i read a decent Guardian piece earlier about how today benefited without having certain group/s orchestrating things or having banners leading the protest from the front, i couldn't agree more.  This was about feeling not group action.


 
This ^^^

The article is at http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/24/student-demos-in-twitter-age?intcmp=239

Part of me thinks that the same will apply with the wider anti-cuts movement. As mentioned in previous threads, social networking has evolved at an unbelievable rate since the 2003 StWC marches. No organisation will be able to operate a traditional "command and control" system when disparate groups are able to react - pro-act even, using FB and Twitter feeds.

Such are the scale of the cuts that different groups will react differently to whichever service is being threatened. Anyone who tries to impose a command and control system - whether at a local or national level - will simply be bypassed.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 25, 2010)

"Young school child"
"Student!"
"Sorry?"
"Student - sorry!"
"What person organised this protest?"
"I'm 21!"
"What??"
"I'm 21, I'm not young!"
"Well I can't just call you "student"!!"
"You could call me 'Dennis'"
"I didn't know you were called Dennis"
"Well you didn't bother to find out"
"Look, I did say sorry about the 'young pupil' bit"
"What I object to is that you automatically treat me like an inferior!"
"Well I am a police officer!"
"Oh police eh? And how d'you get that then? By oppressing the workers! By hanging onto outdated imperialist dogma that perpetuates the differences within our society that us students are protesting against today!"
"Dennis! There's some lovely new copies of "Socialist Worker" hot off the press! Oh...how d'you do?"
"How do you do good lady? Tell me, who is in charge of this protest?"
"No one's in charge of this protest"
"Then who is your leader?"
"We don't have a leader!"
"I told you! We are a random gathering of protestors guided by the hidden hand of an infinite number of Twitter feeds, facebook updates, blog postings and text messages!"
"Alright..."
"We take it in turns to post updates and write articles about the protests and the general direction of the movement"
"Yes"
"It's like having a convenor for the week, and each autonomous movement will have their own rota of convenors"
"Alright!!!"
"But all the decisions of the convenor have to be ratified by a committee of members who form part of each local autonomous movement."
"Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!"
"Order eh? Who does he think he is?"
"I am a police officer!"
"Well I didn't vote for you!"
"You don't vote for police officers!"
"Well how d'you become one?"
"After years of hard work and dedicated training, one passes through on parade in front of the Commissioner of the Metropolis, appointed by Her Majesty herself."
"Listen mate, passing through infront of an unelected appointee appointed by an old lady sitting on a throne wearing ancient pieces of ornate jewellery is no basis for a system of policing by consent. Policing by consent derives from a mandate from the masses, not some secret swearing-in ceremony run by the unelected elites!"
"Shut up! Shut up!!!"
"Oh! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!"
"Shut up or you'll be arrested!"
"Help, help! I'm being oppressed!"


----------



## IC3D (Nov 25, 2010)

Prince Rhyus said:


> I was intruiged by those kids who came into school with letters from their parents giving them permission to walk out of school to take part in the protests. How middle class is that?!?
> 
> "_Dear Mrs Smith
> 
> ...


 
I saw more w/c youth than I have ever seen before on a demo in London standing up for their rights to an education.They are the ones looking the cuts in the face, so I would like to dispell the picture your making.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 25, 2010)

What he said ^^^


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 25, 2010)

IC3D said:


> I saw more w/c youth than I have ever seen before on a demo in London standing up for their rights to an education.They are the ones looking the cuts in the face, so I would like to dispell the picture your making.


 
The comment was more a take on the media reports - with several saying "[insert name of pupil] is only 14, but got her parents' permission to join the protest today. Here's what she had to say."

It reflects the "How dare these extremists hijack our protest!" articles coming from the Mail and Telegraph.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Nov 25, 2010)

Radio 5 running some sympathetic interviews with people who were on the protest and some currently occupying....


----------



## paolo (Nov 25, 2010)

Prince Rhyus said:


> The comment was more a take on the media reports - with several saying "[insert name of pupil] is only 14, but got her parents' permission to join the protest today. Here's what she had to say."
> 
> It reflects the "How dare these extremists hijack our protest!" articles coming from the Mail and Telegraph.


 
You made me chuckle. Some people misread stuff.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 25, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> What he said ^^^


would you like a "_like_" button, love........?


I SAID would you like a "_like_" button, just nod your head dearie.....


----------



## IC3D (Nov 25, 2010)

As far as I saw someone tried to smash a bus window once and everyone else stopped them chanting 'the buses our our friends'(veteran anarchists obv..), a breakout group off about 300 marched through the west end blocking of roads behind them and got some beeps of support from the congested traffic and the motorbike parking protesters before dispersing. The BBC skipped the facts basically.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 25, 2010)

Actually, yeah i wouldn't mind one, as long as t wasn't linked to FB.


----------



## paolo (Nov 25, 2010)

IC3D said:


> everyone else stopped them chanting 'the buses our our friends'


 
Instant policy making


----------



## IC3D (Nov 25, 2010)

paolo999 said:


> Instant policy making


 
Oddly enough I'm sure I've said that that to someone before under different circumstances.


----------



## paolo (Nov 25, 2010)

IC3D said:


> Oddly enough I'm sure I've said that that to someone before under different circumstances.


 
It's good stuff. Sometimes people try to parasite onto action that they aren't really part of. Or just get carried away and misjudge the mood.

There's something quite affirming about street democracy.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 25, 2010)

DRINK? said:


> "Oh fuck the lot of them ....whiney little cunts, all busy getting pissed on a regular basis then whingeing they've got no money. The camera's and clothing seen today indicate that these idiots aren't short of cash and probably need to rethink what they spend their money on, if education is so important then some lifestyle changes need to be made.
> 
> Apparently now everyone has to go to University (we've even renamed every shit Polytechnic a University to help this objective) so there's even more of the self-obsessed pricks getting in the way, thinking the world owes them a living because they've got a degree.
> 
> ...


 
The spending power and lifestyle expectations of many students is quite high, certainly higher then when I was a student. You are probably right that not enough emphasis or social value is placed on learning useful trades that actually benefit people. Also it's now very hard to gain on the job experience, and you need some qualification to do almost anything.
Although I think there shouldn’t be a rise in tuition fees,  if you really need to save money then having a system where students contribute more but only have to start paying it pack when they have a liveable wage seems pretty reasonable. 

My main bugbear as someone who repays a student loan (and protested against Labour introducing them) is the inter-generational unfairness. Essentially someone 10 years older than me would have had no debt and have got grants and now be significantly better off.

Then again I benefited from the increased University places available and expectation of University attendance. As a society with 50% heading off to University then obviously the cost factor on the public purse is going to become more of an issue

I’d like to see some of these wealthy baby boomers  who benefited from free education, massive rises in their property prices and now early retirement deals on good pensions  pay a bit more.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 25, 2010)

I saw the news coverage of this on the Beeb early in the evening. Much later in the pub I saw the screen without sound of the Sky News coverage showing aerial views of the incidents and the way the police moved through the crowds. When I saw the police van being rocked, it gladdened my heart that this generation of of students has the bottle to take this action. 

The students have worked harder than many of the people of my generation, in an education system based on performance targets and not inspiration, a National Curriculum designed mechanistically to be able to categorise, classify and produce numbers for accountants to measure. They have gone through such a hostile and sterile system, and survived, achieving better results, based on the system in place, each year than the year before. They are then told that the reward of getting a place in Higher Education is to be denied them unless they come from a background of parents who have money to spare. This in a time of increasing insecurity of employment, the 'proletarianisation' and de-skilling of the educated workforce. Does anyone wonder why they are angry. I support them wholeheartedly. If some glass gets broken, so be it. I would like to see some politicians broken - metaphorically - to be disgraced and dismissed. Let us hope that the student protests can be connected up with the other protests, those of the unemployed, the public sector facing cuts, the people on benefits being eroded.

Also let the co-ordinated protests and actions that follow in this country, be connected up to those identical issues in other countries. This is not a local British issue. It is an international one. Politicians in all countries are bowing down to the propanda of the IMF and "The Markets" as they call for cuts  in public expenditure. Let's give politicians in all countries something to fear from their own constituents that is greater than the fear created by the Murdoch press on behalf of international millionaires and the World Bank. If we in Britain with a cabinet that was not elected by the people, and containing 18 millionaires lie down to be trampled on then we will deserve the destruction of the social, economic and political gains that our predecessors fought and won for us against the rulers in their time.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 25, 2010)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I saw the news coverage of this on the Beeb early in the evening. Much later in the pub I saw the screen without sound of the Sky News coverage showing aerial views of the incidents and the way the police moved through the crowds. When I saw the police van being rocked, it gladdened my heart that this generation of of students has the bottle to take this action.



I wish they had the maturity to engage in the democratic process rather than monkey's tea party smashing up of things.


> The students have worked harder than many of the people of my generation, in an education system based on performance targets and not inspiration, a National Curriculum designed mechanistically to be able to categorise, classify and produce numbers for accountants to measure. They have gone through such a hostile and sterile system, and survived, achieving better results, based on the system in place, each year than the year before.



Good point, the Labour education system of central control, more targets and teaching to exams driven by performance tables is a pretty uninspiring dehumanising way to teach.



> They are then told that the reward of getting a place in Higher Education is to be denied them unless they come from a background of parents who have money to spare.



Ok but the poorest people will actually end up paying less under the proposed system, and you only have to pay it back once you are on a liveable wage so no one is being denied. Possibly put off by the hysteria of the NUS mind.


----------



## wtfftw (Nov 25, 2010)

I'm liking the student occupations. Warwick have a ustream set up. Here - not online at the mo. UCL were tweeting about skyping with other occupations and um, having dance offs.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 25, 2010)

24 November 2010 6:24PM

@*roachclip*


> A question - Why was an empty police van, with no policemen anywhere near it, parked in the middle of Whitehall when the students were marching down Whitehall from Trafalgar Square to where the police were waiting for them at the Parliament Square end of Whitehall.


*NatalieHanman*


> We've got someone looking into this and (hopefully) writing about it for tomorrow morning.
> 
> By the way, Laurie Penny is still at the protest so won't be joining this thread for a while.


LinkWell you never know, once in a while, just every once in a while........


----------



## wtfftw (Nov 25, 2010)

Some blog about the police van. Video n pictures n shiz. http://http://www.sumpter.org.uk/?p=300 (via #demo2010)


----------



## wtfftw (Nov 25, 2010)

UCL solidarity and demands petition http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ucloccupation/


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I wish they had the maturity to engage in the democratic process rather than monkey's tea party smashing up of things.
> 
> 
> Good point, the Labour education system of central control, more targets and teaching to exams driven by performance tables is a pretty uninspiring dehumanising way to teach.
> ...






You can wish all you like moon23, but it is politicians and their lackies like yourself who have discredited what used to be thought of a "democratic process". it isn't any such thing.

Yes I know it is a good point about a "system of central control, more targets and teaching to exams driven by performance tables is a pretty uninspiring dehumanising way to teach". But you are just trying to make a political scoring point about it being inflicted by the so called Labour Party. I give no credence to the Labour Party of which I was many years ago an active member. I left the party when it went off and adopted Tory policies, unlike you who stayed in your unprincipled LibDem gang. You have no principles.

You keep repeating the party line that the poorest people will pay less and only have to pay it back once on a 'liveable wage'. This is not really true. The system has been tweaked to make it look better than it is. You are a sucker for believing what your party wants the rest of us to believe.The fact that universities have been given the right to charge fees up to £9,000 is frightening to a sixth former who is hoping to set out on a degree course with no certainty of a worthwhile job at the end of it. When the hated Labour party started on this road the universities were allowed to charge £3,000 while the Russell Group of universities wanted to be allowed to charge £7,000. The new figure of £9,000 is excessive. The generation who are putting these charges in place were given grants not loans, although as it was means tested I suppose the 18 millionaires in the cabinet will not have got one..


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 25, 2010)

The vehicle roof number is  BQV.
http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2...1/24/shubert.uk.student.protests.van.cnn.html


----------



## ymu (Nov 25, 2010)

ffs! They couldn't even take their old paperwork off the rust bucket decoy. Police aware, indeed.


----------



## killer b (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I wish they had the maturity to engage in the democratic process rather than monkey's tea party smashing up of things.


 
think of this as a democratic safety valve. our only other option is to let you scum run roughshod for the next 5 years. 

frankly, get to fuck.


----------



## killer b (Nov 25, 2010)

Hocus Eye. said:


> The generation who are putting these charges in place were given grants not loans, although as it was means tested I suppose the 18 millionaires in the cabinet will not have got one..


 
the maintenance grant was means tested, but fees were still paid by the state weren't they?


----------



## killer b (Nov 25, 2010)

and before i forget: moon23 - you're a cunt.


----------



## ymu (Nov 25, 2010)

killer b said:


> the maintenance grant was means tested, but fees were still paid by the state weren't they?


 
Yes. The toffs paid no fees at all, and a lot of them got maintenance grants because their parents technically had very low incomes (I knew someone on a full grant who had two younger brothers at Eton).

More to the point, it makes fuck all difference to a toff. Even if daddy makes them pay their own fees, they're mostly destined for high-paying jobs which will enable them to pay the lot off very quickly. But the majority of graduates in the UK are employed in the public sector, and many in the private sector are not earning massive amounts. For these people, it makes a huge difference - they'll be accruing interest and paying the equivalent of a second pension for the rest of their working lives. I can't afford my fucking pension as it is - I'd be screwed if i had to pay it twice.

This fucking smokescreen about not paying it back until you're on a decent wage and the poor paying less is a fucking lie. Those who cannot be confident of a highly paid job at the end of it cannot afford to go.


----------



## madzone (Nov 25, 2010)

I'm dreading going in today. I don't want to spend all day with those lazy apathetic little twats


----------



## chilango (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I wish they had the maturity to engage in the democratic process rather than monkey's tea party smashing up of things.



They did.

They voted for people who lied to them.


----------



## magneze (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Ok but the poorest people will actually end up paying less under the proposed system, and you only have to pay it back once you are on a liveable wage so no one is being denied. Possibly put off by the hysteria of the NUS mind.


Garbage. Those who can afford to pay 9K per year will pay just that, everyone else gets stung with a loan at commercial rates of interest. Can you explain how that makes it fairer?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Nov 25, 2010)

Was yesterday the first political flash mob? I think it was - it's something that the authorities have been dreading for years; an angry, easy mobilised crowd using the latest communications technology.


----------



## killer b (Nov 25, 2010)

any thoughts on what effect yesterday's kettling will have? it must've been a frightening experience for many of the protesters, and i wouldn't blame them if they thought twice about getting involved again (which i guess is the purpose of the kettle in the first place). alternatively it could fire them up...


----------



## madzone (Nov 25, 2010)

I'm hoping that they'll see some solidarity from people via the social networks and it will fire them up.


----------



## radio_atomica (Nov 25, 2010)

killer b said:


> any thoughts on what effect yesterday's kettling will have? it must've been a frightening experience for many of the protesters, and i wouldn't blame them if they thought twice about getting involved again (which i guess is the purpose of the kettle in the first place). alternatively it could fire them up...


 
The logical answer would be to mobilise even more up and down the country to get involved in their home towns and the towns where they study.  I don't think enough walked out this time, I was very unimpressed that UCLAN didn't do anything other than a petition, I was at the university flyering and most of them didn't really know that a lot of other students around the country were walking out, occupying, protesting etc.  The more it goes on, the more people will  know how to cope, its obvious that any protest over a certain size will get kettled in now whether there is danger of violence or not so people need to be prepared with warm clothing, bottles of water and instructions on what to do if they're arrested.  If you can't gather in huge numbers in London, gather in smaller numbers everywhere else, and get everyone to join in, its not like there's any faffing booking places on coaches and travelling etc you just turn up and bellow at the town hall or whatever.


----------



## ymu (Nov 25, 2010)

Yes. Generalised mayhem is the answer to the kettle, and what a fine answer it is.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I wish they had the maturity to engage in the democratic process rather than monkey's tea party smashing up of things.



This is one of the most dishonest things you've ever posted.  You're turning into slime.


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 25, 2010)

killer b said:


> the maintenance grant was means tested, but fees were still paid by the state weren't they?


 
Yes the people instigating this, Cameron, etc they got their education at our expense and now want to make sure no one else has the same rights.
I know I wouldn't have gone myself if I was 18 now.


----------



## dylans (Nov 25, 2010)

> Ok but the poorest people will actually end up paying less under the proposed system



If this is the case please tell me why the Lib dems  initially lied and promised to scrap fees? If the proposed system is so great for the poor,  why the need to lie?


----------



## Crispy (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I wish they had the maturity to engage in the democratic process


 
It's a fucking sham.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I wish they had the maturity to engage in the democratic process rather than monkey's tea party smashing up of things.



What do you mean by "democratic process" and why is it relevant in this instance? I hope that question isn't too difficult for you. If it is, I can always provide subtitles.


----------



## dylans (Nov 25, 2010)

Moon. See, I'm a bit confused here so help me out. The party line is that they initially opposed an increase in fees but then, on joining the coalition, they realised that the economic situation was so bad that they had to U turn on that promise for the good of the economy. That they inherited an economic situation so bad that they couldn't keep their promise to oppose fee rises. We all had to tighten our belts etc. So if this is the line then it implies that they recognise that tuition fee rises are indeed an attack on the poor but one that is  necessary because of the so called "economic crisis. 

That was the excuse for breaking their promise to oppose fee rises right? 
But now the line has changed.According to you (and Clegg yesterday)  Now the fee rises are no longer unpleasant but necessary. They are now GOOD for the poor. They are progressive. The poor should be thanking him. Which of course raises the question, if the fee rises are so good for the poorest students, why did he initially oppose them? 

Forgive us for treating this line with the utter contempt it deserves. Clegg has hung himself by his own words and no manner of twisting in the wind will get him off the noose.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I wish they had the maturity to engage in the democratic process rather than monkey's tea party smashing up of things.


 
What democratic process would that be then? You need to realise we don't live in a democracy, we live in a polyarchy.  That essentially means that the only say we have in the 'democratic process' is when we pop along to the polling station every few years and pick which millionaire we want to lead us, then we wander back to the side lines where we can voice our opinions but ultimately have no say in any decisions.  Once the people we chose have power they do what they like anyway, as evidenced by Clegg and co going back on tuition fee pledges.

Don't worry about the facts though eh, moon? You just keep having a nice, long drink from that liberal democract well.


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I wish they had the maturity to engage in the democratic process rather than monkey's tea party smashing up of things



I was there yesterday.  A lot of these protesters are still in school.  As the voting age is 18, I guess they don't actually have much say in the democratic process.  They could write to their MP I suppose, but why would he/ she really be bothered, given that it's not going to get him/ her a vote?

I've written to my MP twice in the past 6 months.  Still waiting for a response.  Probably too busy to do things like representing constituents.

It's also quite refreshing to see people speaking on camera for the news and having a vague idea of why they're there, what the issues are and for that all to be conveyed by someone who doesn't seem to have been drinking all day.


----------



## newbie (Nov 25, 2010)

wtfftw said:


> Some blog about the police van. Video n pictures n shiz. http://http://www.sumpter.org.uk/?p=300 (via #demo2010)


 
that link is broken, this one works

http://www.sumpter.org.uk/?p=300

towards the end someone claims 





> I was there – I saw someone grab a police aware sticker from inside the van and stick it on the front of the van.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 25, 2010)

newbie said:


> that link is broken, this one works
> 
> http://www.sumpter.org.uk/?p=300
> 
> towards the end someone claims



the sticker, rust, coloured markings are pretty irrelevant to me - the van was dubious as soon as I saw it live on the BBC.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 25, 2010)

"I was there – I saw someone grab a police aware sticker from inside the van and stick it on the front of the van."



You don't need a conspiracy theory to state the obvious - deliberate set up by coppers


----------



## killer b (Nov 25, 2010)

really shit report from the bbc.

the sneering at the marxist teen is particularly telling...


----------



## rioted (Nov 25, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Once the people we chose have power they do what they like anyway, as evidenced by Clegg and co going back on tuition fee pledges.


Surely this was plainly evident when Labour went back on their *manifesto pledge* not to introduce them in the first place?


----------



## moon23 (Nov 25, 2010)

chilango said:


> They did.
> 
> They voted for people who lied to them.


 
Lot's of them voted Labour and Conservative, those who voted Lib Dem are lucky the party is improving on the plans drawn up by the majority Tory coalition


----------



## killer b (Nov 25, 2010)

fucking tory parrot.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 25, 2010)

nino_savatte said:


> What do you mean by "democratic process" and why is it relevant in this instance? I hope that question isn't too difficult for you. If it is, I can always provide subtitles.


 
I just wonder how many of these kids who are getting whipped up by the left into thinking property destruction is the best way to get your own way have engaged in the democratic process. How many have written to their MP's gone to see Lib Dem MPs to discuss the propsals, run stalls to make their case to the public or held public meetings etc?


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I just wonder how many of these kids who are getting whipped up by the left into thinking property destruction is the best way to get your own way have engaged in the democratic process. How many have written to their MP's gone to see Lib Dem MPs to discuss the propsals, run stalls to make their case to the public or held public meetings etc?



Do you get these ideas from the Telegraph? What do you mean by "whipped up by the left"? Furthermore is property _more important_ than people? 

As for writing to Lib Dem MPs. You're having a laugh, right?


----------



## ymu (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Lot's of them voted Labour and Conservative, those who voted Lib Dem are lucky the party is improving on the plans drawn up by the majority Tory coalition


 
See, this is where you really are just fucking lying. Coalition governments are often unstable because the smallest party/ies can bring down the government any time they feel like it. Why the fuck haven't you tossers done that yet? The only bit of actual power you have, and you're not going to use it. What use principles, eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I just wonder how many of these kids who are getting whipped up by the left into thinking property destruction is the best way to get your own way have engaged in the democratic process. How many have written to their MP's gone to see Lib Dem MPs to discuss the propsals, run stalls to make their case to the public or held public meetings etc?


 
You really don't get it do you? Students were mugged by the democratic process - they were deliberately lied to by the lib-dems and conned into supporting them. The democratic process is why they're out on the streets. Why would they want to fall for the same trick twice?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Lot's of them voted Labour and Conservative, those who voted Lib Dem are lucky the party is improving on the plans drawn up by the majority Tory coalition


 
The plans need not go ahead at all. They're only going to because you've allowed them to do so. Far from watering anything down you've enabled them to be imposed. You support them. Do you really think anyone is going to buy this handwashing? These are your plans. You may not realise that but the electorate seem to.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> How many have written to their MP's gone to see Lib Dem MPs to discuss the propsals, run stalls to make their case to the public or held public meetings etc?


 
I've done all of them. The only reason I didn't join the vast majority of yesterdays marchers who were peaceful to protest was because of work.


----------



## rioted (Nov 25, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Why would they want to fall for the same trick twice?


Why do they? Over and over and over again?


----------



## dylans (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Lot's of them voted Labour and Conservative, those who voted Lib Dem are lucky the party is improving on the plans drawn up by the majority Tory coalition


conveniently ignored my question in favour of pious finger wagging I see. Let me repeat it in easy sentences. If the tuition fees plans are so great for poor students why did Clegg initially oppose them and then justify his U turn in terms of unfortunate necessity? If they are such a gift to the lucky poor students why didn't he initially support them in those terms instead of condemning them?


----------



## rekil (Nov 25, 2010)

Anyone see the students' press conference on sky? Just saw a bit of it and was impressed, particularly with the lady who spoke last and stressed the need to link opposition to education cuts with that of the wider cuts, but she got cut off when she brought up the abandoned police van issue.


----------



## The Octagon (Nov 25, 2010)

Ah, the good old Mail, managing to work it's raging misogny into coverage of the riots 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ST-Students-streets-girls-leading-charge.html


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 25, 2010)

The Octagon said:


> Ah, the good old Mail, managing to work it's raging misogny into coverage of the riots
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ST-Students-streets-girls-leading-charge.html


 
how many photos of the same police van can they show in one article?


----------



## Balbi (Nov 25, 2010)

Met say no police on horseback charged yesterday. Odds on a mobile video disproving that rocketing up shortly then


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 25, 2010)

I think the horse charge happened in Manchester.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Nov 25, 2010)

If the police van was planted, then what was their thinking behind that?


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 25, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> If the police van was planted, then what was their thinking behind that?



They left it there because they knew that it would be an attractive target. It makes great telly news.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Nov 25, 2010)

nino_savatte said:


> I think the horse charge happened in Manchester.


 
Yep, horses were used several times to break up the crowd trying to block Oxford Rd. I was near the front the once this happened, how nobody was hurt I don't know.

*I think somebody broke their ankle thanks to a horse, according to my mates who saw it all, I must've somehow missed it.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 25, 2010)

nino_savatte said:


> They left it there because they knew that it would be an attractive target. It makes great telly news.



"TEN THOUSAND MARCH AGAINST CUTS"

or

"STUDENT PROTEST TURNS VIOLENT"

Dead simple.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2010)

Threshers_Flail said:


> Yep, horses were used several times to break up the crowd trying to block Oxford Rd. I was near the front the once this happened, how nobody was hurt I don't know.


 
yeh, in whitehall they nearly rode down someone in a wheelchair and an old man with a stick when they charged.


----------



## IC3D (Nov 25, 2010)

Balbi said:


> Met say no police on horseback charged yesterday. Odds on a mobile video disproving that rocketing up shortly then


 
Definitely one in Whitehall as the protesters were getting pushed back to Trafalger sq, at least one person got trampled.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Nov 25, 2010)

Balbi said:


> "TEN THOUSAND MARCH AGAINST CUTS"
> 
> or
> 
> ...



In other words the violence played right into their hands?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> In other words the violence played right into their hands?


 
who gives a fuck, you'll see some proper violence soon.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Nov 25, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> In other words the violence played right into their hands?


 
Why should we try to appease the right wing press? They're never going to be won around, fuck the tory cunts.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 25, 2010)

I noticed there was a kettle of students around the cenotaph (surprise, surprise), what with all those wreaths just laying there - I'm sure there were a lot of press disappointed that those _violent_ students didn't start chucking them at the police.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2010)

Threshers_Flail said:


> Yep, horses were used several times to break up the crowd trying to block Oxford Rd. I was near the front the once this happened, how nobody was hurt I don't know.
> 
> *I think somebody broke their ankle thanks to a horse, according to my mates who saw it all, I must've somehow missed it.


 
yeh. it was a definite horse charge


----------



## Balbi (Nov 25, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> In other words the violence played right into their hands?


 
The protesters were flowing water, but the police were like heat and pressure, the police van the press' whistle on the kettle. Two parts are manufactured to produce the third.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 25, 2010)

Shit name, shit analogies. As you were.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Nov 25, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> who gives a fuck, you'll see some proper violence soon.



But I do give a fuck. I've got two kids who'll be hoping to go to uni in the next few years. 

If the conspiracy theory about the van is correct, then the logic is that the authorities want to use protestor violence to their advantage and their seem to be a few out there who are more than happy to help them.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 25, 2010)

And how will the tutting and finger wagging help, Andrew?


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Nov 25, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But I do give a fuck. I've got two kids who'll be hoping to go to uni in the next few years.
> 
> If the conspiracy theory about the van is correct, then the logic is that the authorities want to use protestor violence to their advantage and their seem to be a few out there who are more than happy to help them.


 
I can't really comment on what happened in London as I wasn't there, but in Manchester I saw no protesters being violent towards the police, the violence was all one way. Students who were marching down Oxford Rd, or sitting down in an attempt to stop traffic, were roughed up by the police. I saw children being charged upon by horses. As has been said by many before, just marching from A to B doesn't get you anywhere. 

If you give a fuck why don't you do something about it? Or at least give us an idea of what you think might stop the fee rises and cuts?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Nov 25, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> And how will the tutting and finger wagging help, Andrew?



Ask those who tut and finger wag. All I'm asking is if the authorities actually want protests to become violent, then how does obliging them help?


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 25, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Ask those who tut and finger wag. All I'm asking is if the authorities actually want protests to become violent, then how does obliging them help?


 
That's a very good question.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 25, 2010)

it's about tactics though isn't it? it appears the police deliberately left a van knowing full well what would happen, and they got exactly what they wanted.

the better tactics in this case for the protesters would of been to put a big fucking sign on the roof for the benefit of the BBC's sky cam with 'return to sender' written on it, and leaving it alone.

There will be plenty of opportunity in the future for more creative activities.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 25, 2010)

Look at what the daily mail has done with photos of the van.  That'll give you an idea of why they did it.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Nov 25, 2010)

Threshers_Flail said:


> I can't really comment on what happened in London as I wasn't there, but in Manchester I saw no protesters being violent towards the police, the violence was all one way. Students who were marching down Oxford Rd, or sitting down in an attempt to stop traffic, were roughed up by the police. I saw children being charged upon by horses. As has been said by many before, just marching from A to B doesn't get you anywhere.
> 
> If you give a fuck why don't you do something about it? Or at least give us an idea of what you think might stop the fee rises and cuts?



TBH I think only a groundswell of public opinion amongst potential tory and lib-dem voters could pull the rug from under the coalition on this one.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Nov 25, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> TBH I think only a groundswell of public opinion amongst potential tory and lib-dem voters could pull the rug from under the coalition on this one.


 
Lib Dem supporters are leaving them in droves. Tory supporters are a lost cause.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 25, 2010)

Sorry postd this on the wrong thread but someone got the plates or........


----------



## chilango (Nov 25, 2010)

> As darkness fell and temperatures dipped, bonfires were lit using the stolen riot shields and uniforms as students and schoolchildren danced in the streets to sound systems.
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...reets-girls-leading-charge.html#ixzz16IycBZnM



Failed author on the Mail staff?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 25, 2010)

Balbi said:


> Met say no police on horseback charged yesterday. Odds on a mobile video disproving that rocketing up shortly then





> The BBC's Greg Wood said he saw horseback charges by the police "at the Trafalgar Square end of Whitehall".


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11839386

Beeb jurno says he witnessed it.

Piggies telling porkies? "And he jumped over the ticket barriers....."


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 25, 2010)

I notice the mail uses the term _a van_ under every photo, not _the van_.


----------



## xes (Nov 25, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Ask those who tut and finger wag. All I'm asking is if the authorities actually want protests to become violent, then how does obliging them help?


 
it discredits and undermines the protest, turning people against them, and making the protests/protesters unpopular, and people less sympathetic to their cause.


----------



## killer b (Nov 25, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Ask those who tut and finger wag. All I'm asking is if the authorities actually want protests to become violent, then how does obliging them help?


 
we should draft a stern letter to the riot central planning office, and advise them in the strongest terms to avoid smashing up police vans next time.


----------



## pk (Nov 25, 2010)

That was MY van, I am officially the Fuck Police. If people swore more often they be less inclined to smash shit up.

Pickmans - I doubt it somehow. Apart from a few truncheon magnets unless there's some seriously impossible scenario laid out that affects everyone, it'll be apathy as usual.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 25, 2010)

Some kid who was there blogged here.

http://thegreatunrest.wordpress.com/2010/11/25/seeing-by-the-fires-of-whitehall/


----------



## treelover (Nov 25, 2010)

One of the most heartening things about many of the student protesters is that they say it won't affect them but they are protesting for future generation and poor and working class students who won't be able to go, maybe its me but I really didn't think this would happen again, that we wouldn't witness such altruism any more, but of course we had the school anti-war demos of 2003.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 25, 2010)

considering that the effect of the cuts hasn't really started to kick in yet, this is the most active and militant the yoot' have been for decades


----------



## Dan U (Nov 25, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11839386
> 
> Beeb jurno says he witnessed it.
> 
> Piggies telling porkies? "And he jumped over the ticket barriers....."



There was a mother who came to look for her kid, quoted on the Guardian live blog thing complaining that she'd come to get her Daughter out of the kettle and ended up getting caught up in a mounted horse charge and had to run.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 25, 2010)

good.
a whole swathe of people new to police lies that they've seen with their own eyes


----------



## dennisr (Nov 25, 2010)

Just saw this on facebook which made me giggle:
"Constituency office of Lib Dem MP Simon Hughes being occupied by 10-20 student protesters"
He'll be pooping his pants about the effect on his future re-election


----------



## pk (Nov 25, 2010)

Police lie with impunity. When was the last time you heard one one getting locked up for perjury?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 25, 2010)

Dan U said:


> There was a mother who came to look for her kid, quoted on the Guardian live blog thing complaining that she'd come to get her Daughter out of the kettle and ended up getting caught up in a mounted horse charge and had to run.





> The Metropolitan police have stood by the Metrpolitan police commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson's assertion that he had "no record" of police officers on horseback charging at protesters.
> 
> A spokesman said: "Police horses were involved in the operation, but that did not involve charging the crowd."
> 
> ...





> here's an equivocator, that could
> swear in both the scales against either scale;
> who committed treason enough for God's sake,
> yet could not equivocate to heaven: O, come
> in, equivocator.


 This being like an educated protest and shit


----------



## moon23 (Nov 25, 2010)

sunnysidedown said:


> it's about tactics though isn't it? it appears the police deliberately left a van knowing full well what would happen, and they got exactly what they wanted.
> 
> the better tactics in this case for the protesters would of been to put a big fucking sign on the roof for the benefit of the BBC's sky cam with 'return to sender' written on it, and leaving it alone.
> 
> There will be plenty of opportunity in the future for more creative activities.


 
There is no evidence to suggest the van was left their on purpose, so it is currently a conspiracy theory. If it was left there on purpose then the result was that the protest gained far more press attention then it would have done otherwise. The police hardly needed a justification for penning people in after the violence earlier in the month.

There seemed plenty of people who were just looking to smash things up and have a fight with the police without much encouragement. They needed no encouragement earlier in the month.


----------



## fogbat (Nov 25, 2010)

dennisr said:


> Just saw this on facebook which made me giggle:
> "Constituency office of Lib Dem MP Simon Hughes being occupied by 10-20 student protesters"
> He'll be pooping his pants about the effect on his future re-election


 
Reports of Mark Oaten heading over there, gleefully rubbing his hands, are as yet unconfirmed.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 25, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> considering that the effect of the cuts hasn't really started to kick in yet, this is the most active and militant the yoot' have been for decades


 
Well there are less numbers involved than the 2003 Iraq demos and less violence than some of the anti-G8 demos so maybe not quite 'decades'.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There is no evidence to suggest the van was left their on purpose, so it is currently a conspiracy theory. If it was left there on purpose then the result was that the protest gained far more press attention then it would have done otherwise. The police hardly needed a justification for penning people in after the violence earlier in the month.
> 
> There seemed plenty of people who were just looking to smash things up and have a fight with the police without much encouragement. They needed no encouragement earlier in the month.


yep, those 12-year-olds were clearly up for a fight with the police weren't they?

you numpty.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 25, 2010)

dennisr said:


> Just saw this on facebook which made me giggle:
> "Constituency office of Lib Dem MP Simon Hughes being occupied by 10-20 student protesters"
> He'll be pooping his pants about the effect on his future re-election



its a straight choice


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 25, 2010)




----------



## magneze (Nov 25, 2010)

magneze said:


> Garbage. Those who can afford to pay 9K per year will pay just that, everyone else gets stung with a loan at commercial rates of interest. Can you explain how that makes it fairer?


No answer to this so far. I'm not surprised, quite difficult to justify eh.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well there are less numbers involved than the 2003 Iraq demos and less violence than some of the anti-G8 demos so maybe not quite 'decades'.


except that the 2003 protests were truly inter-generational, and weren't driven by youth *at all*, they involved everyone from 'Nam protest veterans to students. And, actually, apart from one big march, there weren't a huge amount of protests like this.
Whereas this was quite clearly a) buzzingly militant, and b) specifically about the youth.
Hence my focus on _yoot'._


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Nov 25, 2010)

Threshers_Flail said:


> Lib Dem supporters are leaving them in droves. Tory supporters are a lost cause.



Yes, dissafection amongst lib dem supporters is one of the things most likely to break the camel's back.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Nov 25, 2010)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> yep, those 12-year-olds were clearly up for a fight with the police weren't they?
> 
> you numpty.



As you probably well know, there's always the 'hard man' element turning up at demos looking for a fight, has been for years. Afterwards they try and justify their own importance whilst the authorities use their prescence to their own advantage.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 25, 2010)

xes said:


> it discredits and undermines the protest, turning people against them, and making the protests/protesters unpopular, and people less sympathetic to their cause.


 
It also makes other sections of society _more_ sympathetic to their cause. The only people who will tut are the likes of the DM's readership that it's aimed at. Normal people will laugh and wish them well.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 25, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> As you probably well know, there's always the 'hard man' element turning up at demos looking for a fight, has been for years. Afterwards they try and justify their own importance whilst the authorities use their prescence to their own advantage.


 
People are angry, Andrew. And rightly so. They're not angry because there's a tactical police van there or because they're 'hard men'. They're angry because they're being shafted sideways by the coalition govt.


----------



## ymu (Nov 25, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> As you probably well know, there's always the 'hard man' element turning up at demos looking for a fight, has been for years. Afterwards they try and justify their own importance whilst the authorities use their prescence to their own advantage.


 
Oh gosh, right. I'd never realised. In that case, I withdraw my support for all anti-cuts protests and will now firmly back the government. Better that they be allowed to do severe violence to all of us for generations to come than be seen to be on the same side as some kids who get a bit rough sometimes.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 25, 2010)

ymu said:


> Oh gosh, right. I'd never realised. In that case, I withdraw my support for all anti-cuts protests and will now firmly back the government. Better that they be allowed to do severe violence to all of us for generations to come than be seen to be on the same side as some kids who get a bit rough sometimes.



absolutely - shocking behaviour - wouldn't have seen this sort of hooliganism in my day. sign one of those nice chaps jolly old petitions and all would have been tickity boo. did I mention national service?


----------



## Phil Aychio (Nov 25, 2010)

fogbat said:


> Reports of Mark Oaten heading over there, gleefully rubbing his hands, are as yet unconfirmed.


 
LOL Brilliant!


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Lot's of them voted Labour and Conservative, those who voted Lib Dem are lucky the party is improving on the plans drawn up by the majority Tory coalition


 
Sorry but that just doesn't wash. Somewhere in the region of 60% of students voted Lib Dem (I can dig out a reference if you want to question this, though I don't have the time right now) and they did so precisely because of their manifesto promise to abolish fees, and failing that to vote against any increase. They engaged in the democratic process. YOU have discredited this process, YOU are responsible for this. They voted for a party that claimed to represent them and were betrayed. This is YOUR fault. If anyone gets seriously hurt in any demonstrations the blood will be on your hands as much as that of the perpetrators. I hope your party is proud that they have subverted the democratic process, thus alienating young people across the country and pushing them into these actions.

The contempt you show to both the students and people on this forum when you make claims that you must know to be fasle (I do not think you're stupid enough to actually believe this) is inexcusable.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 25, 2010)




----------



## dennisr (Nov 25, 2010)

SpineyNorman said:


> Sorry but that just doesn't wash.



You'll find that 99% of what moon says doesn't wash mate. he's a tory bot - one of the newer models  - "automated soft-cover for the tories response generator" - ACUNTRG to use the acronym


----------



## chilango (Nov 25, 2010)

Copper to protester "You're not 'ard enough. go away".

Speaks volumes, no?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Nov 25, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> People are angry, Andrew. And rightly so. They're not angry because there's a tactical police van there or because they're 'hard men'. They're angry because they're being shafted sideways by the coalition govt.



We're all angry Citizen.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 25, 2010)

chilango said:


> Copper to protester "You're not 'ard enough. go away".
> 
> Speaks volumes, no?


 
well he had a point - the poor lamb. that was a quick lesson learned


----------



## smokedout (Nov 25, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Ask those who tut and finger wag. All I'm asking is if the authorities actually want protests to become violent, then how does obliging them help?


 
its not that they want protests to turn violent, its that the police want to turn violent and like having a pretty picture to justify it


----------



## ymu (Nov 25, 2010)

SpineyNorman said:


> Sorry but that just doesn't wash. Somewhere in the region of 60% of students voted Lib Dem (I can dig out a reference if you want to question this, though I don't have the time right now) and they did so precisely because of their manifesto promise to abolish fees, and failing that to vote against any increase. They engaged in the democratic process. YOU have discredited this process, YOU are responsible for this. They voted for a party that claimed to represent them and were betrayed. This is YOUR fault. If anyone gets seriously hurt in any demonstrations the blood will be on your hands as much as that of the perpetrators. I hope your party is proud that they have subverted the democratic process, thus alienating young people across the country and pushing them into these actions.
> 
> The contempt you show to both the students and people on this forum when you make claims that you must know to be fasle (I do not think you're stupid enough to actually believe this) is inexcusable.


 
Great post!


----------



## i'mnotsofast (Nov 25, 2010)

dennisr said:


> Just saw this on facebook which made me giggle:
> "Constituency office of Lib Dem MP Simon Hughes being occupied by 10-20 student protesters"
> He'll be pooping his pants about the effect on his future re-election


 
Yep, I just got a text about this.  Saying get down there, more people needed, pass the message on!

It's in Market Place, Bermondsey, fwiw.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 25, 2010)

smokedout said:


> its not that they want protests to turn violent, its that the police want to turn violent and like having a pretty picture to justify it


 
A lot of people _do_ want the ongoing protests to become violent though.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 25, 2010)

Having viewed the video I think 'Charge' is a being a bit optimistic.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 25, 2010)

i'mnotsofast said:


> Yep, I just got a text about this.  Saying get down there, more people needed, pass the message on!
> 
> It's in Market Place, Bermondsey, fwiw.


 
they have already been turfed out from what i hear - sorry to late

(appropriate name I guess


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There seemed plenty of people who were just looking to smash things up and have a fight with the police without much encouragement. They needed no encouragement earlier in the month.


You don't get it, do you? People are angry, in fact fucking furious because your leaders lied to them, and broke a key promise, and the effect of that kicks them right in the balls. You've betrayed them, and discredited not just your party, but the whole political system. What else did you expect other than anger, and the way it so often manifests itself?


----------



## moon23 (Nov 25, 2010)

SpineyNorman said:


> Sorry but that just doesn't wash. Somewhere in the region of 60% of students voted Lib Dem (I can dig out a reference if you want to question this, though I don't have the time right now) and they did so precisely because of their manifesto promise to abolish fees, and failing that to vote against any increase. They engaged in the democratic process. YOU have discredited this process, YOU are responsible for this. They voted for a party that claimed to represent them and were betrayed. This is YOUR fault. If anyone gets seriously hurt in any demonstrations the blood will be on your hands as much as that of the perpetrators. I hope your party is proud that they have subverted the democratic process, thus alienating young people across the country and pushing them into these actions.
> 
> The contempt you show to both the students and people on this forum when you make claims that you must know to be fasle (I do not think you're stupid enough to actually believe this) is inexcusable.



The Lib Dems didn't win the election though, the Tories got the most votes so it's only fair most of the policy is there. What the party has done is worked with the Conservatives to make the policy fairer.


----------



## ymu (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Having viewed the video I think 'Charge' is a being a bit optimistic.


 
"Having viewed the video, I have concluded that what the government and the police told me is absolutely correct. There was no charge in either London or Manchester, as irrefutably evidenced by a 30 second video clip which cuts away to a red-faced copper half-way through."

Think for yourself. This is embarrassing.


----------



## chilango (Nov 25, 2010)

So Moon.

Making the policy happen is fairer than stopping the govt implementing it?

Huh?

You lied to your voters.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 25, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> You don't get it, do you? People are angry, in fact fucking furious because your leaders lied to them, and broke a key promise, and the effect of that kicks them right in the balls. You've betrayed them, and discredited not just your party, but the whole political system. What else did you expect other than anger, and the way it so often manifests itself?


 
That's a fundamental misrepresentation of what has happened that is being whipped up by the far-left, Unions and to a lesser extent the Labour party. It's bollocks, Labour introduced tuition fees, the Conservatives want to raise them. You don't as a smaller party get to bully your way to get your own polices forced upon the much larger partner. The reality is most people voted for a party that supports fees or wants to raise them.

The students are luck the Lib Dems are actually working to try and improve on the Conservatives proposals.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 25, 2010)

chilango said:


> So Moon.
> 
> Making the policy happen is fairer than stopping the govt implementing it?
> 
> ...


 
You can't hold the government to ransom over one area of policy as a smaller coalition party, that's nuts.


----------



## ymu (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The Lib Dems didn't win the election though, the Tories got the most votes so it's only fair most of the policy is there. What the party has done is worked with the Conservatives to make the policy fairer.


 
Ah, so this is the definition of 'fairness' the government is using. The Tories didn't win the election but it's their turn so it's only 'fair' that the Lib Dems prop them up against the wishes of the majority of the electorate, whilst spitting on their own voters.

Yeah, that's 'fair'.


----------



## chilango (Nov 25, 2010)

Yes, you can.

That's the point of voting for a smaller party.

But yet again your contempt for democracy is showing through.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The students are luck the Lib Dems are actually working to try and improve on the Conservatives proposals.


 
You should definitely tell them this, maybe even make it the centre piece of your may 2011 local election campaign.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You can't hold the government to ransom over one area of policy as a smaller coalition party, that's nuts.


 
Repeatedly lying in public is now honesty and a principled refusal to 'hold to ransom'.

Hopeless.


----------



## Phil Aychio (Nov 25, 2010)

yeah, with their little orange books


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 25, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> We're all angry Citizen.


 
So now perhaps isn't the time to dictate/condemn how comrades choose to express that anger?


----------



## ymu (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You can't hold the government to ransom over one area of policy as a smaller coalition party, that's nuts.


 
What? That is precisely what small parties the world over have been doing for decades. It is the whole fucking point of being in a coalition - you can draw lines in the sand and force an election if the coalition refuses not to cross them. It's not about pretending to be the other party for a bit so we can have an unelected government for a while, you fucking moron.

Think for yourself. Read stuff that isn't written by your party the Tories. Stop spouting this vacuous crap. It doesn't stand up to a second's scrutiny.


----------



## magneze (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The Lib Dems didn't win the election though, the Tories got the most votes so it's only fair most of the policy is there. What the party has done is worked with the Conservatives to make the policy fairer.


Third time ... Those who can afford to pay 9K per year will pay just that, everyone else gets stung with a loan at commercial rates of interest. Can you explain how that makes it fairer?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 25, 2010)

Yeah, coalitions collapse because the two parties ruck and fuck with each other. This isn't happening here though because idiots like moon are just nodding everything through and playing the apologist.

Ah well, it's your political future I suppose. People expect it from the Tories.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The students are luck the Lib Dems are actually working to try and improve on the Conservatives proposals.


How the FUCK is slashing uni funding and forcing through tripling of fees 'improving' tory policies? And how do you square that with clegg now admitting he wanted to follow that line BEFORE the election, but opted to lie to students instead?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 25, 2010)

Ymu's right, moon.  A semi literate 13 year old can swat away your pathetic attempts at trying to defend the coalition.  

I'm still waiting for you answer dylan's very obvious and yet brilliant question from a few pages ago.  If Clegg says this is now a good thing, why was he so openly opposed to it and calling it a bad thing before the election?  The tories are probably rolling about laughing at the moment because they get their policies enacted and it's you mugs who are getting all the shit for it.  The lib dems are well and truly finished now .


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 25, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> How the FUCK is slashing uni & funding and forcing through tripling of fees 'improving' tory policies? And how do you square that with clegg now admitting he wanted to follow that line BEFORE the election, but opted to lie to students instead?


 
Has he actually admitted that? When was this? LOL this is like watching someone who's read 'politicking for dummies' only they didn't quite understand it but thought they'd have a bash anyway.  You should stand as a lib dem candidate, moon because it seems you'd fit right in.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 25, 2010)

Double post madness.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 25, 2010)

Claims the van came from Sutton....


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The Lib Dems didn't win the election though, the Tories got the most votes so it's only fair most of the policy is there.


NO party got a mandate, you were NOT compelled to go into coalition with them and give them cover for this all-out onslaught on the poor; you could easily have put them in as a minority govt - or had the lib/lab/nats grand alliance. But you didn't - and they got all they wanted.


> What the party has done is worked with the Conservatives to make the policy fairer


You have totally FAILED to make the policy fairer - just ask the students. If your brave enough to say any of this to their faces, which I doubt.
AND your leader lied to them. There is zero unambiguity on this.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 25, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Has he actually admitted that? When was this?


I'll have a dig around for you, but bear with me OK?
e2a: IIRC he and other lib dems were saying in private tehy wanted to drop the pledge, but they'd gone too far out on a limb on that to drop it at that point, without being crucified


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 25, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> As you probably well know, there's always the 'hard man' element turning up at demos looking for a fight, has been for years. Afterwards they try and justify their own importance whilst the authorities use their prescence to their own advantage.



You sound like one of those old farts who sits in an armchair waving his stick at the pictures on the telly. "We didn't riot in my day. We had national service"! Hang on, that almost sounds like Tebbit circa 1983...


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Nov 25, 2010)

Flanflinger said:


> So what's happening now ? Have their mums turned up to take them home.



Yes believe it or not! Jesus, oh well for each penned in kid another protestor for tomrrow.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 25, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> I'll have a dig around for you, but bear with me OK?
> e2a: IIRC he and other lib dems were saying in private tehy wanted to drop the pledge, but they'd gone too far out on a limb on that to drop it at that point, without being crucified


a-ha! 



> The Liberal Democrats were drawing up plans to abandon Nick Clegg's flagship policy to scrap university tuition fees two months before the general election, secret party documents reveal.
> 
> As the Lib Dem leader faces a growing revolt after this week's violent protest against fee rises, internal documents show the party was drawing up proposals for coalition negotiations which contrasted sharply with Clegg's public pronouncements.
> 
> A month before Clegg pledged in April to scrap the "dead weight of debt", a secret team of key Lib Dems made clear that, in the event of a hung parliament, the party would not waste political capital defending its manifesto pledge to abolish university tuition fees within six years. In a document marked "confidential" and dated 16 March, the head of the secret pre-election coalition negotiating team, 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."


----------



## dennisr (Nov 25, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Claims the van came from Sutton....


 
"The officers felt vulnerable"

you gotta laugh


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The Lib Dems didn't win the election though, the Tories got the most votes so it's only fair most of the policy is there. What the party has done is worked with the Conservatives to make the policy fairer.


 
We've been through this before. Why sign a pledge that specifically says you will vote against increases if you have already decided you will vote for them if the coalition agreement dictates? This is not about ability to impliment policies, it's about lying. The whole point in the pledge was that the party could hold its promise, even if it remained outside government. Besides which, you didn't HAVE to go into coalition with the Tories. Would you go into coalition with the BNP were they the biggest party and then say, "sorry, we're opposed to compulsory repatriation in  principle but we have to compromise, look - we've got them to agree to let the Irish stay, aren't we great!" 

It's statements like this that make it easy to understand how and why Liberals in Italy were so instrumental to bringing Mussolini to power. Obviously, what you've done isn't as extreme as that, but where do you draw the line?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 25, 2010)

nino_savatte said:


> You sound like one of those old farts who sits in an armchair waving his stick at the pictures on the telly. "We didn't riot in my day. We had national service"! Hang on, that almost sounds like Tebbit circa 1983...


It reminds me of an old joke about  an old tory couple.
Him; there was none of all this marching and fighting in my day, you know
Her; no dear. you were in the _army_.


----------



## pk (Nov 25, 2010)

If that van was from Slutton it was like that before they parked it up.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 25, 2010)

lol


----------



## dennisr (Nov 25, 2010)

I love the Daily Wail: "Rage of the girl rioters: Britain's students take to the streets again - and this time women are leading the charge"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ST-Students-streets-girls-leading-charge.html

    "* 25,000 go on mass nationwide rampage over tuition fees
    * Teenage pupils protest alongside university pupils
    * Police face fresh questions about handling of riot

Rioting girls became the disturbing new face of violent protest yesterday."


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Nov 25, 2010)

dennisr said:


> "The officers felt vulnerable"
> 
> you gotta laugh



I have to agree the protest was nosy and that it until the march was blocked for some unknown reason in whitehall, the van and other stuff happened afterwards.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> That's a fundamental misrepresentation of what has happened that is being whipped up by the far-left, Unions and to a lesser extent the Labour party. It's bollocks, Labour introduced tuition fees, the Conservatives want to raise them. You don't as a smaller party get to bully your way to get your own polices forced upon the much larger partner. The reality is most people voted for a party that supports fees or wants to raise them.
> 
> The students are luck the Lib Dems are actually working to try and improve on the Conservatives proposals.


 
You know that's not what we're saying, yet you continue to misrepresent what is being said, why is that?

I will number the points in order to help you understand.

1) Not being able to impliment your own policies is one thing. Voting FOR something you promised to unconditionally vote against is lying. Pure and simple. 

2) Are you telling me that, given that you hold the balance of power (which gives you political power that is disproportionate to your number of MPs) you didn't have the option of simply agreeing that you would be free to vote against this policy. It wouldn't break the coalition; Cameron does not want to lead a minority government.

3) Political parties are supposed to stand for something. You did NOT have to go into coalition. Do you think a minority Tory government could pass this? Of course not.

I am fast coming to the conclusion that you are just as big a liar as your masters. You KNOW this is wrong, yet you continue your role as Tory apologist. Why? Have you no principles at all?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 25, 2010)

payroll I say. 20 pieces of silver.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 25, 2010)

dennisr said:


> I love the Daily Wail: "Rage of the girl rioters: Britain's students take to the streets again - and this time women are leading the charge"
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ST-Students-streets-girls-leading-charge.html
> 
> ...


  What utter, utter twats they are.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 25, 2010)

btw, let's set a date for when people can stop arguing with moon23 and just ignore him/her. It's getting boring and fills up threads like this with shit. How about today?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 25, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> payroll I say. 20 pieces of silver.


if he has the same brilliant 'negotiating skills' his party has shown with and since forming the coalition, I'd say it's more likely to be about 20p


----------



## dennisr (Nov 25, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> What utter, utter twats they are.


 
There will be a layer of over 70s shitting their pants and buying up stocks of baked beans for the coming crisis as a result of this headline - no laughing matter


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 25, 2010)

> A scheme aimed at getting more children from poor homes into England's universities has been scrapped.
> 
> The Universities Minister, David Willetts, has confirmed the Aimhigher programme will close in July.





> As many as 2,500 schools, 300 colleges and 100 universities have been involved in the Aimhigher scheme, which attempts to encourage teenagers or primary school pupils from less-advantaged backgrounds to go to university.
> 
> The project received £136m in government funding in 2004, but this had fallen to £78m by the time of the general election.


Link

And a touch more on the Sutton Mystery Wagon, (you pesky kids)
Timelines, I really regret miss watching this yesterday, too busy with work but I am really interested in the timelines all this happened.


Edited again on the horse charge



> Grindrod
> 
> 25 November 2010 5:30PM
> 
> ...


Post on he guardian


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 25, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> btw, let's set a date for when people can stop arguing with moon23 and just ignore him/her. It's getting boring and fills up threads like this with shit. How about today?


 
I considered starting a thread with a title like "are the Lib Dems softening the Tory policies or are they enabling them" in order to keep that kind of discussion away from these threads. I decided against it because I don't think he and his brain dead sidekick Lock&Light would be able to resist bringing it back over hear so it would be pointless.

Do you think it would be better to leave his lies unchallenged? Or is this no platform for liberals?


----------



## dylans (Nov 25, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Ymu's right, moon.  A semi literate 13 year old can swat away your pathetic attempts at trying to defend the coalition.
> 
> *I'm still waiting *for you answer dylan's very obvious and yet brilliant question from a few pages ago.  If Clegg says this is now a good thing, why was he so openly opposed to it and calling it a bad thing before the election?  The tories are probably rolling about laughing at the moment because they get their policies enacted and it's you mugs who are getting all the shit for it.  The lib dems are well and truly finished now .


 
So am I. In fact I posted the question TWICE. So how about it moon. How about you stop avoiding it and ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION. ....please.

In fact. I will repost both in case you...erm...accidentally missed them. 



> Moon. See, I'm a bit confused here so help me out. The party line is that they initially opposed an increase in fees but then, on joining the coalition, they realised that the economic situation was so bad that they had to U turn on that promise for the good of the economy. That they inherited an economic situation so bad that they couldn't keep their promise to oppose fee rises. We all had to tighten our belts etc. So if this is the line then it implies that they recognise that tuition fee rises are indeed an attack on the poor but one that is necessary because of the so called "economic crisis.
> 
> That was the excuse for breaking their promise to oppose fee rises right?
> But now the line has changed.According to you (and Clegg yesterday) Now the fee rises are no longer unpleasant but necessary. They are now GOOD for the poor. They are progressive. The poor should be thanking him. Which of course raises the question, if the fee rises are so good for the poorest students, why did he initially oppose them?
> ...





> You conveniently ignored my question in favour of pious finger wagging I see. Let me repeat it in easy sentences. If the tuition fees plans are so great for poor students why did Clegg initially oppose them and then justify his U turn in terms of unfortunate necessity? If they are such a gift to the lucky poor students why didn't he initially support them in those terms instead of condemning them?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 25, 2010)

SpineyNorman said:


> I considered starting a thread with a title like "are the Lib Dems softening the Tory policies or are they enabling them" in order to keep that kind of discussion away from these threads. I decided against it because I don't think he and his brain dead sidekick Lock&Light would be able to resist bringing it back over hear so it would be pointless.
> 
> Do you think it would be better to leave his lies unchallenged? Or is this no platform for liberals?


nope, keep ripping him to shreds


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 25, 2010)

We seem to have a number plate now!

LX54CPY
http://imgur.com/7oQXm
BQV and the rust is visible. Doubt this will help anyone, but this van has piqued my curiosity.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 25, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> a-ha!


 
Nice one Streathamite .

So what do you say to this then, moon? This just shows that the lib dems are a bunch of two faced, lying little shit cunts.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 25, 2010)

Moon, there are two questions here that you are more or less compelled to answer. the one about lying/confidential documents, and dylan's one. Answer please


----------



## creak (Nov 25, 2010)

How do we know that's the same one? Are there no pictures of the van with its number plates on from the actual protest, yesterday?

Edit: is BQV an individual reference for that particular police vehicle?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 25, 2010)

Brainaddict said:


> btw, let's set a date for when people can stop arguing with moon23 and just ignore him/her. It's getting boring and fills up threads like this with shit. How about today?


sorry but no - I'm not going to allow his shite to go unchallenged when kids in my borough are getting my future thrown away.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 25, 2010)

creak said:


> How do we know that's the same one? Are there no pictures of the van with its number plates on from the actual protest, yesterday?
> 
> Edit: is BQV an individual reference for that particular police vehicle?


Not 100% certain but I think so, it does have a 01 on the roof as well, but I would imagine all there personel carriers would be uniquely identifiable the same way from top and side, the top 01 may have another meaning. I am looking into it. On public order duty they also should have the serial number in the front and back windows, normally written on paper, you see all the TSG vehicles with a U followed by a number, the serial in the van. I have seen a bit of paper where it should be on the photos and videos, but have not seen what is written on the paper to know if it is the serial no.


----------



## dylans (Nov 25, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Moon, there are two questions here that you are more or less compelled to answer. the one about lying/confidential documents, and dylan's one. Answer please


 
The silence is deafening.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Nov 25, 2010)

nino_savatte said:


> You sound like one of those old farts who sits in an armchair waving his stick at the pictures on the telly. "We didn't riot in my day. We had national service"! Hang on, that almost sounds like Tebbit circa 1983...



You're half way right nino, I'm now the wrong side of 50 and flatulence certainly plays a more active part than it used too. But as for violence, I'm of the same opinion now as I've always been, that is that as a society we are far too tolerant of the use and justification of it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 25, 2010)

Far too tolerant. No case to argue against Smellie. No responsibility for de menezes, tomlinson, etc.

Seems our tolerance for violence is somewhat one sided. How many attempted fit ups for blakelock now? 3?


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 25, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> You're half way right nino, I'm now the wrong side of 50 and flatulence certainly plays a more active part than it used too. But as for violence, I'm of the same opinion now as I've always been, that is that as a society we are far too tolerant of the use and justification of it.



I'm over 50 too but that doesn't stop me from cheering on those who are smashing things up. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "as a society we are far too tolerant of the use and justification of it". You'll need to provide some evidence for this because from what I've seen of the right wing press, the opposite is true. 

I always have to laugh when people say "violent protests never achieve anything". How about the Suffragettes? Their protests were 'violent' and they won the vote for women. However I don't buy this argument that smashing a few windows and attacking an empty police van equates to _real _violence. That's the capitalist position which holds that property is more important than people. What an obscenity.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 25, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> You're half way right nino, I'm now the wrong side of 50 and flatulence certainly plays a more active part than it used too. But as for violence, I'm of the same opinion now as I've always been, that is that as a society we are far too tolerant of the use and justification of it.


so why not set it in the context of the violence that these cuts are inflicting on people's lives and life chances?


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 25, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> so why not set it in the context of the violence that these cuts are inflicting on people's lives and life chances?


 
I agree with this and it was very noticeable in the BBC reports yesterday.  On more than one occasion I heard them trying to bully some students they were interviewing into admitting they condoned violence.  They kept on banging on about violence and yet not one single mention of the violence of these policies.


----------



## Santino (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The police hardly needed a justification for penning people in after the violence earlier in the month.


 
I think they needed a legal justification for detaining and photographing people who were protesting peacefully or just happened to be near the protest.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Nov 25, 2010)

nino_savatte said:


> I'm over 50 too but that doesn't stop me from cheering on those who are smashing things up. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "as a society we are far too tolerant of the use and justification of it". You'll need to provide some evidence for this because from what I've seen of the right wing press, the opposite is true.
> 
> I always have to laugh when people say "violent protests never achieve anything". How about the Suffragettes? Their protests were 'violent' and they won the vote for women. However I don't buy this argument that smashing a few windows and attacking an empty police van equates to _real _violence. That's the capitalist position which holds that property is more important than people. What an obscenity.



So you've seen the right wing press? and you say they don't display a tolerance of violence? What about in relation to Afghanistan and Iraq or even the tactics of the police on demonstrations?

Perhaps you missed my earlier points. I'm not saying there isn't a justification for violence sometimes, but in this particular case violence by protestors may well be what the authorities were angling for and they've been given it on a plate.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 25, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> So you've seen the right wing press? and you say they don't display a tolerance of violence? What about in relation to Afghanistan and Iraq or even the tactics of the police on demonstrations?
> 
> Perhaps you missed my earlier points. I'm not saying there isn't a justification for violence sometimes, but in this particular case violence by protestors may well be what the authorities were angling for and they've been given it on a plate.



You're moving the goalposts. What you seem to be indicating here is an example of press hypocrisy. Context is everything.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2010)

Andrew Hertford said:


> So you've seen the right wing press? and you say they don't display a tolerance of violence? What about in relation to Afghanistan and Iraq or even the tactics of the police on demonstrations?
> 
> Perhaps you missed my earlier points. I'm not saying there isn't a justification for violence sometimes, but in this particular case violence by protestors may well be what the authorities were angling for and they've been given it on a plate.


 2 injured cops hardly speaks to a ton of violence


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Not 100% certain but I think so, it does have a 01 on the roof as well, but I would imagine all there personel carriers would be uniquely identifiable the same way from top and side, the top 01 may have another meaning. I am looking into it. On public order duty they also should have the serial number in the front and back windows, normally written on paper, you see all the TSG vehicles with a U followed by a number, the serial in the van. I have seen a bit of paper where it should be on the photos and videos, but have not seen what is written on the paper to know if it is the serial no.


 
1) if it's BQV on the top then that's the van's unique identifier 

2) tsg vans all start with A, eg APP, which is a van used by 3tsg

3) it's also the wrong sort of van for the tsg who use the silver carriers. 

4) it's a borough carrier for level 2 public order trained officers, though from which borough i don't know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2010)

at a guess i'd say the van's from brent, which is where the officers along the line at the south end of whitehall were from


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 25, 2010)

On the Iraq war mkII it was all a bit too much

...in the right wing press...


----------



## free spirit (Nov 25, 2010)

not sure if this has already been posted, but from the local news, plus email lists, Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle uni have all still got students occupying parts of them.

they probably ought to have been occupying the vice chancellors offices rather than lecture theatres if they wanted to target the protests at those who'll be setting the fees, and who could possibly have some influence on this (or MP's offices maybe), but still good to see.


----------



## killer b (Nov 25, 2010)

aye, how come sheffield haven't set up camp in clegg's constituency office? 

guess that's something for tuesday...


----------



## moon23 (Nov 25, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Moon, there are two questions here that you are more or less compelled to answer. the one about lying/confidential documents, and dylan's one. Answer please


 
I've had quite a few glasses of wine this evening and am relaxing, I shall have a look tomorrow an answer in due course.


----------



## Santino (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I've had quite a few glasses of wine this evening and am relaxing, I shall have a look tomorrow an answer in due course.


 
Why not try thinking about it for yourself?


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 25, 2010)

Santino said:


> Why not try thinking about it for yourself?


 
He's got to ask Shev's partner first.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I've had quite a few glasses of wine this evening and am relaxing, I shall have a look tomorrow an answer in due course.


don't have a row with a copper.


----------



## Santino (Nov 25, 2010)

stephj said:


> He's got to ask Shev's partner first.



lol


----------



## newbie (Nov 25, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> at a guess i'd say the van's from brent, which is where the officers along the line at the south end of whitehall were from



Sutton apparently, fwiw

http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/new...ficers__van_ransacked_during_student_protest/


----------



## killer b (Nov 25, 2010)

the results of their poll is encouraging...


----------



## newbie (Nov 25, 2010)

Your Vote

Do you agree with student protests over tuition fees?

Yes:
Blue bar used for ballot results 58%

No:
Yellow bar used for ballot results 14%

Only peaceful protest:
Purple bar used for ballot results 27%

I don't care:
Green bar used for ballot results 1%


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 26, 2010)

Horse's in London


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 26, 2010)

Just beat me to it, they are cunts.


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 26, 2010)

Horses in London

http://www.demotix.com/news/518402/met-police-deny-horse-charge-16-images-prove-them-wrong


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 26, 2010)

Another video, perhaps a different incident


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 26, 2010)

Even the police horses got a beating by truncheons


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 26, 2010)

Has this been posted yet?  Great video...


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 26, 2010)

Yeah good video,  like the "Thanks for the POLICE setup" graffiti on the van  and shame about the date fail at the end of the video lol.  Anyone know the name of the song used in the middle? I mean I know the song just forget the name.


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 26, 2010)

Frankie Valli & The 4 Seasons - Beggin.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 26, 2010)




----------



## shaman75 (Nov 26, 2010)

2:39!!!  Shield meets head.


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 26, 2010)

so what have they changed since the g20 protests?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/25/police-could-lose-public-consent


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 26, 2010)

There are shitloads of videos out there now, loads from Manchester as well as London. Some pretty rough stuff up there including horse charges but far less agro from the crowd.

I think its worth people looking through videos from their local protests, I think a lot of the people uploading dont really know where to link their videos to too get attention. There may be some interesting stuff in them.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 26, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> so what have they changed since the g20 protests?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/25/police-could-lose-public-consent


They have two modes, softly softly and lets start a riot. Softly softly ran from around mid last year up to 10/11/10; now its back to 'lets start a riot'. Their approach was far more appropriate for a really aggro football crowd than an angry group of young kids. I think they simply lacked the flexibility to understand this was not some bunch of 80s football hooligans, they set out from the outset to trap them in Whitehall street due to its basic urban geography being more containable than parliament square, they intended to kettle from the outset, it was premeditated. They had no plan or even concept of dealing with under aged protesters en masse. For the moment this looks for them like a great exercise in public order containment and to many like they are getting away with it. But I there is the potential for this story to turn anti police in a couple of ways. First up the horse charge, video footage of it turning up the night that Stevens said there was none could be a real story, it echoes Blairs downplaying of the initial de Menzes stories, it was in front of the London assembly and it is linked to a very emotionally charged video. That story should have legs if someone pushes it.

Then there is the mystery van. My head says there is an innocent story behind it, but it really is worth digging into. If it was left in front of the demo then again the met lied and there will be something for elements of the press and the London assembly to have a go at. 

If those two stories do break then the fate of many young kids on a cold November night becomes another story that can build on the back of them, especially with the lovable huggable little people trying to protect the police van, collective punishment of the nice kids because of a few bad apples is a story that can run with loads of phone in from angry mothers. 

Its there to screw the Met over their thuggishness if the story runs. 

In short, the fuckers are to dumb and too agro to deal flexibly with variable types of protest.


----------



## spliff (Nov 26, 2010)

I was telling my son the other day about how an anti-apartheid demo I was on in the 70's had passed off peacefully whereas all the previous ones had ended in damage(*) and the police commander in charge said on telly afterwards that he'd decided to treat the demonstration with 'kid gloves'. 
That's the story really. 
Make of it what you will.

(*)I do find it disturbing the police, politicians and press call damaging inanimate objects, e.g. windows, police vans etc. violence. 

Violence is against the person surely. 

I don't think the A+E departments have been overloaded with casualties.


----------



## pk (Nov 26, 2010)

Love how the advent of mobile phones with HD cameras shows the cops to be lying out of their arses to a wider audience.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

spliff said:


> I was telling my son the other day about how an anti-apartheid demo I was on in the 70's had passed off peacefully whereas all the previous ones had ended in damage(*) and the police commander in charge said on telly afterwards that he'd decided to treat the demonstration with 'kid gloves'.
> That's the story really.
> Make of it what you will.
> 
> ...


 

No Violence has never meant specifically towards a person e.g. It was a Violent sea or He violently smashed the glass.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/violence?view=uk

Pronunciation:/ˈvʌɪəl(ə)ns/
noun
[mass noun]

    *
      1 behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something:violence erupted in protest marchesdomestic violence against womenthe fear of physical violencescreen violence
    *
      Lawthe unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.
    *
      2 strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force:the violence of her own feelings


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 26, 2010)

I reckon The Guardian are gonna break the horse story http://twitter.com/#!/AdamGabbatt


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2010)

i liked the dancing UCL occupiers linked to on his twitter...


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Nov 26, 2010)

my 17 daughter was there - although I know she is v capable and I know she wasn't phased by it I will still be using the opportunity to write to police complaints and my mp about it and encouraging her and her friends to do the same

many articulate children attended and their parents may be able to be outraged on their behalf....
there were some v young young people there kept in the cold and dark after all for no reason


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 26, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> I reckon The Guardian are gonna break the horse story http://twitter.com/#!/AdamGabbatt


Great,<> Also I hear that law firms are looking very long and hard at last nights kettling as it involved so many minors it probibly violated European detention of minors laws.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

> Moon. See, I'm a bit confused here so help me out. The party line is that they initially opposed an increase in fees but then, on joining the coalition, they realised that the economic situation was so bad that they had to U turn on that promise for the good of the economy. That they inherited an economic situation so bad that they couldn't keep their promise to oppose fee rises. We all had to tighten our belts etc. So if this is the line then it implies that they recognise that tuition fee rises are indeed an attack on the poor but one that is necessary because of the so called "economic crisis.



I think there are a few reasons why the party has said it can't keep it's promise. I agree there has been an economic argument, that on getting into government the situation is worse then suspected. Now personaly even taking into account notes left from Lyam Byrne saying 'there is no money left' it's a bit hard to stomach that none of the parties knew how bad it was. What I think is that all three of the parties were holding back from telling the public how bad things would be for fear of losing votes. That's a realy tradedgy becuase it meant there was a lack of real debate about what we should cut in the election campaign. I accept the Lib Dems take their share of the blame in not explaining to people how bad it would be.  

The party has been clear in the past that a rise in tution fees would impact upon the poorest more than those who could afford to pay it. 



> That was the excuse for breaking their promise to oppose fee rises right?
> But now the line has changed.According to you (and Clegg yesterday) Now the fee rises are no longer unpleasant but necessary. They are now GOOD for the poor. They are progressive. The poor should be thanking him. Which of course raises the question, if the fee rises are so good for the poorest students, why did he initially oppose them?



The answer to this question lies in what is contained within the proposals, it is true this is a coalition policy that is not the parties own policy as Clegg says: 
_
"It is no secret that the Government’s proposed reform is not the same as the policy my party and I campaigned on. It is taking everybody some time to realize that in a coalition, parties are not always able to deliver on their preferred policy options. This is what coalition means: both partners having to make compromises and neither partner being able to deliver the full programme of a single party government."_

The reason he says these proposals are going to be helping the poor is because Lib Dem influence has ensured that there is more to them then a blanket rise in tuition fees. For instance there is an extra £150 Million to help the poorest students go to University, strict regulation to ensure that those Universities that charge £9,000 pa will have to take students from the poorest backgrounds and provide help for them to do so, part-time fees don't have to be paid upfront, people will pay back less a month then they do now an only start paying it back when they have a wage you can actually live on of over £21,000. 

It's these important changes that means Clegg says that this will help poorer people whereas a blanket rise would have punished them.

My view is that it was a mistake in the Coalition agreement, but given that we are in a Coalition the party has done a decent job at improving on the proposals. It will be interesting to see how many Lib Dem MPs rebel.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

Santino said:


> Why not try thinking about it for yourself?


 
I meant I was going to look at the question and think about it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

newbie said:


> Sutton apparently, fwiw
> 
> http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/new...ficers__van_ransacked_during_student_protest/


 
makes sense, cos there were a load of zt on the w side of whitehall rnd 1pm


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I meant I was going to look at the question and think about it.


 
and? how far have you got?

have you looked at it now?


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

killer b said:


> i liked the dancing UCL occupiers linked to on his twitter...




This seems a much nicer way to get your message accross.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> and? how far have you got?
> 
> have you looked at it now?


 
Yes I posted an answer above, if there are any points you think I have missed or further questions feel free to let me know.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 26, 2010)

You've not missed the point anywhere, you're just deliberately talking disingenuous and dishonest shite.


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> This seems a much nicer way to get your message accross.


 
fuck you.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 26, 2010)

with cherries on top.

There, much nicer.  How about some organic home made ketchup with that shit sandwich?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think there are a few reasons why the party has said it can't keep it's promise. I agree there has been an economic argument, that on getting into government the situation is worse then suspected. Now personaly even taking into account notes left from Lyam Byrne saying 'there is no money left' it's a bit hard to stomach that none of the parties knew how bad it was. What I think is that all three of the parties were holding back from telling the public how bad things would be for fear of losing votes. That's a realy tradedgy becuase it meant there was a lack of real debate about what we should cut in the election campaign. I accept the Lib Dems take their share of the blame in not explaining to people how bad it would be.



The economic situation turned out to be _far better _than the lib-dems had imagined - despite the vaunted soothsaying powers of the Cable. This won't wash for any of your parties lies.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The party has been clear in the past that a rise in tution fees would impact upon the poorest more than those who could afford to pay it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, in brief, your reply is that yes, we're attacking the poorest students with these proposals, but we have to. You didn't and you don't. But you're going to.

I've yet to see a single piece of evidence that these pathetic and minuscule softening packages came from the lib-dems either. The major effect of these tuition fee rise will be w/c kids not going to university - these worthless packages won't go near them. Not i think there's any sense in your logic that _yes, i'm going to attack you but i'm going to buy a box of lollipops and give them to someone else to make things better. You don't realise how lucky you students are that we're going to do this_

The simple fact is there is no need for tuition fees at all, never mind rises.

'As the sixth-largest economy in the world, Britain can easily afford to fund free higher education through general taxation. In public expenditure terms, the UK currently spends just 0.7 per cent of its GDP on higher education, a lower level than France (1.2 per cent), Germany (0.9 per cent), Canada (1.5 per cent), Poland (0.9 per cent) and Sweden (1.4 per cent). Even the United States, where students make a considerable private contribution, spends 1 per cent of its GDP on higher education – 0.3 per cent more than the UK does.'


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 26, 2010)

Christ that was one hell of a mealy mouthed answer, moon.  Do you actually work for the Lib Dems? Maybe you should consider a job with them.  You've just basically said it's perfectly ok for a political party to lie to the electorate so they don't lose votes, but then it's ok because now they're in power they're telling the truth.  You wonder why people are fucking furious and don't "engage in the democratic process" as you put it? 

You don't seem to be concerned with the tripling of student debt because "Oh it's ok, they can pay back less a month or only pay back when they earn over £21k" so it's acceptable to cripple people with around £60 grand of debt, plus mortgage debt, personal credit debt and a rising tax burden to pay for the gambling debts of this generation in power and to put out, or at least curtail, the raging environmental fire they've started?  "Why not consolidate all your debt into one, easy to manage payment" there's another career option for you, moon, starring in those sort of adverts.  

You and your party are frauds, complete and utter frauds.


----------



## dylans (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The party has been clear in the past that a rise in tution fees would impact upon the poorest more than those who could afford to pay it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Sorry but this is dishonest. Clegg initially opposed ALL FEE RISES.  Now we are told that the proposals are not merely not as bad as the initial Tory proposals (because of Lib dem moves to amend them) We are told that the proposals themselves are in the interests of poor students. Clegg was on TV yesterday patronising the demonstrators and telling them to read the proposals because they will find they are GOOD FOR THE POOREST students. So again this begs the question, Why, if these proposals are so great, didn't the Lib dems advocate them before the election. They could have. They didn't. They did the opposite. They promised to oppose them. They lied


----------



## dylans (Nov 26, 2010)

> Butchers.
> So, in brief, your reply is that yes, we're attacking the poorest students with these proposals, but we have to. You didn't and you don't. But you're going to.



Well yes but they are not even saying that are they. That was the line. Now they are spinning this lie that the proposals are actually in the interests of the poor.. They are trying to have it both ways. There is a huge contradiction in their argument here. On the one hand they are forced to attack the poor but anyway they are not attacking the poor. They are giving to the poor. Clegg has turned into robin fucking hood. . In fact it is Christmas. The poorest students shouldn't be demonstrating. They should be holding street parties to thank Clegg for his kindness.


----------



## chilango (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think there are a few reasons why the party has said it can't keep it's promise. I agree there has been an economic argument, that on getting into government the situation is worse then suspected. Now personaly even taking into account notes left from Lyam Byrne saying 'there is no money left' it's a bit hard to stomach that none of the parties knew how bad it was. What I think is that all three of the parties were holding back from telling the public how bad things would be for fear of losing votes. That's a realy tradedgy becuase it meant there was a lack of real debate about what we should cut in the election campaign. I accept the Lib Dems take their share of the blame in not explaining to people how bad it would be.
> 
> The party has been clear in the past that a rise in tution fees would impact upon the poorest more than those who could afford to pay it.
> 
> ...



Bullshit, lies and naked contempt for the electorate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think there are a few reasons why the party has said it can't keep it's promise. I agree there has been an economic argument, that on getting into government the situation is worse then suspected. Now personaly even taking into account notes left from Lyam Byrne saying 'there is no money left' it's a bit hard to stomach that none of the parties knew how bad it was. What I think is that all three of the parties were holding back from telling the public how bad things would be for fear of losing votes. That's a realy tradedgy becuase it meant there was a lack of real debate about what we should cut in the election campaign. I accept the Lib Dems take their share of the blame in not explaining to people how bad it would be.
> 
> The party has been clear in the past that a rise in tution fees would impact upon the poorest more than those who could afford to pay it.
> 
> ...


i don't often agree with harriet harman, but she made the good point that the government, of which your nefandous party is a part, have declared the deficit will be dealt with by 2014. the 100% withdrawal of funding for arts, humanities and social sciences is a permanent thing. the new arrangements for 'student financial support' will only be a couple of years old by the time the deficit's gone. it's bugger all to do with necessity, this is a deliberate decision to prevent large sections of the population having the chance to enter university.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

dylans said:


> Well yes but they are not even saying that are they. That was the line. Now they are spinning this lie that the proposals are actually in the interests of the poor.. They are trying to have it both ways. There is a huge contradiction in their argument here. On the one hand they are forced to attack the poor but anyway they are not attacking the poor. They are giving to the poor. Clegg has turned into robin fucking hood. . In fact it is Christmas. The poorest students shouldn't be demonstrating. *They should be holding street parties to thank Clegg for his kindness.*



 I suspect that's actually what some of the more detached lib-dems think has been happening for the last few weeks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I suspect that's actually what some of the more detached lib-dems think has been happening for the last few weeks.


 
moon23's semi-detached.


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2010)

i've just been thinking about the amount of money most people will have to borrow to get through uni... it isn't just the 9 grand a year is it? that's just fees. most people will need to borrow around 3 grand a year just to cover rent, and will likely max out their student overdraft (another 3 thousand over the three years?). that's not unrealistic is it? I reckon most people would still have to work quite a few hours on top to make ends meet even on that.

so a conservative estimate for three years at uni in a fairly inexpensive town is looking at nigh on £40,000. my mortgage isn't that much more than that...


----------



## chilango (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I think there are a few reasons why the party has said it can't keep it's promise. I agree there has been an economic argument, that on getting into government the situation is worse then suspected. Now personaly even taking into account notes left from Lyam Byrne saying 'there is no money left' it's a bit hard to stomach that none of the parties knew how bad it was. What I think is that all three of the parties were holding back from telling the public how bad things would be for fear of losing votes. That's a realy tradedgy becuase it meant there was a lack of real debate about what we should cut in the election campaign. I accept the Lib Dems take their share of the blame in not explaining to people how bad it would be.
> 
> The party has been clear in the past that a rise in tution fees would impact upon the poorest more than those who could afford to pay it.
> 
> ...


 

So basically you're saying. 





> Oops! Our manifesto is useless cos we didn't know what we talking about, so now we going to do the opposite of everything you voted for us for and actually, it's probably for the best anyway, so forget anything we said before...erm...


----------



## chilango (Nov 26, 2010)

killer b said:


> i've just been thinking about the amount of money most people will have to borrow to get through uni... it isn't just the 9 grand a year is it? that's just fees. most people will need to borrow around 3 grand a year just to cover rent, and will likely max out their student overdraft (another 3 thousand over the three years?). that's not unrealistic is it? I reckon most people would still have to work quite a few hours on top to make ends meet even on that.
> 
> so a conservative estimate for three years at uni in a fairly inexpensive town is looking at nigh on £40,000. my mortgage isn't that much more than that...


 
...and apparently its a "good thing" that ex-students will paying that off for even longer according to the Lib Dems. Debt for Life, it's good for the poor...


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2010)

can probably add another 10 grand on if you're at a london uni, or bristol or the like. it's fucking deranged.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

chilango said:


> ...and apparently its a "good thing" that ex-students will paying that off for even longer according to the Lib Dems. Debt for Life, it's good for the poor...


 
For the poorest students it essentially amounts to a graduate tax, if you never earn over £21K then you have had a free education anyway.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> moon23's semi-detached.


 
I live in a flat.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

dylans said:


> Sorry but this is dishonest. Clegg initially opposed ALL FEE RISES.  Now we are told that the proposals are not merely not as bad as the initial Tory proposals (because of Lib dem moves to amend them) We are told that the proposals themselves are in the interests of poor students. Clegg was on TV yesterday patronising the demonstrators and telling them to read the proposals because they will find they are GOOD FOR THE POOREST students. So again this begs the question, Why, if these proposals are so great, didn't the Lib dems advocate them before the election. They could have. They didn't. They did the opposite. They promised to oppose them. They lied


 
Simply becuase we are not in sole power and have to compromise, due to working with the proposals we have ensured they help some of the poorest students more than they would have. Not having to pay back a student loan on a low income and paying back less a month will help some of the poorest graduates in the future. Also the extra money for the poorest students will help them too.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 26, 2010)

Here's another one.

Weak rapping but still, a point well made.


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> For the poorest students it essentially amounts to a graduate tax, if you never earn over £21K then you have had a free education anyway.


 
fuck you.


----------



## pk (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 - you'll be out of a job quick if you're really a propaganda merchant for Clegg and his docile subservient Tory-fearing yes men.

You're shit. You make the Iraqi Defence Minister look like Charlton Heston's Moses.

Do you wipe your arse with the party print-outs once you've tapped them out here?

Seems a shame to otherwise waste good paper.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 26, 2010)

almost word for word vince cables lines from last sundays Daily Politics


----------



## creak (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Simply becuase we are not in sole power and have to compromise, due to working with the proposals we have ensured they help some of the poorest students more than they would have. Not having to pay back a student loan on a low income and paying back less a month will help some of the poorest graduates in the future. Also the extra money for the poorest students will help them too.


 
Interest is still building up at commercial rates for graduates until they hit 21k though. And even though they'd be paying back less each month than now, they're going to be paying far, far more over a much longer period instead- tripled fees plus high interest, for decades. Most of their working life, in fact. Then add on maintenance loans for the three to four years they're studying, again with interest. What exactly have your lot done to help students, sorry?


----------



## pk (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> For the poorest students it essentially amounts to a graduate tax, if you never earn over £21K then you have had a free education anyway.


 
How much do YOU earn?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

pk said:


> How much do YOU earn?


 
it's certainly less than what he's paid.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I live in a flat.


 
semi-detached from reality you shitferbrains oxygen thief.


----------



## creak (Nov 26, 2010)

Anyone know what's happening to fees for postgrad courses as well, btw?


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 26, 2010)

Of course the 21k limit will be adjusted downwards. It was by the Tories last time.


----------



## pk (Nov 26, 2010)

Don't let the fuckwit derail the thread, it's not about the LibDems who have rendered themselves powerless to stop any of the Tory cuts.

Ignore him, let him have his Cleggy wank fantasies on his own.

The LibDems will be punished hard next election. All those years in the dark, then they fuck it up so badly like this ensuring another decade of futile fuck-all.

LOL, I pity the die-hard supporters and campaigners, what an embarrassment...


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/1...hen-police-charged-into-students-with-horses/

Now this over the top police behaviour, you don't need to charge a kettle!


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

pk said:


> moon23 - you'll be out of a job quick if you're really a propaganda merchant for Clegg and his docile subservient Tory-fearing yes men.
> 
> You're shit. You make the Iraqi Defence Minister look like Charlton Heston's Moses.
> 
> ...


 
I don't work for the party.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't work for the party.


 
lucky old party


----------



## Santino (Nov 26, 2010)

So it's just 'The Party' now.


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 26, 2010)

Thanks a lot Lib Dems you just made sure my baby son prob doesn't get a whiff of a chance of university, if he wanted to go.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't work for the party.


 
not in a paid position you don't


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

Santino said:


> So it's just 'The Party' now.


 
Or Lib Dems, whatever. Look I didn't join the party becuase I wanted tutition fees to rise, it's  federal policy to oppose it. In that situation of a hung parliment I think the Coalition was the right thing to do, but agreeing to something that went against a pledge was fucking stupid. Given that mess I generally think the party is working to try and make these proposals fairer but the problem is most people voted Tory so you are getting this which is essentialy a Tory policy. The MP I helped to elect is voting against the increase, and if i'd signed the pledge I probably would too.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> not in a paid position you don't


 
Well true in the sense that next week i'm off to help in Oldham for free as an activst.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

I doubt you'll be hearing the phrase _first one in my family to go to university_ much more now - _last one one in my family to go to university_ might become increasingly common.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't work for the party.


 






moon23, on right, explaining to prospective student what her debt will be


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well true in the sense that next week i'm off to help in Oldham for free as an activst.


 
i look forward to hearing you're going to dartmoor as a convict.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Or Lib Dems, whatever. Look I didn't join the party becuase I wanted tutition fees to rise, it's  federal policy to oppose it. In that situation of a hung parliment I think the Coalition was the right thing to do, but agreeing to something that went against a pledge was fucking stupid. Given that mess I generally think the party is working to try and make these proposals fairer but the problem is most people voted Tory so you are getting this which is essentialy a Tory policy. The MP I helped to elect is voting against the increase, and if i'd signed the pledge I probably would too.


 
Federal policy is to oppose not just a rise in tuition fees, _but tuition fees in their entirety_. Therefore, the right thing to do is to support them tutiion fees and a rise in tuition fees. What pathetic knots you lot have tied yourselves up in. Losing the last finger grip on political reality.


----------



## Santino (Nov 26, 2010)

In principle I am against the deportation of Jews, gypsies and homosexuals to labour camps, but since we didn't win the election it's right that we make the trains more comfortable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

Santino said:


> In principle I am against the deportation of Jews, gypsies and homosexuals to labour camps, but since we didn't win the election it's right that we make the trains more comfortable.


 
you've been drinking from the same bottle moon23 favours


----------



## chilango (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> but the problem is most people voted Tory


 
No they didn't.

36.1% of the those that voted (on a 65% turnout).

Not much of a mandate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

chilango said:


> No they didn't.
> 
> 36.1% of the those that voted (on a 65% turnout).
> 
> Not much of a mandate.


 
maths not moon23's strong suit.


----------



## Santino (Nov 26, 2010)

It's actually fairer this way. People with one Jewish or gypsy grandparent are now exempt from heavy labour shifts.


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 26, 2010)

chilango said:


> No they didn't.
> 
> 36.1% of the those that voted (on a 65% turnout).
> 
> Not much of a mandate.


 

Exactly. How dare they presume they speak for most of us?


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

chilango said:


> No they didn't.
> 
> 36.1% of the those that voted (on a 65% turnout).
> 
> Not much of a mandate.


 
In terms of the most votes of any party. 36.1% is more of a share then Labour got to hold a workable majority in 2005.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well true in the sense that next week i'm off to help in Oldham for free as an activst.


 
So you do work for them, you just don't get paid.


----------



## chilango (Nov 26, 2010)

chilango said:


> No they didn't.
> 
> 36.1% of the those that voted (on a 65% turnout).
> 
> Not much of a mandate.



It should also be noted that many of those most affected by the tuition fees rise were too young to vote but have to hand the cash over regardless. 

No taxation without representation eh Moon?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well true in the sense that next week i'm off to help in Oldham for free as an activst.


 
Please tell me you think it's the Oldham East & Saddleworth by-election.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> maths not moon23's strong suit.


 
You have made a category error, this was not a mathematical query and only becomes one when it is framed in a semantic context that arises from a particular definition of most as being a share of total voter turnout rather than comparatively to other parties total voter share.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> In terms of the most votes of any party. 36.1% is more of a share then Labour got to hold a workable majority in 2005.


and what sort of workable majority would you sell your soul for?


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> maths not moon23's strong suit.


 


Pickman's model said:


> it's certainly less than what he's paid.


 
Are you ever going to post something that's not snidey?

Edited to add: I tried to use the multi-quote, but only a fraction of them seem to have worked.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You have made a category error, this was not a mathematical query and only becomes one when it is framed in a semantic context that arises from a particular definition of most as being a share of total voter turnout rather than comparatively to other parties total voter share.









you are mr logic and i claim my £5.


----------



## chilango (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> In terms of the most votes of any party. 36.1% is more of a share then Labour got to hold a workable majority in 2005.


 
But that's not what you meant.

You meant that you were going along with the democratically expressed views of the country. No?

If you're just playing parliamentary maths, you guys have the numbers to bring the coalition down and stop the fees rise. *But you don't want to.*


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Please tell me you think it's the Oldham East & Saddleworth by-election.


 
I'm off to help the by-election campaign, Moon will be pounding the streets.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Are you ever going to post something that's not snidey?


you're as weltweit as usual today i see.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm off to help the by-election campaign, Moon will be pounding the streets.


yeh, with your head.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You have made a category error, this was not a mathematical query and only becomes one when it is framed in a semantic context that arises from a particular definition of most as being a share of total voter turnout rather than comparatively to other parties total voter share.


 
Yes i agree, when you said most you clearly didn't mean most. And you're still wrong anyway.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Edited to add: I tried to use the multi-quote, but only a fraction of them seem to have worked.


 you fucking useless tosser


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

"most people voted tory" - they didnt even get a majority.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm off to help the by-election campaign, Moon will be pounding the streets.


 
For an election that's not taking place? Impressive organisation! Well done lib-dems.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> "most people voted tory" - they didnt even get a majority.


 
No. but most people did vote for them.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

chilango said:


> But that's not what you meant.
> 
> You meant that you were going along with the democratically expressed views of the country. No?
> 
> If you're just playing parliamentary maths, you guys have the numbers to bring the coalition down and stop the fees rise. *But you don't want to.*


 
Well I have issues too with FPTP, but it's the current democratic model that is used to elect people. Yes the smaller party could hold the larger one to ransom in a coalition, this is not a very democratic way to go about your business however.

The problem many people are falling to address is that so many people voted Tory. Their recent polls put them back in the lead against Labour or Tied.  Whereas it seems possible to attack the Lib Dems, the underlying Tory ideology of the nation is going unchallenged.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 26, 2010)

Jan Moir of Stephen Gately "gay-hate" fame on the protests... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/c...ot-jolly-hockey-sticks-St-Trinians-riots.html ...shield your eyes...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> No. but most people did vote for them.


you fucking useless tosser. when did 36.1% become 'most people'? you really are thick as fucking pigshit.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> "most people voted tory" - they didnt even get a majority.


 
Due to the electoral boundaries being in Labour's favour. Labour on a smaller share of the vote in 2005 had a workable majority.


----------



## chilango (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Due to the electoral boundaries being in Labour's favour. Labour on a smaller share of the vote in 2005 had a workable majority.


 
Nobody has claimed "most people voted Labour in 2005".


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 26, 2010)

she can cunt off as well- catwoman was ace


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Or Lib Dems, whatever. Look I didn't join the party becuase I wanted tutition fees to rise, it's  federal policy to oppose it. In that situation of a hung parliment I think the Coalition was the right thing to do, but agreeing to something that went against a pledge was fucking stupid. Given that mess I generally think the party is working to try and make these proposals fairer but the problem is most people voted Tory so you are getting this which is essentialy a Tory policy. The MP I helped to elect is voting against the increase, and if i'd signed the pledge I probably would too.


 
Most people voted Tory? Another blatant lie. If most people voted Tory, why did they need to go into coalition with you? Fact is most people voted AGAINST the Tories. They voted for parties that advocated a more careful approach to cuts, like for instance the Lib Dems. Look where it got them. People voted for you to represent them; the positions laid out in your manifesto appealed to them, as did the pledge, signed by individual MP's promising unconditionally to vote AGAINST increases in fees. You have betrayed them.

It was NOT inevitable that we would get this. You could have left them as a minority, or you could have incuded in the agreement the option of your MPs voting against this. Instead you decided to betray the people who voted for you, proving once and for all that the Lib Dems seek power and nothing else. Your policies are all aimed simply at winning votes - you don't believe in any of it. If you did you wouldn't have got into bed with the Tories.

If you really wanted people to engage in the democratic process, maybe it would have been a good idea to respect said process, since by lying and breaking every promise yoiu have ever made you have discredited it and ensured that people will use alternative methods.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well I have issues too with FPTP, but it's the current democratic model that is used to elect people. Yes the smaller party could hold the larger one to ransom in a coalition, this is not a very democratic way to go about your business however.
> 
> The problem many people are falling to address is that so many people voted Tory. Their recent polls put them back in the lead against Labour or Tied.  Whereas it seems possible to attack the Lib Dems, the underlying Tory ideology of the nation is going unchallenged.


 
Attacking the lib-dems is attacking the tories - and it's attacking their extreme right flank.

If you're arguing that the result must be respected blah blah blah then you have _every right to follow the constitutional convention of using your minority influence to get what you want_ - that's how our democracy works. You're not arguing for that though are you? And you're not because you and your party _support_ both the principle of tuition fees and the proposed rise.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> you fucking useless tosser. when did 36.1% become 'most people'? you really are thick as fucking pigshit.


 
More people voted Tory that they did for any other party. Unless I was an idiot who insisted on pointless pedantry I remain happy to say that most people voted for them.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> you fucking useless tosser. when did 36.1% become 'most people'? you really are thick as fucking pigshit.


 
John, Gill and Harry each stood for election, 

John got 10 votes,
Harry got 5 votes,
Gill got 7 vote,

Who out of John Harry and Gill got the most votes.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

That won't help pickman to understand. Nothing will help pickman to understand.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> More people voted Tory that they did for any other party. Unless I was an idiot who insisted on pointless pedantry I remain happy to say that most people voted for them.


 
Pointless pedantry is just an excuse for a bit of verbal abuse. I wonder how these people function in the real world.


----------



## Random (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> John, Gill and Harry each stood for election,
> 
> John got 10 votes,
> Harry got 5 votes,
> ...


 'Most people did not vote for John'


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> More people voted Tory that they did for any other party. Unless I was an idiot who insisted on pointless pedantry I remain happy to say that most people voted for them.


 
but that's 36.1% of 65%, which is 23.5% of the eligible population. which means that more people did not vote for a party - the abstentions received most votes.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> John, Gill and Harry each stood for election,
> 
> John got 10 votes,
> Harry got 5 votes,
> ...


 
But it would be dishonest to say most people voted for John; that simply wouldn't be true.  See the difference?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Pointless pedantry is just an excuse for a bit of verbal abuse. I wonder how these people function in the real world.


 
i wonder how you function in the asylum for the terminally bewildered.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Pointless pedantry is just an excuse for a bit of verbal abuse.


 
The politics forums on Urban have always been a favourite haunt for pedantry peddlers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> That won't help pickman to understand. Nothing will help pickman to understand.


 
who's pickman?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> The politics forums on Urban have always been a favourite haunt for pedantry peddlers.


 
as can be seen from your unwelcome presence.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Attacking the lib-dems is attacking the tories - and it's attacking their extreme right flank.
> 
> If you're arguing that the result must be respected blah blah blah then you have _every right to follow the constitutional convention of using your minority influence to get what you want_ - that's how our democracy works. You're not arguing for that though are you? And you're not because you and your party _support_ both the principle of tuition fees and the proposed rise.


 
The party made a coaliton deal, it's to be expected that the larger party who attracted more votes is in some areas going to get their way with their policy. What the Lib Dems have done is taken that policy and made it fairer.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> as can be seen from your unwelcome presence.


 
Everyone is welcome to post here, not just those that agree with you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The party made a coaliton deal, it's to be expected that the larger party who attracted more votes is in some areas going to get their way with their policy. What the Lib Dems have done is taken that policy and made it fairer.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You have made a category error, this was not a mathematical query and only becomes one when it is framed in a semantic context that arises from a particular definition of most as being a share of total voter turnout rather than comparatively to other parties total voter share.


 
The error was yours. (If it was an error, I am beginning to think you are utterly incapable of telling the truth). You said _most_ people voted Tory, not _the most_. There is only one possible interpretation of that statement and it is the one people have taken.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> as can be seen from your unwelcome presence.


 
A ten-year old would be embarressed by that reply.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Everyone is welcome to post here, not just those that agree with you.


you're quite lock yourself, you know.


----------



## pk (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You have made a category error, this was not a mathematical query and only becomes one when it is framed in a semantic context that arises from a particular definition of most as being a share of total voter turnout rather than comparatively to other parties total voter share.


 
Right, that is it, it's official. You are a cunt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> A ten-year old would be embarressed by that reply.


but nothing to say on-topic i see.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

SpineyNorman said:


> There is only one possible interpretation of that statement and it is the one people have taken.


 
If you were prepared to have a proper discussion, then you would have accepted the obvious meaning behind the words, rather than pretend that this is a court of law.


----------



## pk (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> A ten-year old would be embarressed by that reply.


 
A nine year old would be embarrassed by your spelling...


----------



## Belushi (Nov 26, 2010)

Lol. Pickmans having a go at that prick Lock and Light, pk calling someone a cunt... this is like old times


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> No. but most people did vote for them.


 
huh?? Did you follow the news? they didn't get enough seats to gain a majority, and only just over half of the population turned out to vote. how is 36% of those who voted (never mind the ones who didn't) "most people"?


----------



## ymu (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> For the poorest students it essentially amounts to a graduate tax, if you never earn over £21K then you have had a free education anyway.


 
Another lie!

With a graduate tax, the highest earners pay back the most because they earn the most and the tax is proportional to earnings.

With loans, the lowest earners pay back the most because they can't pay it back as quickly so they incur the most interest on those loans.

Stop copy-pasting party propaganda. I even gave you some numbers on this last time you tried to make this case. A graduate tax of 3% would cover the cost of fees and a £5k per year maintenance grant for every student. This abominable scheme has people paying back 9% of their incomes, with no grant, and masses of that cash going on interest rather than anything worthwhile.

Either learn to think for yourself and post something meaningful, or quit insulting us by assuming we will fall for this nonsense.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Attacking the lib-dems is attacking the tories - and it's attacking their extreme right flank.
> 
> If you're arguing that the result must be respected blah blah blah then you have _every right to follow the constitutional convention of using your minority influence to get what you want_ - that's how our democracy works. You're not arguing for that though are you? And you're not because you and your party _support_ both the principle of tuition fees and the proposed rise.



The Lib Dems are not the far-right flank, you are actually only succeeding through the sheer vitriol of the left in pushing many Lib Dems further to the right.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> huh?? Did you follow the news? they didn't get enough seats to gain a majority, and only just over half of the population turned out to vote. how is 36% of those who voted (never mind the ones who didn't) "most people"?


 
I refer the honourable lady to the answers given above.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> huh?? Did you follow the news? they didn't get enough seats to gain a majority, and only just over half of the population turned out to vote. how is 36% of those who voted (never mind the ones who didn't) "most people"?


 
he's full of shite, as per pitiful attempt to wriggle on previous page


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> John, Gill and Harry each stood for election,
> 
> John got 10 votes,
> Harry got 5 votes,
> ...


 
NO you fool it is not the same 

How about: 

There was an election 

John got 10 votes 
Harry got 5 votes
Gill got 7 votes 
8 people did not vote

do you get it??? Do you ge why most people did not vote for John???


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

pk said:


> A nine year old would be embarrassed by your spelling...


 
My son is dyslectic, but at 14 he makes a lot more sense than you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The Lib Dems are not the far-right flank, you are actually only succeeding through the sheer vitriol of the left in pushing many Lib Dems further to the right.


 
there won't be very many lib dems in the near future. your foul party's going the way of the dodo.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well I have issues too with FPTP, but it's the current democratic model that is used to elect people. Yes the smaller party could hold the larger one to ransom in a coalition, this is not a very democratic way to go about your business however.


 
Let me get this straight - you've lied to your voters and broken promises _in order to defend democracy_? These are _principled lies_!


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The Lib Dems are not the far-right flank, you are actually only succeeding through the sheer vitriol of the left in pushing many Lib Dems further to the right.


 
That ed milliband. He's from north london you know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

SpineyNorman said:


> Let me get this straight - you've lied to your voters and broken promises _in order to defend democracy_? These are _principled lies_!


 
it's a westminster thing


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The Lib Dems are not the far-right flank, you are actually only succeeding through the sheer vitriol of the left in pushing many Lib Dems further to the right.


 
It's all the left's fault, if they would stop insulting the lib dems and start agreeing with them for a change, all would be well in the world.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The Lib Dems are not the far-right flank, you are actually only succeeding through the sheer vitriol of the left in pushing many Lib Dems further to the right.


 
So it's our fault you're turning into a right wing tory apologist?  Yeah, right.

Don't forget to mention you're only referring to a tiny minority of people who voted libdem at the election.  Most of them have abandoned you now they see what you really are.


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2010)

ffs. it's the same argument again - everyone call him a cunt, and move on eh?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> It's all the left's fault, if they would stop insulting the lib dems and start agreeing with them for a change, all would be well in the world.


 
there'll be no point having a pop at the lib dems when there aren't any of them left.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The Lib Dems are not the far-right flank, you are actually only succeeding through the sheer vitriol of the left in pushing many Lib Dems further to the right.


 
Yes you are. That's why laws was placed as the original hatchet man - it's why you pushed hard for the cut in child benefit and have basically acted as the vanguard of the cuts on the poorest (mug enough to take the flak for them too).

If you're saying theres an ongoing extreme-right wingisation of your party who am i to argue? There has been for a decade now - and now it's come to fruition, to the benefit of the tories and the horror of the rest of us.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

fucking left


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

SpineyNorman said:


> The error was yours. (If it was an error, I am beginning to think you are utterly incapable of telling the truth). You said _most_ people voted Tory, not _the most_. There is only one possible interpretation of that statement and it is the one people have taken.


 
I've given example as to how there are other interpretations of 'most' in post 659. Given that I have also clarified the term in which I meant it I fail to see why it continues to be a point worthy of discussion.

The underlying question is about whether the Tories have more of a democratic legitimacy within government than the Lib Dems. Sadly more people voted for them so they have. This being the case we can expect often Tory policy will have a larger influence than coalition policy. This is one of those instances. 

The Coaltion agreement was made so a programme of government could be delivered, to facilitate that programme of government support is required from both parties in areas of disagreement. So the Conservatives are supporting an AV referendum bill and the Lib Dems are supporting the fees proposals, albeit with having made improvements.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> John, Gill and Harry each stood for election,
> 
> John got 10 votes,
> Harry got 5 votes,
> ...


 
Yes, John got the most votes. BUT, and here's the bit you seem to be unable to grasp, _most people DIDN'T_ vote for John. You know this too; you've been caught lying and you're trying to dig your way out.


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2010)

fuck you.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> fucking left


 
Innit. Forcing innocent Liberals to act like vicious right wingers


----------



## Fruitloop (Nov 26, 2010)

One thing with the 21 grand repayment limit as well (beside the fact that it is being touted as more generous than the current limit or 15 grand, which let's not forget was 23 grand when it was introduced - wedge strategy anyone?) is that it is likely to be more imposing the lower your salary gradient. So if you get a job that starts at 30k when you graduate and quickly rises to 50k, then you're in a different situation to someone who might only start earning national average wage in their 30s, when they might well have kids and it will be seriously inconvenient to start paying back student loans.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I've given example as to how there are other interpretations of 'most' in post 659. Given that I have also clarified the term in which I meant it I fail to see why it continues to be a point worthy of discussion.
> 
> The underlying question is about whether the Tories have more of a democratic legitimacy within government than the Lib Dems. Sadly more people voted for them so they have. This being the case we can expect often Tory policy will have a larger influence than coalition policy. This is one of those instances.
> 
> The Coaltion agreement was made so a programme of government could be delivered, to facilitate that programme of government support is required from both parties in areas of disagreement. So the Conservatives are supporting an AV referendum bill and the Lib Dems are supporting the fees proposals, albeit with having made improvements.


 the only reason that the conservatives have any sort of 'legitimacy' is because the queen summoned david cameron to buckingham palace and didn't ask nick clegg. it's nothing to do with the number of votes who gets summoned to form a government, you know.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

_that ed milliband, don't you think there's something strange about his nose? _


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> One thing with the 21 grand repayment limit as well (beside the fact that it is being touted as more generous than the current limit or 15 grand, which let's not forget was 23 grand when it was introduced - wedge strategy anyone?) is that it is likely to be more imposing the lower your salary gradient. So if you get a job that starts at 30k when you graduate and quickly rises to 50k, then you're in a different situation to someone who might only start earning national average wage in their 30s, when they might well have kids and it will be seriously inconvenient to start paying back student loans.


 
I don;'t know anyone who's got a 30k job on graduating. Who are these mythical people?


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> there won't be very many lib dems in the near future. your foul party's going the way of the dodo.


 
Then i'll join another one if it does, maybe the Tories


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> _that ed milliband, don't you think there's something strange about his nose? _


 
i look forward to the day we can say 'that ed miliband, don't you think there's something strange about his noose?'


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> the only reason that the conservatives have any sort of 'legitimacy' is because the queen summoned david cameron to buckingham palace and didn't ask nick clegg. it's nothing to do with the number of votes who gets summoned to form a government, you know.


 
You really don't seem to understand how it works, do you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Then i'll join another one if it does, maybe the Tories


 
yeh that would be about your natural home.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> the only reason that the conservatives have any sort of 'legitimacy' is because the queen summoned david cameron to buckingham palace and didn't ask nick clegg. it's nothing to do with the number of votes who gets summoned to form a government, you know.


 
The number of MPs does, and the number of votes translates accross to MPs in some form.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Then i'll join another one if it does, maybe the Tories


 
They wouldn't have you, you're a fucking albatross.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> You really don't seem to understand how it works, do you?


 
you fucking don't, that's for sure.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i look forward to the day we can say 'that ed miliband, don't you think there's something strange about his noose?'


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> you fucking don't, that's for sure.


 
Now you're achieving the level of a three-year old.


----------



## Random (Nov 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> _that ed milliband, don't you think there's something strange about his nose? _


 
He's an elitist cosmopolitan type isn't he?


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Then i'll join another one if it does, maybe the Tories


 
you know, if you just admit you've made a mistake, then everyone on here would take the piss for a bit and then we'd all be fine with it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The number of MPs does, and the number of votes translates accross to MPs in some form.


 can you explain then why john major got more votes in 1997 than 1992 and yet enjoyed no majority at all? the simple number of votes is in large measure utterly irrelevant - it's where they are which makes all the difference.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Now you're achieving the level of a three-year old.


 
i see you're careful to avoid the polysyllabic words after your embarrassing mistake earlier in the thread.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

Random said:


> He's an elitist cosmopolitan type isn't he?


 
north london cosmopolitan type ... the worst kind


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i see you're careful to avoid the polysyllabic words after your embarrassing mistake earlier in the thread.


 
Spelling mistakes are no cause for embarrasment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

lock&light said:


> spelling mistakes are no cause for embarrasment.


 


43,000


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

You are brain-dead, I see.


----------



## Belushi (Nov 26, 2010)

Random said:


> He's an elitist cosmopolitan type isn't he?


 
He's rootless.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> You are brain-dead, I see.


 no you don't. you're wittering away 15 to the dozen without making any sense and only making yourself look stupider and more ridiculous than ever.


----------



## dylans (Nov 26, 2010)

Santino said:


> It's actually fairer this way. People with one Jewish or gypsy grandparent are now exempt from heavy labour shifts.



And I bet the ungrateful bastards won't thank us.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I've given example as to how there are other interpretations of 'most' in post 659. Given that I have also clarified the term in which I meant it I fail to see why it continues to be a point worthy of discussion.
> 
> The underlying question is about whether the Tories have more of a democratic legitimacy within government than the Lib Dems. Sadly more people voted for them so they have. This being the case we can expect often Tory policy will have a larger influence than coalition policy. This is one of those instances.
> 
> The Coaltion agreement was made so a programme of government could be delivered, to facilitate that programme of government support is required from both parties in areas of disagreement. So the Conservatives are supporting an AV referendum bill and the Lib Dems are supporting the fees proposals, albeit with having made improvements.


 
You did nothing of the kind, you just waffled. Most people DIDN'T vote Tory. THE most people did.

Anyway, moving on, is it, or is it not, a lie and a broken promise when an MP signs a pledge to vote against any rise in tuition fees, unconditionally and in any circumstances, and then votes for a rise in tuition fees? It's a simple yes/no answer.

Nobody is suggesting that you should be able to impliment your whole manifesto. Had you opposed the fee rise but not abolished them you wouldn't be getting this much criticism - voters aren't stupid. We know it would be childish to expect the minority party to be able to impliment all its proposals. But equally we're not so stupid that we don't know when we've been lied to and betrayed by opportunistic, careerist politicians and their useful idiots (eg. you).

I want to know, since you are all about this twisted, undemocratic version of the "democratic process" how far you would go to get in coalition. Would you have gone into coalition with the BNP had the most people voted for them (see what I did there?) and would you now be saying "we are opposed in principle to labour camps for immigrants, but we've gained a concession from the BNP - Gay people will not be executed so long as they stop being gay and go to one of them nutty Christian re-education camps." How far are you willing to go in compromising your principles? If you even have any.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

be interesting if you recieve an answer spiney ...


----------



## dylans (Nov 26, 2010)

SpineyNorman said:


> I want to know, since you are all about this twisted, undemocratic version of the "democratic process" how far you would go to get in coalition. Would you have gone into coalition with the BNP had the most people voted for them (see what I did there?) and would you now be saying "we are opposed in principle to labour camps for immigrants, but we've gained a concession from the BNP - Gay people will not be executed so long as they stop being gay and go to one of them nutty Christian re-education camps." How far are you willing to go in compromising your principles? If you even have any.


 
This is absolutely spot on. The lib dem argument is the argument of the collaborator. Yes we helped the Germans deport thousands of Jews but we got some POWs released in return. The argument of Philippe Pétain.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> you are mr logic and i claim my £5.


 
Haha


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

SpineyNorman said:


> You did nothing of the kind, you just waffled. Most people DIDN'T vote Tory. THE most people did.
> 
> Anyway, moving on, is it, or is it not, a lie and a broken promise when an MP signs a pledge to vote against any rise in tuition fees, unconditionally and in any circumstances, and then votes for a rise in tuition fees? It's a simple yes/no answer.



Well personally I think for those MPs who vote for a rise and don’t abstain or vote against It's a broken promise brought about by entering into the binding coalition agreement. 




> I want to know, since you are all about this twisted, undemocratic version of the "democratic process" how far you would go to get in coalition. Would you have gone into coalition with the BNP had the most people voted for them (see what I did there?) and would you now be saying "we are opposed in principle to labour camps for immigrants, but we've gained a concession from the BNP - Gay people will not be executed so long as they stop being gay and go to one of them nutty Christian re-education camps." How far are you willing to go in compromising your principles? If you even have any.


 
Obviously no democratic party would enter into a coalition with the BNP.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

dylans said:


> This is absolutely spot on. The lib dem argument is the argument of the collaborator. Yes we helped the Germans deport thousands of Jews but we got some POWs released in return. The argument of Philippe Pétain.


 
When taken ad absurdum, I don't think a rise in tuition fees that you have to pay back when you earn over 21K is comparable to the Genocide.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> When taken ad absurdum, I don't think a rise in tuition fees that you have to pay back when you earn over 21K is comparable to the Genocide.


 
i think you mean holocaust. but it's not just the fees issue, which is fuck all to do with cuts, but the dishonesty of the lib dems (no more broken promises) and their supine acquiescence, if not advocacy, with the cuts. these cuts, apart from savaging the cultural life of the country through the closure of libraries and archives, will also change the character of towns and cities as ghettos out of sight and out of mind on the outskirts of urban areas are created. vast swathes of higher education will be destroyed by the philistinism of the government. services provided by local government, such as adult social care, will be cut to the bone leaving the most vulnerable people up shit creek. but i suppose you think that's all right and that the disabled, the elderly and the vulnerable should simply move to where better social care's provided - along the lines of what you posted some time ago about moving towns to look for work.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Obviously no democratic party would enter into a coalition with the BNP.


 
How the hell do you know? The BNP claim to be a democratic party. Given the fact that all three main parties have moved so steadily and decisively to the right - even what some may call the far right - over the last 30 years i would say it isn't "obvious" at all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Obviously no democratic party would enter into a coalition with the BNP.


 obviously no more broken promises means no more broken promises and nick clegg and that are going to shout 'fooled you' in a few minutes. we all know the lib dems would get into bed with the nsdap if they thought it would give them an hour or two of power.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well personally I think for those MPs who vote for a rise and don’t abstain or vote against It's a broken promise brought about by entering into the binding coalition agreement.



First off, no it's not binding - it's purely and solely conventional. 

Secondly, *there is no mention whatsoever of agreeing to support a rise in university tuition fees in the coalition agreement.*. 



> We await Lord Browne's final report into higher education funding, and will judge its proposals against the need to
> 
> ...
> 
> If the response of the Government to Lord Browne's report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote.



If anything it says that you *expressly do not* have to support any proposals that go against your principles as outlined in your manifesto and the pre-election pledges - which, let me remind you were that



> We will scrap unfair university tuition fees so everyone has the chance to get a degree, regardless of their parents’ income



The last plank of your argument has just been kicked away.


----------



## chilango (Nov 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> How the hell do you know? The BNP claim to be a democratic party.



The Italian Liberal Party _merged_ with the fascist Italian Social Movement in 1995.

But it could never happen here, could it?


----------



## magneze (Nov 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> be interesting if you recieve an answer spiney ...


Doubtful, there's been no answers to some reasonable questions all through this thread.


----------



## dylans (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> When taken ad absurdum, I don't think a rise in tuition fees that you have to pay back when you earn over 21K is comparable to the Genocide.


 
Petain justified his collaboration with the German occupiers in precisely the same terms used by yourself and Clegg to justify the lib dems compliance with the cuts programme of the Tories.

I hope you remember what happened to collaborators upon liberation?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well personally I think for those MPs who vote for a rise and don’t abstain or vote against It's a broken promise brought about by entering into the binding coalition agreement.



Was it a lie? Yes or no.






moon23 said:


> Obviously no democratic party would enter into a coalition with the BNP.


 
But anyone outside your cult can see that the Lib Dems are not a democratic party. No genuine democrat would betray their voters, implimenting a programme that is diametrically opposed to the platform they stood on. So can we take that as a yes?


----------



## Ungrateful (Nov 26, 2010)

SpineyNorman said:


> You did nothing of the kind, you just waffled. Most people DIDN'T vote Tory. THE most people did.
> 
> Anyway, moving on, is it, or is it not, a lie and a broken promise when an MP signs a pledge to vote against any rise in tuition fees, unconditionally and in any circumstances, and then votes for a rise in tuition fees? It's a simple yes/no answer.
> 
> ...


 
Aye Vince cabel's claim that we have to compromise against our election pledges to be in a colaition government is just a little self-defeating. The Lib Dems' core principle is a more proportiopnalvoting system which would mean every government would (as likely as not) would be a coalition, so any partner can claim to break election pledges because it was necessary for the coalition agrement. so even minimal accountabilioty disappears.

Anyway lets get back to sacking the lot of them, and reformulating society based on virtuous, open and anti-hierarchical social practices.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 26, 2010)

Ungrateful said:


> Anyway lets get back to sacking the lot of them, and reformulating society based on virtuous, open and anti-hierarchical social practices.


 
That sounds like a lot of hard work. Can't we just keep calling Nick Clegg a cunt?


----------



## dennisr (Nov 26, 2010)

Fruitloop said:


> One thing with the 21 grand repayment limit as well (beside the fact that it is being touted as more generous than the current limit or 15 grand, which let's not forget was 23 grand when it was introduced - wedge strategy anyone?) is that it is likely to be more imposing the lower your salary gradient. So if you get a job that starts at 30k when you graduate and quickly rises to 50k, then you're in a different situation to someone who might only start earning national average wage in their 30s, when they might well have kids and it will be seriously inconvenient to start paying back student loans.


 
The average student will pay at least £15 a week for 30 years to pay off their debts under the government’s proposal. This at a time when bankers have made an additional £7 billion in bonuses! In the theoretically ‘state-owned’ Lloyds Bank, the chief executive officer gets £8 million a year! Through ending the educational maintenance allowance (EMA), £30 a week will be taken from 16-18-year-olds – £1,560 a year!


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Obviously no democratic party would enter into a coalition with the BNP.


 
Just on this point. What makes you think that the BNP aren't a democratic party? They don't openly advocate a fascist state, have a street gang of thugs or break the law in anything they say, do they? They don't even say that everyone who isn't white or "european" should be deported, the most they say IIRC is that immigrants should be given economic incentives to leave the country. Which is what some people in the tories have talked about anyway - and remember Clegg talking about pass systems for immigrants etc?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 26, 2010)

dennisr said:


> The average student will pay at least £15 a week for 30 years to pay off their debts under the government’s proposal. This at a time when bankers have made an additional £7 billion in bonuses! In the theoretically ‘state-owned’ Lloyds Bank, the chief executive officer gets £8 million a year!* Through ending the educational maintenance allowance (EMA), £30 a week will be taken from 16-18-year-olds – £1,560 a year!*


 
in hostels etc that 30 quid is often the only thing keeping 16-18 year olds in FE- even then the prospect of minimum wage is more attractive ime. Sigh.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 26, 2010)

I was quite heartended by the tenacious nature of the protesters. I arrived just before that van was attacked. As for it being an old rusty model, this is bollocks. its a Mercedes Sprinter with a Euro 4 engine, well modern ( I am a bit of a geek on vans and buses). The kettle was properly breached on three occasions on the West side of Whitehall. This was very encouraging, the police were just swept aside by the sheer weight of numbers. The energy of the protesters was brilliant. Tory scum, up your bum!


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The underlying question is about whether the Tories have more of a democratic legitimacy within government than the Lib Dems. .


No it fucking isn't, it's about whether there is a mandate for the cuts that are being implemented, _and there isn't._ 
Your party and their coalition partners have deceived the British people - full stop.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

if anyone wants to read it, my (slightly edited it seems!) report of the occupations is on the SP website here (scroll down to near the end)

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/10675/25-11-2010/student-walkouts-on-24-november


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

chilango said:


> The Italian Liberal Party _merged_ with the fascist Italian Social Movement in 1995.
> 
> But it could never happen here, could it?


 
Didn't Russia have a Liberal Party led by a raving right-wing loony? Anyone can use the name Liberal.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The underlying question is about whether the Tories have more of a democratic legitimacy within government than the Lib Dems. Sadly more people voted for them so they have. This being the case we can expect often Tory policy will have a larger influence than coalition policy.


absolute crap; practically everywhere else that has coalition govts sees the smaller party hold the bigger one to ransom, at least in the negotiations. _That's how it works_. Your leadership didn't because they actually share the same neolib agenda with the tories; they both wanted to shaft the poor.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Just on this point. What makes you think that the BNP aren't a democratic party? They don't openly advocate a fascist state, have a street gang of thugs or break the law in anything they say, do they? They don't even say that everyone who isn't white or "european" should be deported, the most they say IIRC is that immigrants should be given economic incentives to leave the country. Which is what some people in the tories have talked about anyway - and remember Clegg talking about pass systems for immigrants etc?


 
There's something new. The Left-wing using the BNP to attack the LibDems.


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Didn't Russia have a Liberal Party led by a raving right-wing loony? Anyone can use the name Liberal.


 
indeed they can. hence the British political party, The Liberal Democrats.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

killer b said:


> indeed they can. hence the British political party, The Liberal Democrats.


 
All Liberals are obviously the same no matter where they come from. Really?


----------



## chilango (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Didn't Russia have a Liberal Party led by a raving right-wing loony? Anyone can use the name Liberal.


 
True. But the Italian Liberals weren't a too dissimilar beast to the modern Lib Dems



> After Valerio Zanone took over in 1976, the party moved to the centre. The new secretary opened to the Socialists, hoping to put in action a sort of Lib-Lab cooperation, similar to that experimented in the United Kingdom from 1977 to 1979 between Labour and Liberals.
> In 1983 the PLI finally entered in the government coalition with the Christian Democracy (DC), the Socialist Party (PSI), and the smaller Italian Democratic Socialist Party (PSDI) and Italian Republican Party (PRI); the coalition was dubbed for a long time pentapartito, or "five-parties". In the 1980s, the party was also led by Renato Altissimo and Alfredo Biondi.



UK Lib Dems



> International affiliation	Liberal International
> European affiliation	European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party



Italian Liberals



> International affiliation	Liberal International
> European affiliation	European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party


----------



## killer b (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> All Liberals are obviously the same no matter where they come from. Really?


 that wasn't what i said, you prick.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> There's something new. The Left-wing using the BNP to attack the LibDems.


 
I think describing the BNP as "Nazi" etc when it bears no resemblance to the electoral strategy the BNP are now using on the ground (and has no bearing over the fact that mainstream parties are adopting policies formerly favoured by the BNP) is something to "attack" neo-liberal parties over, yes.


----------



## chilango (Nov 26, 2010)

So the Italian Liberal party, which was part of the same International and same European Party as the Liberal Democrats and had previously been in coalition with the centre left, _merged_ in 1995 with the MSI, the fascist inheritors of Mussolini's legacy.

(sorry for the de-rail)


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

The BNP is a Fascist Party and that is, for me, the same as Nazi.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> The BNP is a Fascist Party and that is, for me, the same as Nazi.


 
That's a stupid thing to say on so many levels.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

That's easy for you to say.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 26, 2010)

LOL Pretty fucking funny what the first bit of paper says.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> The BNP is a Fascist Party and that is, for me, the same as Nazi.


 
That's not historically accurate.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

chilango said:


> So the Italian Liberal party, which was part of the same International and same European Party as the Liberal Democrats and had previously been in coalition with the centre left, _merged_ in 1995 with the MSI, the fascist inheritors of Mussolini's legacy.
> 
> (sorry for the de-rail)


 
Wow interesting, i never knew this (and it would be interesting to write about as i want to do a post or an article or something at some stage on the topic of "liberalism" and its relationship to fascism). Have a link about this?


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i think you mean holocaust.



More of your pedantry gone wrong, the Holocaust was a Genocide.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> That's not historically accurate.


 
I know about the differences between the Fascists and the Nazis. It is their similarity I am commenting on.


----------



## dylans (Nov 26, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> LOL Pretty fucking funny what the first bit of paper says.




hahahahah. Lib dems should be tied to a chair and forced to watch that until they die.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

I wonder what eno thinks now?

(brilliantly apt title though - _An Ending (Ascent)_)


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

What the hell is that choir music reminiscent of 28 days later doing in the background?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> What the hell is that choir music reminiscent of 28 days later doing in the background?


 
That one of the most beautiful pieces of music ever made - it's An Ending (Ascent) by lib-dem supporter Brian Eno.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

Yes the Lib Dems will join the BNP of course, and we would help Nazi to kill Jews too for a minsterial car- Honestly grow up this is a pathetic.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder what eno thinks now?
> 
> (brilliantly apt title though - _An Ending (Ascent)_)


 
It's a shame one of my favourite pieces of music got used on this shite but it's very appropriate.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> That one of the most beautiful pieces of music ever made - it's An Ending (Ascent) by lib-dem supporter Brian Eno.


 
Ah OK, I didn't get to listen to it properly (I was right - it was in n28 days later i think!) I'm going to have to listen to it properly without that twat drowning it out!! 

Poor eno


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes the Lib Dems will join the BNP of course, and we would help Nazi to kill Jews too for a minsterial car- Honestly grow up this is a pathetic.


 
What's your response to BA's excellent post about there being absolutely nothing about raising of fees in the coalition agreement and there actually be provisions for lib dem MPs to abstain?


----------



## dylans (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes the Lib Dems will join the BNP of course, and we would help Nazi to kill Jews too for a minsterial car- Honestly grow up this is a pathetic.


 
Of course not. That would be silly. They will just hold Camerons coat tails while he drives us all back to the workhouse and the soup kitchen. But hey they will provide cushions.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

dylans said:


> while he drives us all back to the workhouse and the soup kitchen.


 
People worry about the exact meaning of the word "most" while accepting this sort of bullshit without question.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

Listening to it now - it is good.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> There's something new. The Left-wing using the BNP to attack the LibDems.


except she's not, is she, she's pointing out that Moon23, not for the first time, has got his facts wrong and his talking shite


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> The BNP is a Fascist Party and that is, for me, the same as Nazi.


actually, they're more like the French FN: far-right, ultra-nationalist, xenophobic, racist, but not fascist


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

The Freedom Party in Holland doesn't call itself Fascist as Wilders knows that the Dutch still remember the Occupation. But Fascist is what they are or will be as soon as they gain any power.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes the Lib Dems will join the BNP of course, and we would help Nazi to kill Jews too for a minsterial car- Honestly grow up this is a pathetic.


 
Indeed it is. But it's also the logical conclusion to the argument you are presenting.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Yes the Lib Dems will join the BNP of course, and we would help Nazi to kill Jews too for a minsterial car- Honestly grow up this is a pathetic.


 
i don't think the bnp would admit former lib dems - they do have some standards, you know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> That's easy for you to say.


 
because it's true.

every time you start posting on a thread you embarrass yourself. you show yourself to be thick as pigshit. why do you bother?


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> why do you bother?


 
Because I have the right to disagree with you.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> People worry about the exact meaning of the word "most" while accepting this sort of bullshit without question.


actually, there's exaggeration here, but the fundamental thrust is correct; this is an all-out attack on the welfare state and the social contract that dwarfs anything thatcher ever tried


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Because I have the right to disagree with you.


 
yes. and you have the right to make yourself look stupid and embarrass yourself. but i don't know why you choose to appear thick as pigshit and witless with it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> No. but most people did vote for them.



Not true. Most people voted either Labour, Lib Dem, SNP or PC.


----------



## nino_savatte (Nov 26, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> actually, they're more like the French FN: far-right, ultra-nationalist, xenophobic, racist, but not fascist



Yep, that's where I'd put them. Now the old NF, they were Nazis.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> The Freedom Party in Holland doesn't call itself Fascist as Wilders knows that the Dutch still remember the Occupation. But Fascist is what they are or will be as soon as they gain any power.


 
IMO this is also true of the BNP.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 26, 2010)

Does this L&L character do anything other than spam spurious crap all over otherwise decent threads?


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

Just because I'm not agreed with is not enough reason for me to play dumb.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think the bnp would admit former lib dems - they do have some standards, you know.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 26, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> LOL Pretty fucking funny what the first bit of paper says.



 Wow, that does spectacularly underline what a cunt he is.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 26, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> actually, they're more like the French FN: far-right, ultra-nationalist, xenophobic, racist, but not fascist


 
Searchlight are now going after other fascists as well - turning their guns on Islamic extremism. http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/1029/Tone-down-the-shrill and http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/1028/Extremism-breeds-extremism


----------



## moon23 (Nov 26, 2010)

SpineyNorman said:


> Indeed it is. But it's also the logical conclusion to the argument you are presenting.


 
It's only the logic conclusion if you assume that there are no moral boundaries as to what you will barter with the opposition.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Does this L&L character do anything other than spam spurious crap all over otherwise decent threads?


 
no.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

Neither of them articles does that.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> A lot of people _do_ want the ongoing protests to become violent though.


 
well quite, and some of the school kids fought fiercely

they'll be back, hungry for revenge and better prepared next time


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> no.


 
I have to laugh when I see you saying that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's only the logic conclusion if you assume that there are no moral boundaries as to what you will barter with the opposition.


 
but the lib dems show every day that they know no moral boundaries.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

Yeah. Gengis Khan was just a kitten compared to Nick Clegg.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Yeah. Gengis Khan was just a kitten compared to Nick Clegg.


 
no improvement in your spelling. you should go back to school.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's only the logic conclusion if you assume that there are no moral boundaries as to what you will barter with the opposition.


 
Now that you're back can you deal with my post above where i demonstrate that the coalition agreement does not commit you to supporting higher tuition fees but actually expressly provides space for you not to do so?


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> People worry about the exact meaning of the word "most" while accepting this sort of bullshit without question.


 
Why is that so stupid? In America some people in paid jobs are reliant on soup kitchens etc so I don't think it's so impossible for it to happen here.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Why is that so stupid? In America some people in paid jobs are reliant on soup kitchens etc so I don't think it's so impossible for it to happen here.


 There was a report about university students reliant on soup kitchens in the US that i read a few days ago.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's only the logic conclusion if you assume that there are no moral boundaries as to what you will barter with the opposition.


 
You've not exactly been forthcoming in letting us know what these boundaries are though have you? Clearly out and out lies are not beyond the pale. Where, exactly, do you draw the line? I thought the abolition of fees and PR were supposed to be non-negotiable? What reason do we have to believe you have any morals or principles at all? Why is it necessary, in order to uphold democratic principles, to submit to the Tory policies, but not those of the BNP? You've been arguing that these frankly bizarre "principles" should be followed even if it means voting through a policy to which you are opposed in principle. Why, in that case, would you not go into coalition with them?

If these made up "rules" of coalition apply they should apply to all. A little consistency please.


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> There was a report about university students reliant on soup kitchens in the US that i read a few days ago.


 
I could have done with a soup kitchen when I was a student, not kidding either! At least I wasn't saddled with millions of pounds of debts though.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Why is that so stupid? In America some people in paid jobs are reliant on soup kitchens etc so I don't think it's so impossible for it to happen here.


 
But do you really think that even the Tories would contemplate a return to the workhouses? How can you imagine that the leaders of the Tory Party could be so stupid?


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> But do you really think that even the Tories would contemplate a return to the workhouses? How can you imagine that the leaders of the Tory Party could be so stupid?


 
They don't need to they'll give some 21st century spin glossy term. tbh I think workfare is a bit more like the system they had _prior_ to workhouses where they gave people a pittance and made them work outdoors.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> But do you really think that even the Tories would contemplate a return to the workhouses? How can you imagine that the leaders of the Tory Party could be so stupid?


 
yes; very easily.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> They don't need to they'll give some 21st century spin glossy term. tbh I think workfare is a bit more like the system they had _prior_ to workhouses where they gave people a pittance and made them work outdoors.


 
When workhouses were acceptable to the electorate it was only because of the lack of empowerment of MOST people that allowed them to be. More than a century later no political party can afford to return to anything remotely similar to workhouses.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> When workhouses were acceptable to the electorate it was only because of the lack of empowerment of MOST people that allowed them to be. More than a century later no political party can afford to return to anything remotely similar to workhouses.


 
cameron already knows he only has the one term.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> cameron already knows he only has the one term.


 
Depends if Ed is 'tempted' to actually bother in 4 1/2 years time.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> cameron already knows he only has the one term.


 
He knows no such thing.


----------



## dennisr (Nov 26, 2010)

That van..... no need to worry Heiko Khoo is on the case:
http://www.speakerscorner.net/policetricks


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> When workhouses were acceptable to the electorate it was only because of the lack of empowerment of MOST people that allowed them to be. More than a century later no political party can afford to return to anything remotely similar to workhouses.


 Believe me if they made it sound fluffy enough they would vote for it. Well some people would, obv the tories can't even seem to command a majority at a time it was popularly supposed that everyone hated Gordon Brown with a passion (not entirely true).


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Nov 26, 2010)

Balbi said:


> Depends if Ed is 'tempted' to actually bother in 4 1/2 years time.


 
Reading http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/26/ed-miliband-britain-squeezed-middle makes interesting reading - how long will the policy reviews take and will they distract Labour from opposing the cuts?


----------



## ymu (Nov 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Now that you're back can you deal with my post above where i demonstrate that the coalition agreement does not commit you to supporting higher tuition fees but actually expressly provides space for you not to do so?


I'd like to see an answer to this too moon. Ta.


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 26, 2010)

account of how the police swept trafalgar square and whitehall, gathering up even more people to add to the kettled proteat at the other end of whitehall!

http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/6119


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Believe me if they made it sound fluffy enough they would vote for it.


 
That'll take some spin-doctor. It can't be easy to make workhouses sound fluffy.


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> That'll take some spin-doctor. It can't be easy to make workhouses sound fluffy.


 
You'd think so? They had redesignated job centre staff as "wellbeing advisors". All the politicians talk earnestly of the 'culture of worklessness' not "we have a lot of unemployment". I imagine they'd call them "work focused areas" or some such and they'd be all shiny and new.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

Perhaps you should take another look at what workhouses actually meant when they still existed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> account of how the police swept trafalgar square and whitehall, gathering up even more people to add to the kettled proteat at the other end of whitehall!
> 
> http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/6119


 
they did something similar in the evening, but people who looked like citizens were able to get past their sweep.


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> they did something similar in the evening, but people who looked like citizens were able to get past their sweep.


 
I remember this one, as I escaped over the MoD fences with a load of kids.


----------



## ddraig (Nov 26, 2010)

dennisr said:


> That van..... no need to worry Heiko Khoo is on the case:
> http://www.speakerscorner.net/policetricks


 loving that
fair play!
and all the video posted, thanks


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 26, 2010)

and guess what? Clegg's really wobbling now!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> I remember this one, as I escaped over the MoD fences with a load of kids.


 
no, it was after that. it was 6.30-7pm


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> and guess what? Clegg's really wobbling now!


 
he's going to get a fucking kicking if he doesn't wobble the right way.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> and guess what? Clegg's really wobbling now!


 
Ha! Ha! 

For anyone who doesn't click on links, here a pathetic piece of attempted manipulation and desperate face-saving




> *Clegg refuses to say if he will abstain on tuition fees*
> 
> 
> Newspaper reports suggested that Mr Clegg and Business Secretary Vince Cable may be preparing to abstain in the vote - due before Christmas - in order to hold the parliamentary party together.



And moon, he's made a total mockery of your claims that your party have been compelled to support the rise due to the coalition agreement.


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 26, 2010)

That Police Aware sticker on 'the van' looks like it's been on for quite a while...?












http://www.sumpter.org.uk/?p=300


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> He knows no such thing.


 
you really are full of fucking shit, like a bottomless midden which has managed to overflow.

this from the telegraph of 25/6:





> Speaking in Toronto at a G8 summit, Mr Cameron said he was prepared to be a one-term prime minister rather than back down on his wider agenda of shrinking the state and decentralising government power.



do you think that 23.5% of the population are going to say, yes, we like what you've done, let's have another five years of it? i fucking think not.


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> no, it was after that. it was 6.30-7pm


 
Sorry.  I meant I remembered the one in the article I posted.  Didn't know anything about the other one, but I did hear some people had been attacking buses after being released later on.  And a friend said she was pushed off her bike by protesters in the Strand on the way home from work.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> do you think that 23.5% of the population are going to say, yes, we like what you've done, let's have another five years of it? i fucking think not.


 
Just as with the LibDems, the Tories will be judged on the full five years. (If they make it, of course)


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> and guess what? Clegg's really wobbling now!


 
What's even better, they think people are too thick to work out what's going on - abstaining will make it _even easier_ to pass.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 26, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> I remember this one, as I escaped over the MoD fences with a load of kids.


 
me too, thats how i broke my foot


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 26, 2010)

As far as I know Cabinet Ministers can't vote against government measures without destroying what is known as Cabinet Responsiblity.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

Of course they can vote against what collective responsibility dictates should happen - CR is totally customary. The tories are happy to buy off the lib-dems and the lib-dems are happy to be bought off. Or at least pretend so to get a breathing space before next tuesday. It means nothing now we're into the new politics of coalition govt. Both tories and lib-dems have to make compromises, the coalition agreement allows for it etc


----------



## spliff (Nov 26, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> That Police Aware sticker on 'the van' looks like it's been on for quite a while...?


It would be interesting to see some CCTV footage from earlier in the day to discover how the van actually got there.


----------



## dylans (Nov 26, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Perhaps you should take another look at what workhouses actually meant when they still existed.


 
I know exactly what they meant. They meant blaming the poor for their own poverty. Exactly the language that is being peddled now.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Nov 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What's even better, they think people are too thick to work out what's going on - abstaining will make it _even easier_ to pass.


 
Not wanting to sound thick but how does that work? You mean abstaining rather than voting against?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

Threshers_Flail said:


> Not wanting to sound thick but how does that work? You mean abstaining rather than voting against?


 
Yep



> Given that there are five Sinn Fein MPs who do not sit in Parliament, a majority of 323 is required to pass legislation if every MP votes. With 307 MPs, the Tories fall short and require the support of at least 16 Lib Dem MPs. But if every one of the 57 Lib Dem abstains, the required majority falls to 294 and the Conservatives can pass the legislation on their own.


----------



## chilango (Nov 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Yep


 
sneaky bastards!


----------



## spliff (Nov 26, 2010)

If the Lib-Dems don't vote against they can wave goodbye to any last vestige of credibility they might still have. 
Another 97 years in the wilderness.
They should have collapsed this coalition just after 500,000 public sector job losses were announced.
They've possibly left it too late now.

IMHO


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 26, 2010)

The news is saying clegg might allow abstention- this is because he fears an outright rebellion is it?


----------



## pk (Nov 26, 2010)

Top Cat says it's a modern Sprinter, that sticker looks old and unless it's dodgy lighting the rubber seal on the screen is hiding rust... can we establish whether that van was a sacrificial lamb for the tabloids??

Do we need a separate thread with moar pics?

I was sold on the "old van" theory until TC reported in... any chance it could have been faked to look like a more modern model??


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What's even better, they think people are too thick to work out what's going on - abstaining will make it _even easier_ to pass.


ah yes, just done the maffs. (645 - 57) /2 = 294. speaker supports govt in event of tie. They'll easily get that.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 26, 2010)

pk said:


> Top Cat says it's a modern Sprinter, that sticker looks old and unless it's dodgy lighting the rubber seal on the screen is hiding rust... can we establish whether that van was a sacrificial lamb for the tabloids??


few pages back in thread, dennisr put up a link which more or less did that. about 4 pages back I think, gimme a few mins.
e2a: PK, see post #812, actually only one page before this


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 26, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> The news is saying clegg might allow abstention-


I know, I posted that on the previous page! 



> this is because he fears an outright rebellion is it?


partly - but mainly cos the LDs look so stunningly bad over this


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

but abstinence from the vote on tuition fees will make it easier for it to be passed. 

what if lib dem mps ignore clegg's advice and vote against anyway - can they do that?


----------



## ddraig (Nov 26, 2010)

"Appropriate, proportionate and they were trotting"
met response to proof of horse charging at demo on ch4 just now
bit of footage


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> but abstinence from the vote on tuition fees will make it easier for it to be passed.
> 
> what if lib dem mps ignore clegg's advice and vote against anyway - can they do that?


 
I'm pretty sure they can you know- but not toeing the party line can lead to you being sodded off out of it. Unless so many of them do it that it is clegg who is sodded off out of it. Like a vote of total no confidence. I think.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 26, 2010)

also whichever roach from labour it was saying he would like to talk/endorse the protesters. STFU and do it then instead of grabbing a popularist stance by just hedging.


----------



## spliff (Nov 26, 2010)

ddraig said:


> "Appropriate, proportionate and they were trotting"
> met response to proof of horse charging at demo on ch4 just now
> bit of footage


 
_They kept their sabres sheathed_


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 26, 2010)

fucking cossacks


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 26, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm pretty sure they can you know- but not toeing the party line can lead to you being sodded off out of it. Unless so many of them do it that it is clegg who is sodded off out of it. Like a vote of total no confidence. I think.


 
Would the dear leader excommunicate someone for not toeing the line on tuition fees - is it seen as that important?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 26, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> also whichever roach from labour it was saying he would like to talk/endorse the protesters. STFU and do it then instead of grabbing a popularist stance by just hedging.


 
 David Winnick said he supported them in the commons (called them 'marvelous') and refused to take it back when asked to. Miliband said he considered talking to them but ended up "doing something else"


----------



## spliff (Nov 26, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> few pages back in thread, dennisr put up a link which more or less did that. about 4 pages back I think, gimme a few mins.
> e2a: PK, see post #812, actually only one page before this


If you look at the first clip on the link

You can see live footage of the police preventing the march from continuing whilst the van is being daubed with spray paint.
So their prevention of the march was not a reaction, it was planned aforethought.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 26, 2010)

Thats right, it was millipede I was thinking of. Fair play on winnet.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Would the dear leader excommunicate someone for not toeing the line on tuition fees - is it seen as that important?


 
Does he have the bodies to spare? I think no, hence the 'i might let you abstain' idea floated.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> but abstinence from the vote on tuition fees will make it easier for it to be passed.
> 
> what if lib dem mps ignore clegg's advice and vote against anyway - can they do that?


backbenchers yes, tho I'd imagine their cards will be marked for the future. Ministers - I think that would have to be a resignation situation.
thekey point here is that abstinence, from the govt pov is better than an outright rebellion. 
However, the other point here is that at least 3 MPs  who are gonna be under massive constituency pressue over this are also ministers; Cable, Teather and Featherstone


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 26, 2010)

ddraig said:


> "Appropriate, proportionate and they were trotting"


speaking as a competent and experienced horseman myself, I can say right now a trotting horse is still a fucking scary thing to have coming at you!


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Would the dear leader excommunicate someone for not toeing the line on tuition fees - is it seen as that important?


he's too vulnerable over this


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 26, 2010)

if the abstain vote is a 'here, a sop for your constituents' thing from clegg then it is shitty politicing and seems to me to underestimate the intelligence of the voters.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 26, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> backbenchers yes, tho I'd imagine their cards will be marked for the future. Ministers - I think that would have to be a resignation situation.
> thekey point here is that abstinence, from the govt pov is better than an outright rebellion.
> However, the other point here is that at least 3 MPs  who are gonna be under massive constituency pressue over this are also ministers; Cable, Teather and Featherstone


 
Don't forget Clegg himself. The student vote is big enough in Hallam to swing it from a safe Lib Dem seat to an embarrassing loss.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 26, 2010)

SpineyNorman said:


> Don't forget Clegg himself. The student vote is big enough in Hallam to swing it from a safe Lib Dem seat to an embarrassing loss.


oh fuck I did forget him too!
 at self
HUGE student vote in Hallam


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 26, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> if the abstain vote is a 'here, a sop for your constituents' thing from clegg then it is shitty politicing and seems to me to underestimate the intelligence of the voters.


continuing with the pattern started on day 1 of the coalition then!


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 26, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> continuing with the pattern started on day 1 of the coalition then!


 
I've been 'jousting' political talk with a local club owner recently- Once I'd got her over the 'but labour' stuff and pointed out how the libs have basically sold out she acceded that she might have well voted tory. The downside is that she admitted to voting out of self interest and next time plans to go blue. 

Goddamit.


----------



## where to (Nov 26, 2010)

> DAVID CAMERON RUINED MY DREAM


----------



## weepiper (Nov 26, 2010)




----------



## where to (Nov 26, 2010)

Sky News blogger:  Police van - Bait or Balls Up??

http://blogs.news.sky.com/frontlineblog/Post:25a1d1f5-a371-4130-abab-bbeb70b3cb98


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 26, 2010)

where to said:


> Sky News blogger:  Police van - Bait or Balls Up??
> 
> http://blogs.news.sky.com/frontlineblog/Post:25a1d1f5-a371-4130-abab-bbeb70b3cb98


wow


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 26, 2010)

vice mag's riot porn: http://www.vbs.tv/watch/vbs-news/vbs-news-teenage-riot


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 26, 2010)

where to said:


> Sky News blogger:  Police van - Bait or Balls Up??
> 
> http://blogs.news.sky.com/frontlineblog/Post:25a1d1f5-a371-4130-abab-bbeb70b3cb98


 
Can't see the vid but the copy was clear enough.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 26, 2010)

Anyone know the musician in this?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 26, 2010)

Also in the video above the smirking copper at 09:15. I encourage you to watch it just for that.


----------



## Nylock (Nov 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> John, Gill and Harry each stood for election,
> 
> *Part 1*
> 40 people were eligible to vote:
> ...



Fixed it for you. 

How fucking patronising are you?


----------



## where to (Nov 26, 2010)

Bournemouth



ferrelhadley said:


> Anyone know the musician in this?


 
He's called Lowkey.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 26, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Anyone know the musician in this?


 

No, because it's set to private....


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 27, 2010)

FridgeMagnet said:


> No, because it's set to private....


Sorry about that it has changed in the past half hour. 

I am assuming *whereto *seen it.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 27, 2010)

Video here
http://www.thegabber.org/?p=112444


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 27, 2010)

moon23 said:


> More of your pedantry gone wrong, the Holocaust was a Genocide.


 
Absolutely. And in further news, Gateaux is a cake. But nobody refers to it as "the cake" and expect anyone to know what the fuck they mean.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2010)

where to said:


> Bournemouth
> 
> 
> 
> He's called Lowkey.


 
 He's fantastic, check out his stuff with finklestein.


----------



## paolo (Nov 27, 2010)

where to said:


> He's called Lowkey.


 
He came across very well.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 27, 2010)

pk said:


> ... can we establish whether that van was a sacrificial lamb for the tabloids??



I hope so because the Wail are pushing the notion that officers had to flee from it when it was 'overwhelmed' by kids. 




			
				DM said:
			
		

> But the most disturbing scenes were in London where a largely peaceful demonstration descended into violence. The trigger was a police riot van that had trailed protesters into Whitehall – and stopped between the Houses of Parliament and Downing Street.
> 
> Police said the van had been following protesters to gather intelligence about where they were heading, but the vehicle was quickly overwhelmed.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...reets-girls-leading-charge.html#ixzz16RMe8UgB


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 27, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> I hope so because the Wail are pushing the notion that officers had to flee from it when it was 'overwhelmed' by kids.


Here is the official police statement about the van



> The van was following the crowd to determine which direction they might take. In a very short space of time, protesters surrounded the van. The officers felt vulnerable and decided the best course of action was to leave the van.


Sky News on the ground cameras show it already parked up with non threatening protests walking past it, it was not following the protest and it was not threatened. So the story of the van is falling appart quickly. The story of 'no police horse charges' is in tatters together with a very emotive video of police horses attacking pregenant women and injured juveniles. The story of the decision making process around implementing the kettle is falling appart. There is now clear video evidence of very young people forced to remain in the kettle inspite of having ID identifying their age but not allowed out because they had no uniforms on inspite of no food and and very cold conditions. We have a video of a disabled person, possibly with cerebal palsy in the kettle at night when there is no concievable reason to keep him there. There is even video of very young people being rounded up at McDonalds Trafalgar Sq and hearded into the kettle.

Its all there for the story to blow open. 

It just needs momentum.


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 27, 2010)

ferrelhadley said:


> Here is the official police statement about the van
> 
> 
> 
> > The van was following the crowd to determine which direction they might take. In a very short space of time, protesters surrounded the van. The officers felt vulnerable and decided the best course of action was to leave the van.



Well that's weird innit.  I wonder what that bloody helicopter was upto if they were reliant on following in a van to find out what way they would go...  I swear they said on the news that the helicopter was quite useful later for strengthening police lines where the crowd was stretching them, so you'd think it would be quite useful to tell what way a huge crowd of people went.


----------



## ymu (Nov 27, 2010)

I do hope they keep digging a nice deep hole on this. If even Sky News are questioning it, and asking people to send in footage to help clarify what happened, this could blow up nicely.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 27, 2010)

the video clip showing the horses at Whitehall posted further up (with the pregnant girl), it shows horses charging over the far side of the street, is there any footage from that area?


----------



## spliff (Nov 27, 2010)

where to said:


> Its all there for the story to blow open.
> 
> It just needs momentum.



I'm hoping there are some very angry parents disgusted at the way their children have been treated.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Nov 27, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> Well that's weird innit.  I wonder what that bloody helicopter was upto if they were reliant on following in a van to find out what way they would go...  I swear they said on the news that the helicopter was quite useful later for strengthening police lines where the crowd was stretching them, so you'd think it would be quite useful to tell what way a huge crowd of people went.


In theory they could claim there was a seriel inside following as reserve incase they were needed, but the did not. 'to determine which diraction they might take'. Jesus the whole thing with the van was just bloody stupid. If the van had a mechanical fault or was parked up and not moved quick enough its a 'tut tut' from most of the press and 'well one van down but no harm done'. But if that is what happened and they lied then even elements of the establishment will think something fishy was underway, they are fucking coppers they know from being on the beat when one lie is uncovered your suspicion levels sky rocket. I really cannot descide what was stupider, to leave a bait vehicle or to lie about a cock up where you parked. 

There was a smoke grenade near the vehicle at one point but that was after it was parked and I cant remember seeing any fleeing coppers, but when do you dismount an armoured personel carrier (ok not a real APC but good enough for public order situations) unless its being targetted by anti tank weapons?

The level or incompetance to create the gap between what was observed and police statements in an era of widepread cameras is frankly mental. Something pretty spectacular has to come out to rescue the police reputation here. 

We will have to see how this pans out, its still touch and go if the story gets legs behind it.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 27, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Would the dear leader excommunicate someone for not toeing the line on tuition fees - is it seen as that important?


 
Are you aware that the LibDems are not run like an Eastern European Communist Party?


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 27, 2010)

DotCommunist said:


> if the abstain vote is a 'here, a sop for your constituents' thing from clegg then it is shitty politicing and seems to me to underestimate the intelligence of the voters.


 
Everyone seems to have forgotten how Blair played with the voters. Of course he wasn't the first to do that.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 27, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Absolutely. And in further news, Gateaux is a cake. But nobody refers to it as "the cake" and expect anyone to know what the fuck they mean.


 
You really think that mention of Nazis and genocide don't make you think of the Holocaust. 

When are the posters on Urban going to start being a bit honest?


----------



## spliff (Nov 27, 2010)

Everyone seems to have forgotten the multi quote option

Everyone seems to confuse Eastern Europe with North Korea


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 27, 2010)

This video says it was taken as the protesters were stopped in Whitehall.

It pans around at the end and I can't see the white van in the crowd.


----------



## spliff (Nov 27, 2010)

Doesn't really tell us much about the van.
That's what's interesting me at the moment. 
Any stills showing the number plate would be good. 
DVLA records could tell us about its status.
That 'Police Aware' sticker looked quite old.


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 27, 2010)

spliff said:


> Doesn't really tell us much about the van.
> That's what's interesting me at the moment.
> Any stills showing the number plate would be good.
> DVLA records could tell us about its status.
> That 'Police Aware' sticker looked quite old.


 
Just wondering why I can't see it, because if it wasn't there when the march was surrounded, why drive it in?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 27, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Everyone seems to have forgotten how Blair played with the voters. Of course he wasn't the first to do that.


 
'but labour'


----------



## where to (Nov 27, 2010)

what this needs in an mp or similar (someone who'll get a reply) to write a formal letter to the MET (tax payers money what did you do to protect property, what happened etc) ...

anyone with a decent London mp who may take this on?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 27, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> You really think that mention of Nazis and genocide don't make you think of the Holocaust.
> 
> When are the posters on Urban going to start being a bit honest?


 
Of course it does. But he referred to it as 'the genocide' and he's alone in calling it such. 

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...s-24.11.10?p=11274670&viewfull=1#post11274670

Why do you think people call the attack on the twin towers "9/11" and not simply "the terrorist attack"?


----------



## cantsin (Nov 27, 2010)

sunnysidedown said:


> vice mag's riot porn: http://www.vbs.tv/watch/vbs-news/vbs-news-teenage-riot


 
Loving Claire Solomun at 1.31 howling "IM IN CONTROL HERE " .....- you can take the daft trot out of the SWP, but....


----------



## moon23 (Nov 27, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> First off, no it's not binding - it's purely and solely conventional.
> 
> Secondly, *there is no mention whatsoever of agreeing to support a rise in university tuition fees in the coalition agreement.*.



There is mention that both parties will pay serious attention to the Browne review that was commissioned by Labour, that’s what the party has done in view of the current economic situation and the principles for consideration set out in the agreement. The latest is that the parliamentary party is still continuing to debate the proposals and whether to abstain or not. I suspect quite a few Lib Dem MPs will abstain. Quite possibly the protests are having the desired affect and making some politicians re-consider.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 27, 2010)

Abstentions are an empty gesture.


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2010)

abstentions in this case are identical to voting for.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 27, 2010)

Citizen66 said:


> Absolutely. And in further news, Gateaux is a cake. But nobody refers to it as "the cake" and expect anyone to know what the fuck they mean.


 
There are lot's of cakes, but not many Nazi Genocides. I would like to also point out that since the 18th century Holocaust has been used to refer to the violent deaths of a large number of people, it is not restricted to a specific event in history as you assume it is. Now can we please get back on topic.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 27, 2010)

stephj said:


> Abstentions are an empty gesture.


 
They are what is allowed under the coalition agreement.


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2010)

fuck the agreement. and fuck you.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 27, 2010)

Face it moon, you and your scumbag mates are in favour of this.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 27, 2010)

moon23 said:


> They are what is allowed under the coalition agreement.


 
It won't wash with students. Besides, abstaining will mean that the Tories can just go right ahead without the Lib Dems. Doesn't sound much like a coalition.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 27, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> Face it moon, you and your scumbag mates are in favour of this.


 
I don't know many Lib Dems who are in favour of increased tuition fees. I think most are trying to do the best in a difficult situation in coalition with the Tories. I'm not however massively ideologically opposed to people paying for their own education if there was a progressive repayment system, however I take big issue with those who did have a free education shirking form their general taxation responsibilities towards HE.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 27, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't know many Lib Dems who are in favour of increased tution fees. I think most are trying to do the best in a difficult situation in coaltion with the Tories.


 
We'll see then if they have the backbone to vote against.


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2010)

the lib dems (l) trying to do their best in coalition with the tories (r)


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 27, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm not however massively ideologically opposed to people paying for their own education if there was a progressive repayment system, *however I take big issue with those who did have a free education shirking form their general taxation responsibilities towards HE.*



Right-wing libertarians everywhere: Constantly moaning about how much tax they have to pay and telling everyone else that they should expect to pay for their education, whilst having been those fortunate enough to benefit from a general taxation funded higher education system themselves with grants.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 27, 2010)

stephj said:


> Right-wing libertarians everywhere: Constantly moaning about how much tax they have to pay and telling everyone else that they should expect to pay for their education, whilst having been those fortunate enough to benefit from a general taxation funded higher education system themselves with grants.


 
They are happy for the state to fund police to protect private property too.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 27, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There is mention that both parties will pay serious attention to the Browne review that was commissioned by Labour, that’s what the party has done in view of the current economic situation and the principles for consideration set out in the agreement. The latest is that the parliamentary party is still continuing to debate the proposals and whether to abstain or not. I suspect quite a few Lib Dem MPs will abstain. Quite possibly the protests are having the desired affect and making some politicians re-consider.


 
Here's a novel idea, why don't you and your desperate for power bum chums grow a set of bollocks and vote against it you know? Like you said you would before the election?  Not only are you lot lying to the electorate and breaking your promises you're treating us like a bunch of fucking idiots.  You think that abstaining is the same as voting against and it's not, it will make the legislation easier to push through.

The truth is you're a bunch of spineless, lying, power hungry shit cunts who couldn't give a flying fuck about your voters now you're in power.  Watching you patronising and desperately trying to wriggle out of it with shouts of "Wah, wah, look at what we've proposed, it's fairer" makes me feel embarrassed for you.  We're not thick, we can see your patronising smug cunt of a leader and we can see that you're supporting the crippling of future generations with triple the amounts of debt.  All this "Ooh but you won't pay it back until you earn 21k" doesn't fucking wash you pillock.  Do you think a teacher, who earns either the same as or slightly more than that is thinking "Ooh aren't these lib dems wonderful" you're a fucking idiot if you do.

I, like many people between the ages of 18 and 30, voted for you clowns because of your tuition fees pledge, your opposition to VAT rises and commitment to scrap trident and you've lied, patronised and U turned on all 3.  So fuck you, fuck your party and fuck your coalition.  I will never be voting again and i'm really looking forward to you and your friends having their bollocks firmly nailed to the wall at the next election.


----------



## where to (Nov 27, 2010)

you can picture them doing the maths,how many can we afford to abstain without affecting the result?

people would have more respect if they just voted for it.


----------



## killer b (Nov 27, 2010)

where to said:


> you can picture them doing the maths,how many can we afford to abstain without affecting the result?


 
answer: all of them.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 27, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> All this "Ooh but you won't pay it back until you earn 21k" doesn't fucking wash you pillock.



Of course it doesn't. Who in their right mind wants to be saddled with repaying a mortgage-sized loan for the 'privilege' of earning 21k? If they set the threshold at a million p.a with the option to squirrel away funds like the lib-Tories do then it may well be worth someone's consideration.


----------



## dylans (Nov 28, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Here's a novel idea, why don't you and your desperate for power bum chums grow a set of bollocks and vote against it you know? Like you said you would before the election?  Not only are you lot lying to the electorate and breaking your promises you're treating us like a bunch of fucking idiots.  You think that abstaining is the same as voting against and it's not, it will make the legislation easier to push through.
> 
> The truth is you're a bunch of spineless, lying, power hungry shit cunts who couldn't give a flying fuck about your voters now you're in power.  Watching you patronising and desperately trying to wriggle out of it with shouts of "Wah, wah, look at what we've proposed, it's fairer" makes me feel embarrassed for you.  We're not thick, we can see your patronising smug cunt of a leader and we can see that you're supporting the crippling of future generations with triple the amounts of debt.  All this "Ooh but you won't pay it back until you earn 21k" doesn't fucking wash you pillock.  Do you think a teacher, who earns either the same as or slightly more than that is thinking "Ooh aren't these lib dems wonderful" you're a fucking idiot if you do.
> 
> I, like many people between the ages of 18 and 30, voted for you clowns because of your tuition fees pledge, your opposition to VAT rises and commitment to scrap trident and you've lied, patronised and U turned on all 3.  So fuck you, fuck your party and fuck your coalition.  I will never be voting again and i'm really looking forward to you and your friends having their bollocks firmly nailed to the wall at the next election.


 
Moon23. You should read that again and again and again. Because that is the truth.


----------



## Nylock (Nov 28, 2010)

Abstaining is a tacit vote for -and well you know it moon. 

The student loan repayments scheme as proposed is far from fucking progressive. Repaying the loan at COMMERCIAL interest rates as opposed to the current interest system is a MASSIVE disincentive for anyone to go to uni. 

If the libdems had ANY of that pious morality that clegg was emitting from every orifice before the election, they would vote AGAINST because if you lot think that this colossal betrayal (among the others committed) is going to be forgotten in 5 years time, you're wrong.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 28, 2010)

dylans said:


> Moon23. You should read that again and again and again. Because that is the truth.


 
I like to think that I have a pretty good grasp on politics, there are people on here far more knowledgeable than me and I learn a lot from them and have learnt a lot from reading and absorbing the works of people like Chomsky and Harvey this past year.  In reality though it's not terribly difficult to really see what's going on, all one really has to do is have a look at who certain policies benefit, and they always benefit the elite who run the country and own the corporations.

Reading moon's post I can only conclude that he's being willfully ignorant. He has to be because his posts are so far off the mark I actually feel myself losing a couple of IQ points when I read them.

Come on, moon, really?


----------



## Weller (Nov 28, 2010)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/28/student-protests-tuition-fees-clegg



> Nick Clegg getting a good kicking? Could anything be more joyous?





> What did he get for compromising so many of his party's principles? A referendum on a type of electoral reform that it never advocated. He should have held out for full PR or made the Tories govern as a minority. The political will was with him then. But he didn't sense it and he took the important-sounding job. He'll always be able to say he was once deputy prime minister. But the question he leaves unanswered is: "Why would anyone ever vote for the Liberal Democrats again?"





> If the Lib Dems cared half as much as they claimed, they'd welcome this movement. Instead, Nick Clegg wants the students to go home.



I quite like some of that one 

moon23 imo you will be one of those that knocks the doors rallying support and gain a few polite smiles then once the doors closed the people stare at each other in disbelief at what they have just witnessed it will put people off voting lib dem so I hope moon23 you put  overtime in if you are going to canvas in forthcoming elections
.
As there was no chance at all of labour getting in by us I switched my vote this time just hoping that it may stop a majority Tory government or at least if labour didnt win there would be a coalition that would consist of some lib dems that would stand up  for what they said they believed , they have nothing left to offer all trust will be gone especially if they abstain on this one , the public are not so stupid to buy that 

That and feeble excuses by "lib dems"  like Moon23 have removed any chance of me or my household ever voting lib dem again and locally that feeling is widespread , I personally am deeply embarrassed to say I voted Lib Dem


----------



## ymu (Nov 28, 2010)

Weller said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/28/student-protests-tuition-fees-clegg
> 
> I quite like some of that one


An unusually good article from Mitchell there. I'd stopped bothering with him after some of his recent efforts, but that's not bad at all.


----------



## spliff (Nov 28, 2010)

> The fact that more damage gets done to public property every day by people turning round quickly while holding something hot is irrelevant.


----------



## dylans (Nov 28, 2010)

Good Article here by Laurie Penny in the New Statesman

The Power of The Broken Pane
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2010/11/millbank-property-young-break


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 28, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't know many Lib Dems who are in favour of increased tuition fees. I think most are trying to do the best in a difficult situation in coalition with the Tories. I'm not however massively ideologically opposed to people paying for their own education if there was a progressive repayment system, however I take big issue with those who did have a free education shirking form their general taxation responsibilities towards HE.


 
So why don't the politicians vote they way the people who elected them want and expect?

(hint: because they're in favour of increased tuition fees)


----------



## ymu (Nov 28, 2010)

dylans said:


> Good Article here by Laurie Penny in the New Statesman
> 
> The Power of The Broken Pane
> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2010/11/millbank-property-young-break


 
Very good.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 28, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> Here's a novel idea, why don't you and your desperate for power bum chums grow a set of bollocks and vote against it you know? Like you said you would before the election?  Not only are you lot lying to the electorate and breaking your promises you're treating us like a bunch of fucking idiots.  You think that abstaining is the same as voting against and it's not, it will make the legislation easier to push through.
> 
> The truth is you're a bunch of spineless, lying, power hungry shit cunts who couldn't give a flying fuck about your voters now you're in power.  Watching you patronising and desperately trying to wriggle out of it with shouts of "Wah, wah, look at what we've proposed, it's fairer" makes me feel embarrassed for you.  We're not thick, we can see your patronising smug cunt of a leader and we can see that you're supporting the crippling of future generations with triple the amounts of debt.  All this "Ooh but you won't pay it back until you earn 21k" doesn't fucking wash you pillock.  Do you think a teacher, who earns either the same as or slightly more than that is thinking "Ooh aren't these lib dems wonderful" you're a fucking idiot if you do.
> 
> I, like many people between the ages of 18 and 30, voted for you clowns because of your tuition fees pledge, your opposition to VAT rises and commitment to scrap trident and you've lied, patronised and U turned on all 3.  So fuck you, fuck your party and fuck your coalition.  I will never be voting again and i'm really looking forward to you and your friends having their bollocks firmly nailed to the wall at the next election.


 
I'm now lobbying within the party for people to vote against the proposals having considered the strength of feeling.


----------



## ymu (Nov 28, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm now lobbying within the party for people to vote against the proposals having considered the strength of feeling.


 
Having considered the strength of feeling? Not because it was in your manifesto, backed up by solemn pledges?

Pfft.


----------



## magneze (Nov 28, 2010)

Has this been posted yet: http://nickclegg.me.uk


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There are lot's of cakes, but not many Nazi Genocides. I would like to also point out that since the 18th century Holocaust has been used to refer to the violent deaths of a large number of people, it is not restricted to a specific event in history as you assume it is. Now can we please get back on topic.


 
You've got the exact reverse of mainstream debate on a subject, as usual.
The word "Holocaust" (with a capitalised "H") *has* been taken to be restricted to a specific event in history for the last 65 years, rightly or wrongly.
"Genocide" is a word of relatively-modern coinage, and was *not* applied to the Holocaust until recently (the last 25-30 years) even in academic circles.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2010)

moon23 said:


> They are happy for the state to fund police to protect private property too.


 
Police aren't funded by the state, but mainly through a levy on local authorities through the Council Tax, plus a smaller amount of grant from the Home Office.


----------



## where to (Nov 28, 2010)

magneze said:


> Has this been posted yet: http://nickclegg.me.uk


 
really good, needs a link to the story where hard evidence that they were not going to keep to this was revealed though.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 28, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You've got the exact reverse of mainstream debate on a subject, as usual.
> The word "Holocaust" (with a capitalised "H") *has* been taken to be restricted to a specific event in history for the last 65 years, rightly or wrongly.
> "Genocide" is a word of relatively-modern coinage, and was *not* applied to the Holocaust until recently (the last 25-30 years) even in academic circles.


 
While being accurate this is also totally pedantic, as usual.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> So why don't the politicians vote they way the people who elected them want and expect?
> 
> (hint: because they're in favour of increased tuition fees)



To give a serious answer: Because we (the electorate) have no leverage on an MP, besides voting them out at some time in the future, and they know it.
MPs voting for their class interests was deeply rooted way before the universal franchise became a reality, and it has continued to this day (the Tories blatantly, and often paternalistically so). Oh, and for those who might ask "but don't Labour represent the working class?", perhaps the did to some degree up into the 1970s, but since then we've seen a "professionalisation" of MPs that means most are drawn from the ranks of the middle-classes, from the professions rather than the trades. Add that to the traditional placement of TU high muckamucks in safe seats, and you have a bunch of bureau-professional twazzocks who're going to choose party interests over the interests of their constituents every time.
This is why I often say that parliamentary democracy is a pseudo-democracy - a real democracy should ensure the wishes of the electorate, not the party, are uppermost in a representative's mind.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> While being accurate this is also totally pedantic, as usual.


 
Thanks for that frankly banal (as usual) observation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2010)

magneze said:


> Has this been posted yet: http://nickclegg.me.uk


 
Mendacity, thy name is Clegg!


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 28, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm now lobbying within the party for people to vote against the proposals having considered the strength of feeling.


oh ffs! You needed to 'consider' it? Rather than it being blindingly fucking obviousa as to what people's reactions would be to your party's craven lies and broken promises?


----------



## dylans (Nov 28, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm now lobbying within the party for people to vote against the proposals having considered the strength of feeling.


 
Why? I thought the proposals were great. I thought the stupid plebs only had to read the proposals before we held spontaneous celebratory street parties and declared Clegg man of the year? What you really mean is "oh shit we have been caught lying through our teeth and we are facing electoral Armageddon, we had better throw them some crumbs before they burn the whole fucking bakery down.

Guess what? You're too late. We can smell blood. Time to keep pushing.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 28, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm now lobbying within the party for people to vote against the proposals having considered the strength of feeling.


 
So after the thousands of furious students who have marched and rucked with the old bill in recent weeks it comes down to my one post on a message board? LOL, viva la revolucion 

Do what you like, moon because unless you can get all the people who signed the pledge to honour their commitment it won't make a difference.  I'm absolutely fucking livid at this government and your party's involvement in it.  It's easy to be annoyed at the tories, we expect them to be cunts, but the vast majority of people weren't expecting you to be cunts.  Yeah, we expected you to be shit, you're a political party after all, but to actually join in with the tories cuntery is beyond the fucking pale.  I'm furious, more furious than i've ever been about a government actually.  My atomised moaning and poor little me I can't do anything attitude has morphed into anger, and i'm not the only one i'm sure.  Don't just think this is only about education cuts too, it's deeper than that and when the wider cuts begin to bite I think there's going to be a tsunami of shit heading your way.  Even the police have openly admitted there's going to be more civil unrest in the near future.  Have some balls, bring down this coalition before it's too late for you, that is if it isn't too late already and I suspect it is.


----------



## magneze (Nov 28, 2010)

Fiver on moon23 turning out to be Nick Clegg.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 28, 2010)

I'm not sure if anyone has posted this up yet.  Liberal conspiracy have some footage of the van before it was abandoned:

link


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 28, 2010)

dylans said:


> Why? I thought the proposals were great. I thought the stupid plebs only had to read the proposals before we held spontaneous celebratory street parties and declared Clegg man of the year? What you really mean is "oh shit we have been caught lying through our teeth and we are facing electoral Armageddon, we had better throw them some crumbs before they burn the whole fucking bakery down.
> 
> Guess what? You're too late. We can smell blood. Time to keep pushing.


This


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 28, 2010)

(1min20s onwards)





> I think that this video gives a good insight into the mood and the anger of the demonstrators just after the main vandalism had been done. some of what the outspoken guy says in the video is rubbish, for example the police having insurance, I mean, Who would insure the police? Although many cynics would agree with the points he is making. This guy told me he was a speaker at speakers corner, he later stood on the wall and addressed the crowd with confidence and got a good reaction from the students.  Also listen out for the comments from the Guardian camera man. He seem angered and eggier to make a point. the article from the day after was sympathetic, I wonder if his comments were as valued back at the news room.
> 
> It is important to mention that this was filmed at 3:07PM, around an hour after the police ‘kettled’ us in and after the main flashpoint of action.  in my opinion this kind of destruction was to be expected and somewhat provoked by the police keeping everyone trapped for an uncertain amount of time.Although the violence is not to be condoned at a demonstration like this it is sadly inevitable and the decision of driving a riot van into the centre of the crowd seemed silly if not reckless and in my and many others opinion a little suspect. Note how at the end of the video the police were able to push back the crowd and take back the van with ease just after the press had taken the front page shots. earlier in the day a ring of peaceful protestors surrounded the van in a plea to halt the damage, they did. a ring of girls stopped all violence around the abandoned riot van. (Link to image > http://yfrog.com/08yvg0j) and the Met couldn’t
> 
> http://leotaylor.tumblr.com/


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2010)

that guy seems to crop up on all the videos from last week... i assumed he was a semi-famous riot name...


----------



## ymu (Nov 28, 2010)

He's right on the insurance point. Public sector vehicles are underwritten by the government. They are guaranteed to be able to pay up, so they don't need to hand the private sector a big fat profit for doing it.

/point of information


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 28, 2010)

killer b said:


> that guy seems to crop up on all the videos from last week... i assumed he was a semi-famous riot name...



I have seen him before, probably 5 or 6 years ago, talking about capitalism and marxism at Speakers Corner.  Very good speaker.


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 28, 2010)

Interesting how easy it was for the police to get their van back once there was nothing left to destroy.  Didn't even need their riot helmets on.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 28, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> So after the thousands of furious students who have marched and rucked with the old bill in recent weeks it comes down to my one post on a message board? LOL, viva la revolucion
> 
> Do what you like, moon because unless you can get all the people who signed the pledge to honour their commitment it won't make a difference.  I'm absolutely fucking livid at this government and your party's involvement in it.  It's easy to be annoyed at the tories, we expect them to be cunts, but the vast majority of people weren't expecting you to be cunts.  Yeah, we expected you to be shit, you're a political party after all, but to actually join in with the tories cuntery is beyond the fucking pale.  I'm furious, more furious than i've ever been about a government actually.  My atomised moaning and poor little me I can't do anything attitude has morphed into anger, and i'm not the only one i'm sure.  Don't just think this is only about education cuts too, it's deeper than that and when the wider cuts begin to bite I think there's going to be a tsunami of shit heading your way.  Even the police have openly admitted there's going to be more civil unrest in the near future.  Have some balls, bring down this coalition before it's too late for you, that is if it isn't too late already and I suspect it is.


x 2

and I actively campaigned for the lib dems locally at the last election (and in 97 fwiw)


----------



## treelover (Nov 28, 2010)

'I have seen him before, probably 5 or 6 years ago, talking about capitalism and marxism at Speakers Corner. Very good speaker.' 

weird, I did too, only time i have been to speakers corner, he was very impressive


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 28, 2010)

killer b said:


> that guy seems to crop up on all the videos from last week... i assumed he was a semi-famous riot name...








http://www.flickr.com/photos/herschell/3395795297/

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



> Heiko Khoo is a Marxist agitator currently based in London. He holds meetings at Hyde Park's Speakers Corner on Sunday afternoons (and has since 1986) and runs a weekly radio show on London's Arts Radio Station Resonance fm. [1] broadcast on 104.4fm across London. He has written for the website In Defense of Marxism and the journal Socialist Appeal and runs the speakers' corner web site [2]. He currently is a columnist for the Chinese State Council website China.org.cn
> 
> Khoo is a Hands Off Venezuela activist.
> 
> He lived in East Germany and witnessed the collapse of the Berlin Wall, [3] and was present on Tiananmen Square in June 1989. [4]


----------



## treelover (Nov 28, 2010)

Oh dear, is he a Tankie?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2010)

He _was_ IMT. He's a great speaker.


----------



## treelover (Nov 28, 2010)

Is that his career 'marxist agitator'


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 28, 2010)

> To Mark Field MP concerning Police Abdication of responsiblity on Nov 24th
> 
> Right Honourable Mark Field,
> 
> ...





http://www.speakerscorner.net/policetricks/markfield


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 28, 2010)

treelover said:


> Is that his career 'marxist agitator'


 
I'd say it's just what someone wrote on wikipedia


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2010)

ah, he did seem fairly eloquent (why the cameras ended up on him so often i guess).

anyone listen to his show on resonance?


----------



## ymu (Nov 28, 2010)

Oh, good lad!

(re: the letter)


----------



## ymu (Nov 28, 2010)

I've sent the letter and link to Jenny Jones (Green, London Assembly and Metropolitan Police Authority) and Tom Brake (Lib Dem MP, on their committee for Home Affairs). I sent them some evidence of agent provocateurs at G20 and both were pleased to take it up - Tom witnessed a couple of them himself at the demo and kicked up as big a stink as a Lib Dem backbencher can.

Couldn't resist adding a stern PS for Tom on how he will be voting ...


----------



## smokedout (Nov 28, 2010)

ymu said:


> Couldn't resist adding a stern PS for Tom on how he will be voting ...



i strongly suspect it will be stern PS's to lib dem ministers that will break this coalition


----------



## ymu (Nov 28, 2010)

Huh?


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2010)

pierced sternum? we can but dream...


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 28, 2010)

> Minister backs 'kettling' tactics
> 
> (UKPA) – 10 hours ago
> 
> ...



http://www.google.com/hostednews/uk...zM2CRDIWgD0zzeBWA?docId=N0319161290949130269A


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 28, 2010)

shaman75 said:


> http://www.google.com/hostednews/uk...zM2CRDIWgD0zzeBWA?docId=N0319161290949130269A


_There was serious damage being done. There was the damage to the police vehicles, the damage that we all saw on our television screens...of windows being smashed.

"Now, I'm sure there were innocent people that got caught up in that, but there is no doubt that there is a hardened group of troublemakers - a minority - who were setting out to cause violence and criminal damage. We saw what they did the week before and I think the police were right to contain that while ensuring of course that people are properly treated within the containment area._ 

moon23 earlier on today


----------



## shaman75 (Nov 29, 2010)

killer b said:


> ah, he did seem fairly eloquent (why the cameras ended up on him so often i guess).
> 
> anyone listen to his show on resonance?


 
nope.  but they're archived here.

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator:"Heiko Khoo"&sort=-date


----------



## dennisr (Nov 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> He _was_ IMT. He's a great speaker.



He recruited me to the Militant back in the day )


----------



## moon23 (Nov 29, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You've got the exact reverse of mainstream debate on a subject, as usual.
> The word "Holocaust" (with a capitalised "H") *has* been taken to be restricted to a specific event in history for the last 65 years, rightly or wrongly.
> "Genocide" is a word of relatively-modern coinage, and was *not* applied to the Holocaust until recently (the last 25-30 years) even in academic circles.


 
Well ask yourself what the thinking was of the application of the term Genocide to the Holocaust/Shoah was and why I might prefer to use that term.  Then take a step back and ask yourself whether it's reasonable for someone to understand what the Nazi Genocide refers to.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 29, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> So why don't the politicians vote they way the people who elected them want and expect?
> 
> (hint: because they're in favour of increased tuition fees)


 
Becuase of the need to work within a coalition.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 29, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Because of the lust for power.


 
Fixed it for you.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 29, 2010)

[video]http://www.youtube.com/user/gabbernews#p/u/5/O26A0aw01h0[/video]

Not sure if anyone has posted this yet.  9.13 minutes in a police inspector smurks at a colleague and can be heard saying "I just punched someone."


----------



## BigTom (Nov 29, 2010)

eoin_k said:


> [video]http://www.youtube.com/user/gabbernews#p/u/5/O26A0aw01h0[/video]
> 
> Not sure if anyone has posted this yet.  9.13 minutes in a police inspector smurks at a colleague and can be heard saying "I just punched someone."


 
BristleKRS is following this story on his twitter feed to try to find out who this is, iirc they've worked out it is a TSG inspector so that limits it to a small number of people. hopefully someone will be able to identify him


----------



## The Octagon (Nov 29, 2010)

Sounds to me like he says "[the] guy punched somebody", not "I".


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 29, 2010)

The Octagon said:


> Sounds to me like he says "[the] guy punched somebody", not "I".


 
much like the details about the van - number plates missing etc - it's best not to get caught up too much in trying to prove something that isn't 100% obvious. imho.

we know the van was a plant, we know that cop could easily have hit someone, but unless we get the cunts bang to rights there's no point waffling on about dubious evidence.  

and for the record, after a few listens to it I would say he says 'someone punched somebody' - but maybe we need John Travolta to work it out.


----------



## The Octagon (Nov 29, 2010)

sunnysidedown said:


> much like the details about the van - number plates missing etc - it's best not to get caught up too much in trying to prove something that isn't 100% obvious. imho.
> 
> we know the van was a plant, we know that cop could easily have hit someone, but unless we get the cunts bang to rights there's no point waffling on about dubious evidence.
> 
> and for the record, after a few listens to it I would say he says 'someone punched somebody' - but maybe we need John Travolta to work it out.


 
Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying, there's enough actual, provable stuff to get angry about without resorting to making stuff up based on bad audio.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Nov 29, 2010)

The Octagon said:


> Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying, *there's enough actual, provable stuff to get angry about without resorting to making stuff up based on bad audio.*



exactly!

and I was meant to say the van was _probably_ a plant.


----------



## Santino (Nov 29, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Becuase of the need to work within a coalition.


 
No one NEEDED to work in a coalition. They could have propped up a minority government on an issue-by-issue basis. But then they wouldn't have got any shiny ministerial job titles, would they?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Well ask yourself what the thinking was of the application of the term Genocide to the Holocaust/Shoah was and why I might prefer to use that term.
> Then take a step back and ask yourself whether it's reasonable for someone to understand what the Nazi Genocide refers to.



I'll go with the academic consensus on this that states that *"the* Holocaust" was *a* genocide, and that more people understand what you're talking about if you refer to "the Holocaust", than they do if you refer to "the Nazi Genocide", which could refer to any of a number of systematic annihilations that took place, including those of Ukrainian and Russian peasants.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 29, 2010)

Santino said:


> No one NEEDED to work in a coalition. They could have propped up a minority government on an issue-by-issue basis. But then they wouldn't have got any shiny ministerial job titles, would they?


 
It's more that it wouldn't have allowed the Lib Dems to infulence policy.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 29, 2010)

You just go round and round spouting this mutually exclusive stuff, don't you?

"We can't get our own way because we're in a coalition, the coalition allows us to get our own way"  
Then when challenged post up big lists of minor things they've not achieved claiming them as achievements.

The libdem politicians have achieved nothing but their own (short term) gratification.
You're dishonest to the core.  A shining example of the libdem ethos.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 29, 2010)

We signed a pledge to oppose a rise in fees, and introduce fairer HE funding. The proposals are to increase the cap, and introduce fairer funding. Anybody who signed the NUS pledge is breaking it however they vote.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 29, 2010)

I should probably just save that as a stock reply btw, seeing as you roll out the same old guff _every single time_. ^^


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 29, 2010)

moon23 said:


> We signed a pledge to oppose a rise in fees, and introduce fairer HE funding. The proposals are to increase the cap, and introduce fairer funding.


 
Wriggling like that is unbecoming, not to mention patronizing.  Do you think the electorate are that stupid?


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 29, 2010)

And that one ^^

An utter contempt for the electorate seems to be the other _narrative_ you're attempting to weave.  One of your favourite words that.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 29, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> "We can't get our own way because we're in a coalition, the coalition allows us to get our own way"


 
That's a false quote. I think Moon is saying, "We can't get all our way because we're in a coalition, the coalition allows us to get some of our own way".

You are being dishonest.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 29, 2010)

He's been saying exactly what I wrote for months.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 29, 2010)

I'd get better reading glasses if I was you.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 29, 2010)

If I were you I'd weep quietly into my beer each and every night.

Go find someone else to bother you contrary bastard.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 29, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's more that it wouldn't have allowed the Lib Dems to infulence policy.


 
Why not? Their votes would still be required if a Tory minority government actually wanted to pass anything. This ought to give them negotiating power, whilst not tying their hands on areas of disagreement.


----------



## Santino (Nov 29, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's more that it wouldn't have allowed the Lib Dems to infulence policy.


 
What utter, utter shit. If a party holds the balance of power in Parliament it can fucking dictate policy!


----------



## Santino (Nov 29, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> If I were you I'd wee quietly into my beer each and every night.



Fixed.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 29, 2010)

moon23 said:


> We signed a pledge to oppose a rise in fees, and introduce fairer HE funding. The proposals are to increase the cap, and introduce fairer funding. Anybody who signed the NUS pledge is breaking it however they vote.


 
How incredibly disingenuous. Implicit in your argument is the idea that the funding will be "fairer" under the new proposals - it won't (unless you've redefined "fair" in the same way that you've redefined "most"). If they vote against they are honouring the pladge, if they vote yes they are breaking it. It really is that simple.

Come on, what is "fairer" about funding under the new proposals? Given that people on under £21k will still accrue interest at commercial rates over the lifetime of the loan, yet rich kids whose mummy and daddy pay upfront won't pay a penny in interest? Is it fairer that less well off kids will be encouraged by the lower fees to go to less well respected universities? Please try to explain this without resorting to doublethink.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 29, 2010)

Moon is really undermining the libdems with all this disingenuous shite.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 29, 2010)

I doubt if Clegg's biggest worries center around Urban's politics forums.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 29, 2010)

TopCat said:


> Moon is really undermining the libdems with all this disingenuous shite.


 
To be fair I think they're making a decent enough job of it without his help. It does, however, beautifully illustrate the degree of contempt they have for the electorate.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 29, 2010)

ha, Fox use a video of the protest to demostrate support for the Tea party movement in Britain -

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4437373/yankee-rebellion-resonates-in-ye-olde-england/


----------



## moon23 (Nov 29, 2010)

Santino said:


> What utter, utter shit. If a party holds the balance of power in Parliament it can fucking dictate policy!


 
If you have no respect for the democratic wishes of the majority electorate you can attempt to wield power. You can’t actually help develop legislation if you are not in government, you can only vote on it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 29, 2010)

moon23 said:


> ha, Fox use a video of the protest to demostrate support for the Tea party movement in Britain -
> 
> http://video.foxnews.com/v/4437373/yankee-rebellion-resonates-in-ye-olde-england/


 
LOL Do people in America actually take that channel seriously?


----------



## moon23 (Nov 29, 2010)

SpineyNorman said:


> LOL Do people in America actually take that channel seriously?


 
Gawd knows, it's pretty piss-poor journalism. Describing EDL as tea party  (although there are some links there)


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2010)

wtf does that have to do with this thread?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 29, 2010)

moon23 said:


> If you have no respect for the democratic wishes of the majority electorate you can attempt to wield power. You can’t actually help develop legislation if you are not in government, you can only vote on it.


 
Yet doing the exact opposite of what people voted you in to do is respecting peoples' democratic wishes? You're all over the place. As you are so fond of reminding people, we don't vote for the government; we vote for individual representatives. The Lib Dem MPs are supposed to represent the wishes of the people who voted for them. They made promises, every one of them. People are neither stupid nor unreasonable; they realise you can't get everything through. But when they see you abstaining, or even voting yes, on a vote you promised to oppose, they feel cheated. And they are right.

I don't know why you continue trying to peddle this shite to be honest - hasn't it sunk in yet that nobody is stupid enough to buy it? Even you can't actually believe this, can you?


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 29, 2010)

SpineyNorman said:


> I don't know why you continue trying to peddle this shite to be honest - hasn't it sunk in yet that nobody is stupid enough to buy it? Even you can't actually believe this, can you?


 
You are beginning to sound desperate in your attempt to persuade.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 29, 2010)

you're beginning to sound desperate for attention


----------



## ymu (Nov 29, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's more that it wouldn't have allowed the Lib Dems to infulence policy.


 
It would have given you more influence, you clown. In a minority government the Tories wouldn't be able to pass anything unless they could secure support from enough other parties. They wouldn't be able to do any of this shit without you fuckers giving them cover. You've done a U-turn on the sole manifesto policy that was considered important enough to back up with a pledge. There is no possible way to argue that you're influencing policy for the better when you're demonstrably refusing to use the power that you do have.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 29, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> you're beginning to sound desperate for attention


 
You have a much larger post-count than me. Kettle/Pot/Black, I think.


----------



## fractionMan (Nov 29, 2010)

your non-sequitur doesn't follow

just give it up


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 29, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> You have a much larger post-count than me. Kettle/Pot/Black, I think.


 
How much longer is this waste of space going to be allowed on here? He wasn't banned by accident.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 29, 2010)

Why not just shoot me in the back, butcher?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> you're beginning to sound desperate for attention


 
"Beginning"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2010)

moon23 said:


> If you have no respect for the democratic wishes of the majority electorate you can attempt to wield power. You can’t actually help develop legislation if you are not in government, you can only vote on it.


 
You very obviously don't grasp that most legislation, and the policy(s) behind it originate outside of government. That's why "think-tanks", "lobbyists" and even "social movements" exist, you berk.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 29, 2010)

You're being pedantic again, VP.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> You have a much larger post-count than me...


 
Only because you were quite rightly banned.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 29, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> You're being pedantic again, VP.


 
No, I'm not. You're projecting the essential banality of your own existence onto me in the form of an assumption of pedantry.

You poor deluded fool.


----------



## Lock&Light (Nov 29, 2010)

Now you just think you're being clever.


----------



## Santino (Nov 29, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> Now you just think you're being clever.


 
Christ, you're a tedious cunt. Not even faintly diverting in the way that idly rolling a bit of fluff into a ball can be.

And don't bother trying to think up a (what you imagine to be) witty response, I'm about to put you on ignore just to deny you that single pleasure.


----------



## The Black Hand (Nov 30, 2010)

A letter was printed in the Northern Echo letters page on Saturday, and its online here;

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/letters/8706792.Student_protests/

The right wing comments are funny/rubbish, but there is a reply to the letter in the Northern Echo letters page today if you want to see it. Its not online yet but its from the UKIP Dave Brothers (a right wing fool)...

IMMORAL POLICING;

"The policing of the student demonstration in London yesterday (24.11.10) was nothing short of corrupt. The police play the 'innocent' game frequently, but in this case it is totally blatant as anybody with an authentically independent mind saw.

The placing of an empty police minibus (in Whitehall) in the path of a known militant march of student demonstrators is a 'red rag to a bull'. It is nothing short of *entrapment* and because of the huge policing resources and plans the police made to kettle demonstrators, is part of a deliberate 'newsmaking' for the right wing dominated media.

It is also intimidating for protestors to be pushed around and contained, and as such is an attack on the right to demonstrate. If there are any police still interested in real policing, I hope they will disassociate themselves from the operational plans and decision making of the Metropolitan police for that protest march."


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2010)




----------



## moon23 (Nov 30, 2010)

The Black Hand said:


> A letter was printed in the Northern Echo letters page on Saturday, and its online here;
> 
> http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/letters/8706792.Student_protests/
> 
> ...



Quite a few UKIP members are prone to conspiracy theories, I think it comes from worrying about the EUSSR. Out of interest UKIP are planning to target students with anti-fee leaflets.
Never underestimate opportunism.


----------



## Santino (Nov 30, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Quite a few UKIP members are prone to conspiracy theories, I think it comes from worrying about the EUSSR. Out of interest UKIP are planning to target students with anti-fee leaflets.
> Never underestimate opportunism.


 
What the deuce are you on about now?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2010)

How fitting 

A lib-dem warning about political opportunism regarding the student vote.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 30, 2010)

ViolentPanda said:


> You very obviously don't grasp that most legislation, and the policy(s) behind it originate outside of government. That's why "think-tanks", "lobbyists" and even "social movements" exist, you berk.


 
No all legislation is developed within Whitehall by civil servants, policy is set within government. In the coalition a lot of policy was laid our in the agreement, something that wouldn't have occured in a minority Tory administration. There are countless policies that are created outside of govenrment as you say, but not many are ever implemented.


----------



## ymu (Nov 30, 2010)

He said 'originated', not 'developed'.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Nov 30, 2010)

moon23 said:


> *Never underestimate opportunism.*








Louis MacNeice


----------



## Dan U (Nov 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


>


  Saw this on the gruniad live blog, nice bit of discouraging from the police 

"I've just arrived into Charing Cross with a number of students. We were approached by police officers who asked if we were attending the protest. They then warned that the protest might go on longer than expected. Even if we wanted to leave, we might not be able to. I asked them if this meant there was going to be a kettle and they replied that "they knew what that meant, they couldn't be explicit, but this was one of the tactics that the police had in consideration for the day. 
They then wished us good luck."

(cant work out how to put a quote box in on my new tapatalk gizmo)


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2010)

Just to go back to the Browne report briefly:



> Now the Office for Budget Responsibility have confirmed what many outside the mainstream media have long thought: that the shortfall in higher education funding over this parliament cannot possibly be met by the outcome of the Browne Review’s recommendations. In particular, the immediate cut to funding and the retrospective repayments mean an increase in net debt from 2012-13.



Much more here


----------



## Dan U (Nov 30, 2010)

I also was trying to quote butchersapron ^


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2010)

Dan U said:


> I also was trying to quote butchersapron ^


 
long press for quote on my version


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 30, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's more that it wouldn't have allowed the Lib Dems to infulence policy.


 
Here's an idea: why not influence policies by voting against them and thus cling on to what little credibility you once had?


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 30, 2010)

Lock&Light said:


> You have a much larger post-count than me. Kettle/Pot/Black, I think.


 
Your low post count is because you were banned for a number of years, no?


----------



## Flanflinger (Nov 30, 2010)

BBC reporting a couple of hundred students running up whitehall to keep warm. Hope their mums sent them out wearing appropriate clothing this morning.


----------

