Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lordinquisitor]

Neither peaceful protests nor riots achieve much.

But riots are more fun.

[de5me7]

There is also one thing that really bothers me: the way the police are shown no sympathy. Seven policemen were injured, and and one point a fire extinguisher was thrown at them from the roof  (thankfully it missed, but it would easily have killed), yet all the papers I've read mention this in a very offhand way. If, however, a policeman in seen being in any way violent with a civillian (and there were masses of cameras there, they could not do anything in order to physically restrain the protestors other than stand in their way) the media makes a massive scandal of it lasting months.

The police in this country don't deserve one damn bit of sympathy. Not one bit.

I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. That's how bad it is

froma  first hand pov i can tell you that the police injuries werent servere. They only got injured because they totally cocked up and had deploy armoured riot cops to regular cops at a 50;50 ratio. So the ones with out helmets got some cuts on their faces from thrown bits of wood. The retard that threw the fire extinguisher totally missed the police and it landed in the middle of the crowd of protesters (no one was hit some how).

imo police brutaility was rather low on wednesday, they did lay into some people tho - beat them too the ground, then beat some more, then arrest.

i dont hate the police, but im not convinced of their competance either (in dealing with crimes in general, not just riots)

[Shades]

i dont hate the police, but im not convinced of their competance either (in dealing with crimes in general, not just riots)

To be fair it's only the minority that is completely incompetent but considering what there role in society is they should be held to very high standards (which they don't hit)

[Leafsnail]

Well, speaking to my friends who were there, I'd like to point out it was a very targetted "riot".  As in, it only really damaged the Millbank Centre (or Tory HQ).  There weren't random cars and public property set on fire (France style) or random shops looted.

In the light of this information, I can't say I entirely blame them.

Interesting fact: there were only 5 police officers guarding the Millbank Centre at first.  They gave up and took a break when it became clear they couldn't keep order.  Something to do with the way that many police officers will be made unemployed by the Tories?

[ed boy]

In the light of this information, I can't say I entirely blame them.

I'm going to have to ask you to clarify you on what you mean by this. Are you referring to the organisers, the rioters or the police?

[Fayrik]

Interesting fact: there were only 5 police officers guarding the Millbank Centre at first.  They gave up and took a break when it became clear they couldn't keep order.  Something to do with the way that many police officers will be made unemployed by the Tories?

No, they probably gave up to save their own behinds. Seriously, five guys against an angry mob really wouldn't stand a chance. But, it'd be nice to think that they where plotting an early strike.

Also, that interesting fact really underlines the fact that this isn't just mindless violence. Like you said, it was clearly targeted. You can't describe something so planned as mindless.

[Cecilff2]

Riots are fun.  Mobs are fun.

Case in point

[Leafsnail]

I'm going to have to ask you to clarify you on what you mean by this. Are you referring to the organisers, the rioters or the police?

Protesters.

[ed boy]

I'm going to have to ask you to clarify you on what you mean by this. Are you referring to the organisers, the rioters or the police?

Protesters.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point, and disagree strongly. The rioting on wednesday was absolutely despicable. If someone feels strongly about an issue, then they are doing only harm by acting like that. Even if you disagree with governmental policies, two wrongs do not make a right.

If you're referring to the non-violent protesters, then they are still not entirely blameless. If you saw someone breaking into your neighbour's house, it would not be right to stand around and do nothing. The non-violent protestors there, even if they did not actively do anything, still allowed such things to happen and their presence impeded the police from being able to do their jobs.

[Leafsnail]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point, and disagree strongly. The rioting on wednesday was absolutely despicable. If someone feels strongly about an issue, then they are doing only harm by acting like that. Even if you disagree with governmental policies, two wrongs do not make a right.

Well, how much damage do you think they did compared to the amount they're losing out on?

[ed boy]

If the motivation of the rioters was simply "If I'm going to be worse off out of this, I want to make as many other people as I can lose out on at least as much", then I really have to object. Attitudes like that are so hateful, so conceited, and so harmful to society that it makes by blood boil.

If you're saying that the motivation was "I need to show that if the government tries to cut spending, there will be consequences", then this is in no way a good way to do it - Thuggery never works out in situation like this, and it just portrays the student population as immature people who resort to violence whenever they don't get their own way.

Either way, it is not good.

[Tsarwash]

I'm going to have to ask you to clarify you on what you mean by this. Are you referring to the organisers, the rioters or the police?

Protesters.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that point, and disagree strongly. The rioting on wednesday was absolutely despicable. If someone feels strongly about an issue, then they are doing only harm by acting like that. Even if you disagree with governmental policies, two wrongs do not make a right.

If you're referring to the non-violent protesters, then they are still not entirely blameless. If you saw someone breaking into your neighbour's house, it would not be right to stand around and do nothing. The non-violent protestors there, even if they did not actively do anything, still allowed such things to happen and their presence impeded the police from being able to do their jobs.

That's really not fair. Once a mob get angry, there is nothing that peaceful protestors can do about it. Throwing fire extinguishers off of roofs is clearly mindless and a very stupid thing to do, but doing a bit of damage to a parties headquarters is a different matter altogether. it's all insured and I'm very happy for the big banks and insurance companies to lose as much money as possible. It's the Lib Dems who should have been the target of the protesters. They are the ones who lied to everyone and sold thier principles down the river as soon as they got a tiny wiff of power. Can you not understand the anger of people whose futures have been severely compromised by political lies ? The government of the day do not listen to the will of the people. The last ten years prove that. We need power of recall, if parties make such total U turns on key policies.

Basically you seem to be suggesting that people should not protest at all, please correct me if my assumption is wrong. The only 'legitimate' recourse that people seem to have is to vote out the parties in four and a half years time, by which time the damage will have been done. We have a system that seems to actively stop the general public having any real say in the future of the country.

Anyway, there's going to be a lot more protests coming in the next five years.

[Fayrik]

Tsar has a point.. I think.
What we really need here, is a vote to revote.
That way we'll soon see the fact that what Nick Clegg has done, is very much not in the interest of the public.

[Eugenitor]

The problem is that the candidates who will do what needs doing are unelectable, and nobody who gets elected will actually govern for the electorate's benefit.

Mass riots against elected representatives mean that democracy has failed.

[Leafsnail]

If the motivation of the rioters was simply "If I'm going to be worse off out of this, I want to make as many other people as I can lose out on at least as much", then I really have to object. Attitudes like that are so hateful, so conceited, and so harmful to society that it makes by blood boil.

The "other people" in question are the Conservative Party.  The ones doing it.

If you're saying that the motivation was "I need to show that if the government tries to cut spending, there will be consequences", then this is in no way a good way to do it - Thuggery never works out in situation like this, and it just portrays the student population as immature people who resort to violence whenever they don't get their own way.

So what "consequences" would there be otherwise?

Just to make it clear, I don't support rioting, but I do understand the motivation behind attacking the Millbank Centre.