The people protesting today are uneducated riff-raff

So its about prudence when someone who has the potential to do well on a medical degree who comes from an unemployed family and cannot afford this? Is that what youre suggesting. Oh, tough, because Mum and Dad didn't get jobs youre screwed too mate? I'm not suggesting that everyone is suited to education, however to remove a part of a university that is there to support people from deprived backgrounds at times when purse stings are being tightened is going to make education even more inaccessable for them. Education may cost money, however its also an investment in a better qualified workforce for the future.

So you don't think its important for the less fortunate to be encouraged into further education? Do you not think it would benefit society? With the rises in tuition fess surely universities will need departments like this to advise people on what support they can receive to go to university or is education just a preserve for the privileged?

To the OP, you're a ball of fun, aren't you.

The people on the protest represent the millions of people who work in the public sector. These are people who work for the PUBLIC. That's you, that's me.

Try telling the person who serves you in the library how uneducated they are, or the surgeon who operates on you, or the fireman who rescues you from a burning building.

You ****.

Anyone else find it interesting to see that Ed Miliband will now be running on a no cuts at all platform? You know if he does anything else he will have just lost himself 250ks worth of votes.

Whaaaat? I've been out so missed this, can you link me?

One thing that perplexes me is how any lack of satisfaction in the government means it's ok to go to the Ritz and start smashing windows.

You have to realise that:
1 - the violence yesterday was caused by a very small minority
2 - they probably weren't even bothered by the main march, they just wanted to cause trouble.

If you look at the people who were at the march: parents, people with kids, NHS nurses and doctors etc, they were not there to cause trouble. They were there because they are worried about their futures.

I feel that anger is particularly justified when the government say we cannot afford this, that and the other thing, but when it comes to finding millions for a war in Libya, it's not a problem.

The public sector workers need to get real; they have had the best pensions, best job security, best conditions etc for years and now are complaining when it gets too much like the private sector.

Job cuts are nasty for anyone and will undoubtedly affect many families in a bad way but, given the economic deficit that we're in, are vital. What I don't agree with though is the Tories cutting all these jobs (good thing as reducing expenditure) and then wasting ridiculous amounts of money on foreign aid/military intervention.

But you cannot dismiss these people as mindless thugs. That would be incredibly unintelligent.

Why did these people trash Topshop, Boots, McDonald's, HSBC, The Ritz, etc? You'll find that these companies either are involved in zionist activities, tax dodging or just reperesent the interests of the bougeois class.

Myself, I do not believe in pacifism. Do you think the non violent approach would have worked in Egypt? The peaceful protest serves its purpose, but that is simply for just making people aware if your cause. I believe that you cannot fight just by holding up witty plaquards.

Why won't you be able to go to university? You don't have to bloody pay upfront!

My parents can't pay for my tuition or accommodation, so I'm using the loan.

I know this post came way earlier in the thread but I feel the need to point out how mistaken you are. I didn't check to see if it had been done already, so I apologise if someone else already has

The action taken in Libya comes out of the defence budget, it is up to the MoD to pay for the intervention out of their budget. No extra money is being put in, funding isn't being diverted from other sectors in order to pay for it. This is why we have a defence budget in the first place.

Also, the type of military hardware being used isn't the sort that is needed in Afghanistan or anywhere else we are committed to, so we aren't stretching our forces unnecessarily either.

edit: it would seem this has been mentioned several times in the thread by other posters too.

That's a major generalisation.



I partly agree with you on the military intervention part, although as I've said to someone else, it's very difficult for the government to prioritise.

And yes, job cuts are nasty and probably vital, but that doesn't mean people have to be unselfish about it (I'm not sure whether it was you I was having this discussion with or not!). Although I guess it depends on how you define vital and which areas you think need cuts and which are important to maintain. I imagine most people would be perfectly happy with my Mum losing her job, for example, because nobody seems to consider her profession as important - she's a teaching assistant in a primary school.

I got the information from Student Finance England the other day about my grant/loan, it doesn't even cover my accommodation.

So its about prudence when someone who has the potential to do well on a medical degree who comes from an unemployed family and cannot afford this? Is that what youre suggesting. Oh, tough, because Mum and Dad didn't get jobs youre screwed too mate? I'm not suggesting that everyone is suited to education, however to remove a part of a university that is there to support people from deprived backgrounds at times when purse stings are being tightened is going to make education even more inaccessable for them. Education may cost money, however its also an investment in a better qualified workforce for the future.

I got the information from Student Finance England the other day about my grant/loan, it doesn't even cover my accommodation.

You have to realise that:
1 - the violence yesterday was caused by a very small minority
2 - they probably weren't even bothered by the main march, they just wanted to cause trouble.

If you look at the people who were at the march: parents, people with kids, NHS nurses and doctors etc, they were not there to cause trouble. They were there because they are worried about their futures.

But you cannot dismiss these people as mindless thugs. That would be incredibly unintelligent.

Why did these people trash Topshop, Boots, McDonald's, HSBC, The Ritz, etc? You'll find that these companies either are involved in zionist activities, tax dodging or just reperesent the interests of the bougeois class.

Myself, I do not believe in pacifism.

Do you think the non violent approach would have worked in Egypt? The peaceful protest serves its purpose, but that is simply for just making people aware if your cause. I believe that you cannot fight just by holding up witty plaquards.

Yeah I accept that the people who did the damage were a minority, however I think it might be a bit naive to claim they didn't care about the cause. Considering some of their targets were banks and other places accused of dodging tax, I think they did care, however they just were prepared to act irrationally.




Yes we can call them as thugs, because that's exactly what they were. Doing so is not unintelligent it is fact. They used pent up anger to cause damage.
Because no matter what happens, acting in that way is in no way jusitfiable. In no way.



Firstly zionist activities? Sure ok, I'd like to know in detail what you mean by that. Secondly even if do "represent the interests of the bougeois class" so what? Does that justify criminal damage? And if the company is tax dodging does that mean criminal damage is ok?

The answer to those last two questions is no.
Violence and criminal damage is in no way acceptable least of all for those reasons.
You can't justify it at all. Not even all the broken windows and other damage to the banks.
The people who did said damage should be made to pay the costs.



Oh please, so if someone doesn't smash up a bank or break a window then they are a pacifist?
Don't be daft.




There is a difference between the protests in Egypt and the Middle East and the protests here. There is in fact a distinct difference. Those are protests agains violent dictatorships and regimes under which people have suffered and died, whereas the protests here are against the cuts which so far haven't really caused mass amounts of people to actually die, believe it or not.
Your comparison of the two is a very weak argument. Furthermore there is no way a person can logically defend the damage caused by the thugs or the violence they caused otherwise.

Out of interest - what is your idea of a good and effective protest?