Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The majority of student protestors today did not come intent on violence, as the police, via the media, are suggesting. Violence broke out today because the police stopped innocent protestors from leaving by beatin them with batons and riot shields. Scared and angry people tried to force their way out and became violent.

    It was the police's fault.

    Simply trying to get out I and two of my friends were forced back by riot police and one of my friends was tackled and the other was knocked to the ground. Shame on them assaulting children like that.
    • Offline

      1
      Oh, please, it's always the police's fault?

      It was the police officers' fault idiotic youths broke windows at the Treasury building too? Right?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Stupid idiots "The police fault".

      Are you retarded?

      Seriously? Are you retarded?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      If protestors weren't intent on violence, why did they go prepared for violence?
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by jthb)
      Stupid idiots "The police fault".

      Are you retarded?

      Seriously? Are you retarded?

      (Original post by ninja-lewis)
      If protestors weren't intent on violence, why did they go prepared for violence?
      Were you people there? If not then shut the **** up. I didn't go prepared for violence, everyone I knew didn't go prepared for violence.

      And retard person: If your trying to get home and find your way blocked by a bunch of uncompromising, armed *******s who restrict your freedom of movement and hit you when you ask politely to be alowed to walk down a ****ing high street, the I think you would find you'd respond violently.

      If you haven't been in that situation then you can't understand.
      • Political Ambassador
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      Pah typical bull. Wqhat happens when the police allow these protests? You trash Millbank tower.
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by hamijack)
      Were you people there? If not then shut the **** up. I didn't go prepared for violence, everyone I knew didn't go prepared for violence.

      And retard person: If your trying to get home and find your way blocked by a bunch of uncompromising, armed *******s who restrict your freedom of movement and hit you when you ask politely to be alowed to walk down a ****ing high street, the I think you would find you'd respond violently.

      If you haven't been in that situation then you can't understand.
      When you throw yourself in with the violent people, expect to be treated like them. You 'protesters' set the standard on the first protest. The police were laid back ans stood off, and what happened? Violenc and damage, and people were critical of the police force.

      If you act like the EDL, the UAF or other 'protest' groups with a history of violence, don't be bloomin surprised when you're treated like them.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Steevee)
      When you throw yourself in with the violent people, expect to be treated like them. You 'protesters' set the standard on the first protest. The police were laid back ans stood off, and what happened? Violenc and damage, and people were critical of the police force.

      If you act like the EDL, the UAF or other 'protest' groups with a history of violence, don't be bloomin surprised when you're treated like them.
      And since Millbank the police have been deliberatly provoking confrontations with students. FFS they blocked off all the routes out of parliament square today and then said that the protestors were not following the agreed route.

      So you think its ok to knock over a scared 16 year old girl who is just trying to escape from a group of police in body armour advancing like Roman Legionaires?
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by hamijack)
      And since Millbank the police have been deliberatly provoking confrontations with students. FFS they blocked off all the routes out of parliament square today and then said that the protestors were not following the agreed route.

      So you think its ok to knock over a scared 16 year old girl who is just trying to escape from a group of police in body armour advancing like Roman Legionaires?
      Yes, yes I do.

      In that situation, you know what you're getting into by joining those protests. If you've somehow to managed to miss the footage of he previous protests then clearly you arn't all that occupied with the movement.

      What would you propose instead? In terms of crowd management? Just lt them go wherever they want. Just stand back and let the roam around?
      You have to have control. If you listen towhat the police say, and do as you're told then you'll be fine.

      So many times these 'innocent' protesters are deliberatley antagonising the police in an already tnse situation. Half of them are just begging to have some sense knocked into them. :rolleyes:
      • Political Ambassador
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by channy)
      A window and some graffiti. Trashed? Yeah right.
      :facepalm2: Stop stalking me.

      Moron
      Offline

      10
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Aj12)
      :facepalm2: Stop stalking me.

      Moron
      Ad hom, nice one.
      • Political Ambassador
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by channy)
      Ad hom, nice one.
      Because your arguments are of such a high quality. You know the gem about how protesting tuition fees is equal to fighting for human rights?
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      14
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Steevee)
      Yes, yes I do.

      In that situation, you know what you're getting into by joining those protests. If you've somehow to managed to miss the footage of he previous protests then clearly you arn't all that occupied with the movement.

      What would you propose instead? In terms of crowd management? Just lt them go wherever they want. Just stand back and let the roam around?
      You have to have control. If you listen towhat the police say, and do as you're told then you'll be fine.

      So many times these 'innocent' protesters are deliberatley antagonising the police in an already tnse situation. Half of them are just begging to have some sense knocked into them. :rolleyes:
      Then you are an awful human being. Its true people accept the risk of violence when they join a protest and there will always be dumbarse anachists who want to bring down the government and start "The Revolution" whose sole objective is to mess stuff up.

      The police did not have to act the way they did, I obeyed them when they yelled "get back", my friends did, but that wasn't enough. They had to charge us and force us closer together just to avenge their humiliation at Millbank which quite frankly they should have forseen as an anti-Tory march goes past the Tory HQ is sure to end in violence.

      I'm not gonna convince you and your not gonna convince me so how about we agree that you are a police supporting, leftie hating, conservative and I am an anarchial, wishy washy lefty?
      Offline

      10
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Aj12)
      Because your arguments are of such a high quality. You know the gem about how protesting tuition fees is equal to fighting for human rights?
      Then yours must be worse. Please quote me where I say tuition fees = human rights. Go on, try.

      Anyway, shouldn't they know by now that kettling can turn a peaceful demonstrations into an angry, frustrated crowd?

      I just can't understand why they keep resorting to it, unless that's precisely what they want: to anger the protesters and put them on the brink of violence so they can identify and arrest the "extremists".

      In that case, they should probably arrest themselves afterwards for incitation to violence.
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by hamijack)
      Then you are an awful human being. Its true people accept the risk of violence when they join a protest and there will always be dumbarse anachists who want to bring down the government and start "The Revolution" whose sole objective is to mess stuff up.

      The police did not have to act the way they did, I obeyed them when they yelled "get back", my friends did, but that wasn't enough. They had to charge us and force us closer together just to avenge their humiliation at Millbank which quite frankly they should have forseen as an anti-Tory march goes past the Tory HQ is sure to end in violence.

      I'm not gonna convince you and your not gonna convince me so how about we agree that you are a police supporting, leftie hating, conservative and I am an anarchial, wishy washy lefty?
      Perhaps they expected them to act like the civilised, rasoned people they were masquarding as?

      Either way, your last statement seems to about some it up.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      Damn it. Some of the responses in this thread (and others like these) really piss me off. State endorsed violence is fine: violence in self-defence of state endorsed violence is almost always terrorism. This circular logic even applies to utterly absurd levels: the OP "got himself mixed in with violent anarchist terrorist fascists" and therefore deserved to be beaten to a pulp (despite no clarification of being involved with such groups). I mean, really, the utterly ludicrousy amazes me. The Rupert Murdoch owned Sky News are up in arms about protester violence and how the police are helpless victims of ruthless anarchists: they rarely ever mention how police often beat totally innocent protesters into comas. Need I cite the reference to the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests last year?

      (Original post by Steevee)
      Yes, yes I do.

      In that situation, you know what you're getting into by joining those protests. If you've somehow to managed to miss the footage of he previous protests then clearly you arn't all that occupied with the movement.

      What would you propose instead? In terms of crowd management? Just lt them go wherever they want. Just stand back and let the roam around?
      You have to have control. If you listen towhat the police say, and do as you're told then you'll be fine.

      So many times these 'innocent' protesters are deliberatley antagonising the police in an already tnse situation. Half of them are just begging to have some sense knocked into them. :rolleyes:
      Many of the police tactics are totally wrong on so many levels. I honestly can't believe they do it accidentally: no, it is a deliberate strategy employed by the state to incite violence and make the protesters look bad.

      For instance, kettling. The sheer ludicrousy of this tactic astounds me. Basic psychology states that when people have their personal space invaded they become intimidated and (when it is a crowd of people fighting for a common cause) angry. I rememer Ian Hislop on have I Got News For You taking the mick of the police strategy: "What tends to happen, just like with kettles, is you boil up and get very hot and angry!"

      The method has been criticised for years by various psychologists but it continues to be used by police (idiots). They should actually keep the protesters apart, so they have personal space and seperate particularly violent ones so they cannot cause trouble or influence the crowd. Clearly pushing them together like that is not going to make them very happy bunnies at all.

      I am surprised no-one has any sympathy for the OP (who has explicitly stated that he and his friends were out to cause no violence whatsoever). You have all clearly been deluded and brain washed by the state owned media.
      Offline

      16
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
      Damn it. Some of the responses in this thread (and others like these) really piss me off. State endorsed violence is fine: violence in self-defence of state endorsed violence is almost always terrorism. This circular logic even applies to utterly absurd levels: the OP "got himself mixed in with violent anarchist terrorist fascists" and therefore deserved to be beaten to a pulp (despite no clarification of being involved with such groups). I mean, really, the utterly ludicrousy amazes me. The Rupert Murdoch owned Sky News are up in arms about protester violence and how the police are helpless victims of ruthless anarchists: they rarely ever mention how police often beat totally innocent protesters into comas. Need I cite the reference to Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests last year?



      Many of the police tactics are totally wrong on so many levels. I honestly can't believe they do it accidentally: no, it is a deliberate strategy employed by the state to incite violence and make the protesters look bad.

      For instance, kettling. The sheer ludicrousy of this tactic astounds me. Basic psychology states that when people have their personal space invaded they become intimidated and (when it is a crowd of people fighting for a common cause) angry. I rememer Ian Hislop on have I Got News For You taking the mick of the police strategy: "What tends to happen, just like with kettles, is you boil up and get very hot and angry!"

      The method has been criticised for years by various psychologists but it continues to be used by police (idiots). They should actually keep the protesters apart, so they have personal space and seperate particularly violent ones so they cannot cause trouble or influence the crowd. Clearly pushing them together like that is not going to make them very happy bunnies at all.

      I am surprised no-one has any sympathy for the OP (who has explicitly stated that he and his friends were out to cause no violence whatsoever). You have all clearly been deluded and brain washed by the state owned media.
      Allowing the protestors to become spread out means that the police get spread out amongst the crowd, meaning they cannot police effectively.

      How can a policeman defend himself when surrounded by 20 angry protestors? By sticking another 19 policeman right next to him.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by AnarchistNutter)

      I am surprised no-one has any sympathy for the OP (who has explicitly stated that he and his friends were out to cause no violence whatsoever). You have all clearly been deluded and brain washed by the state owned media.
      Lol. Oh ok...
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Rooster523)
      Allowing the protestors to become spread out means that the police get spread out amongst the crowd, meaning they cannot police effectively.

      How can a policeman defend himself when surrounded by 20 angry protestors? By sticking another 19 policeman right next to him.
      Fair point but:

      1. If they spread them out more (and seperated the majority from the violent trouble makers) there would be less need to "police" them anyway, which would save everyone (police included) a lot of energy and pain.

      2. If thats really the case, they should send more police to the protests in the first place: they should not have to resort to kettling (a very, very bad strategy).

      3. It is only at these middle-class relatively laid back protests that they use kettling. In other situations in the past where there really have been extremely hardcore and violent, racist skinheads they have definitely not resorted to kettling. I think this in itself goes to show that the only reason they use kettling is to make the protestors look bad (by invoking violence), which in turn helps the state to justify its actions raising tuition fees and what not.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
      Damn it. Some of the responses in this thread (and others like these) really piss me off. State endorsed violence is fine: violence in self-defence of state endorsed violence is almost always terrorism. This circular logic even applies to utterly absurd levels: the OP "got himself mixed in with violent anarchist terrorist fascists" and therefore deserved to be beaten to a pulp (despite no clarification of being involved with such groups). I mean, really, the utterly ludicrousy amazes me. The Rupert Murdoch owned Sky News are up in arms about protester violence and how the police are helpless victims of ruthless anarchists: they rarely ever mention how police often beat totally innocent protesters into comas. Need I cite the reference to Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests last year?



      Many of the police tactics are totally wrong on so many levels. I honestly can't believe they do it accidentally: no, it is a deliberate strategy employed by the state to incite violence and make the protesters look bad.

      For instance, kettling. The sheer ludicrousy of this tactic astounds me. Basic psychology states that when people have their personal space invaded they become intimidated and (when it is a crowd of people fighting for a common cause) angry. I rememer Ian Hislop on have I Got News For You taking the mick of the police strategy: "What tends to happen, just like with kettles, is you boil up and get very hot and angry!"

      The method has been criticised for years by various psychologists but it continues to be used by police (idiots). They should actually keep the protesters apart, so they have personal space and seperate particularly violent ones so they cannot cause trouble or influence the crowd. Clearly pushing them together like that is not going to make them very happy bunnies at all.

      I am surprised no-one has any sympathy for the OP (who has explicitly stated that he and his friends were out to cause no violence whatsoever). You have all clearly been deluded and brain washed by the state owned media.
      And how do you propose to do this when thousands of students are crowded into one particular place? i.e. outside the Tory HQ.

      Do you suggest that the police should just allow the students to damage private property and deface public monuments such as the statue of Churchill?
     
     
     
    Reply
    Submit reply
    TSR Support Team

    We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

    Updated: December 12, 2010
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.