Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Defending Balaclavas & Violent Protests watch

Announcements
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by No Future)
    My house is not a shop.

    My house is not Fortnum and Mason.

    You are comparing a home with a shop, what is your point?
    Both are private property if I walked into your house and claimed I was going to be doing an occupation I am sure you would want me arrested.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    They were claiming it was an occupation and a sit in. Which on private property is illegal.

    I don't really care about a bunch of idiots who walk into a building with the intention of turning it into an occupation
    You aren't distinguishing between UK Uncut and violent elements elsewhere.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by creak)
    You aren't distinguishing between UK Uncut and violent elements elsewhere.
    Yes I am. They went into that building with the intention of an occupation sit in whatever you want to call it. If it was peaceful or not is not the issue it is still illegal.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    the deliberate targeting of particular businesses is entirely rational
    What has the Ritz ever done to anybody? Yes, they cater to the very wealthy, but that is the niche of their business and they do so entirely morally and legally, attacking them has no justification or motive except envy, and that's coming from someone born to a working class family. Being jealous of the rich does not many it legal to attack them.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Yes I am. They went into that building with the intention of an occupation sit in whatever you want to call it. If it was peaceful or not is not the issue it is still illegal.
    No, they wanted to leave. They weren't being allowed to because the police wanted to keep them there until it was 'safe'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I don't really care about a bunch of idiots who walk into a building
    And I'm sure they don't care about you. How is that relevant?

    I can understand why they would want to cover their faces and/or avoid unwarranted arrests.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    but I think that's the right thing to do and an awful lot of them have jobs that shouldn't exist
    No they don't.
    They are nurses, and teachers, and lecturers.
    The people who "have jobs that shouldn't exist" will not be sacked, or have their wages cut, because they are fat cat Tory voters.
    £200k to head up a council? Really?

    (Original post by creak)
    No, they wanted to leave. They weren't being allowed to because the police wanted to keep them there until it was 'safe'.
    And when they did leave (when the police finally allowed them to), they were arrested, despite being given assurances that would not happen.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig_D)
    What has the Ritz ever done to anybody? Yes, they cater to the very wealthy, but that is the niche of their business and they do so entirely morally and legally, attacking them has no justification or motive except envy, and that's coming from someone born to a working class family. Being jealous of the rich does not many it legal to attack them.
    Idk, I don't support violence.

    Maybe they felt it was a symbol of the lifestyle of the rich who are as rich as ever vs all the cuts for average people? That it's not a big society, that we're not all sharing the burden of UK debt.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Hasn't Barack Obama said that whereever there are people wanting to be free, the US will support them?

    Maybe the US will provide air strikes to support the protestors? Diminish Cameron's forces so he can't repress them?
    :laugh: It's a pity that the people of the UK do not have oil reserves in their gardens.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by creak)
    No, they wanted to leave. They weren't being allowed to because the police wanted to keep them there until it was 'safe'.
    Oh yeah, they said they could leave, when in fact they just arrested them when they got outside.

    Are people supposed to protest in designated areas predetermined by the government to cause the least amount of disturbance? Seems the point of a protest has become entirely negated, no?

    Besides, we should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal" (MLK). And in no way am I comparing this situation to the civil rights movement or Hungary '56 (which incidentally started with a student protest), just that when you get into the semantics of what is legal/illegal, it can get convoluted with all moral and ethical views out the window.

    (Original post by Aj12)
    Yes I am. They went into that building with the intention of an occupation sit in whatever you want to call it. If it was peaceful or not is not the issue it is still illegal.
    I'm sure you'd feel the same if it were violent...right?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Um, dunno why you're raising the issue with me. I'm critical of the actions of the police.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    Voters have a responsibility to actually try and understand the proposals made by candidates and judge them not just on "this sounds good because it benefits me" but also on "how likely is to to actually be done", the Lib Dems coming into any sort of power on the back of tuition fees pledges just demonstrates how stupid your average voter(and average student voter) is.
    And candidates and parties have a responsibility to stick to what they believe in, and not lie to get a taste of power.

    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    You are not the majority, you are the minority.
    Are you sure about that? Most people did not vote for deep and fast cuts.

    (Original post by hollywoodbudgie)
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...n-2156207.html

    There's an IPCC complaint, but it's in early stages.
    Can't see it getting anywhere tbh. They always protect their own.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Whats your point? BoJo did a twatish thing when younger. Just because a Tory does something it is suddenly ok ?
    (Original post by Craig_D)
    Cool. I repeat what I said, irrational violence is never justified.
    Not really, I actually agree with your main point. But I do enjoy the irony of some of those speaking about people causing damage in The Ritz and Fortnum and Mason who did the very same a few years ago under different circumstances. Just the fact it's the same joints behind being mentioned is hugely entertaining.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)


    Can't see it getting anywhere tbh. They always protect their own.
    Will be interesting to see how the Ian Tomlinson inquest goes...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/20...es?INTCMP=SRCH

    Looks like it isn't only police who aren't honest. The pathologist who carried out the first postmortem on Ian Tomlinson, Dr Freddy Patel:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ma...atel-suspended
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Looks like it isn't only police who aren't honest:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ma...atel-suspended
    Exactly - this is the problem - there are such conflicting reports from both sides of the situation - loads of people on this thread have been arguing about the uK uncut occupation - some claim that the police legally arrested them, others are complaining that the police tricked them into coming out by saying that it was safe and they were definitely letting them go then arrested them as they came out.

    But surely it is quite telling that almost 75% of the 200(ish) arrests that happened on the day were UK Uncut members who, whether or not you agree or disagree with non violent civil disobedience, were only performing a sit it. Judging from the amount the police are complaining about the 'hooliganism' and 'vandalism' and 'violence' that went on, why did they focus so much on picking up those quite peaceful protesters and arrest barely any of those causing real violent trouble outside?

    The problem is again that the reports are all so one-sided and completely conflicting- the police claim all young people are yobs and hooligans and they were violent and are the scourge of the country etc etc, whilst protesters claim police acted indiscriminately with brutality and violence towards all of them regardless of who was causing trouble/being violent and who was not. This blog called 'What Really Happened at the Protests' sets out quite a good comparison of the varying reports from both sides of the issue - and the comments at the bottom show that people find it just as hard to agree on what happened and who is in the wrong as people do on here!

    Also I do have to agree with the original premise of this thread which is that yes, in a democratic government, it is true that violent protest should be unnecessary as the peoples' voices are already heard and taken into account by the government, so they should not recourse to violence. But the major problem is that this government is really making people feel that their voices are not heard -they are going ahead with everything regardless of peaceful protest and thousands of voices of dissent- they have quite clearly come out and said they aren't interested and won't be changing their plans, and they have failed time and again to have the guts to come out and address protesters and properly engage with and debate the arguments they are raising. so at that point, people feel the need to recourse to violence as the democratic system has broken down when their voices aren't any longer being heard. (Hell, they weren't even heard in the election itself- nobody voted for this government).

    The same argument works for violence at the protests too - no, it is not right to attack or act violently towards police because the police are there to safeguard us and protect our human rights. But if the police come charging into a square where you are sitting down peacefully with friends having a chat and suddenly start rounding you up, throwing people to the floor, hitting htem on the head wiht batons just because they have been forced to the front of the crowd whilst they are not being aggresive at all and then deny them of their human rights by preventing them from leaving the area for hours though they have committed no crime, then the police are no longer protecting them or acting in their interests so the incentive is no longer there to obey and respect them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by laurabates)
    The same argument works for violence at the protests too - no, it is not right to attack or act violently towards police because the police are there to safeguard us and protect our human rights. But if the police come charging into a square where you are sitting down peacefully with friends having a chat and suddenly start rounding you up, throwing people to the floor, hitting htem on the head wiht batons just because they have been forced to the front of the crowd whilst they are not being aggresive at all and then deny them of their human rights by preventing them from leaving the area for hours though they have committed no crime, then the police are no longer protecting them or acting in their interests so the incentive is no longer there to obey and respect them.
    Yep, and I have seen this happen.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig_D)
    What has the Ritz ever done to anybody? Yes, they cater to the very wealthy, but that is the niche of their business and they do so entirely morally and legally, attacking them has no justification or motive except envy, and that's coming from someone born to a working class family. Being jealous of the rich does not many it legal to attack them.
    I appreciate how paradoxical it seems to claim that violence benefits, hence so many people share the same opinion as yours here and why I am here to illustrate a different stance.

    The truth is, that goverments 'like' peaceful protests. In the short term it creates a mess and costs a bit, but give them a few days everything is cleared up whilst allowing the goverment to boast about the freedom of speech their country has. It strengthens 'democracy.' No goverment, however, approves of a violent protest as it never makes them look 'good.' (Think David Cameron in China talking about democracy over there whilst our students were smashing windows). It is all very easy to dismiss the destruction 'working class' people cause as being due to mere jealousy, but I would say that it is because of something far deeper than that. For starters, it is certainly not simply the 'working class' that are partaking in the violence as much of it is the 'middle class' is as well, highlighting how the divide between the 'rich' and 'not rich' feels more stretched.

    What is important is not why the Ritz as an individual building was attacked, but more of the fact that buildings as a whole were attacked. Such destruction does not happen because a few people got p*ssed after a couple of drinks. The truth of the matter is that the majority of the damage being done are by people who you would normally pass down the street without thinking about them twice. Violence is not just a matter of vandalism- many people feel that the welfare state and social contract is being destroyed and to them this is a much greater act of violence. The Ritz, along with other structures were attacked as a genuine expression of frustration against the government that many of these people felt continues to cheat the public. Personally, I believe that if people feel so passionately angered about something, lighting candles and dancing to drums in the streets as if they are at a 'family day out' is not genuine expression of this anger. Of course, like I said before, I completely respect those that peacefully protest, for making the effort to turn up and so forth, however, I think it is utterly hypocritical to demonstrate scorn towards those who are willing to put their necks on the lines to so passionately display what they believe in.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    No they don't.
    They are nurses, and teachers, and lecturers.
    The people who "have jobs that shouldn't exist" will not be sacked, or have their wages cut, because they are fat cat Tory voters.
    £200k to head up a council? Really?
    It is possible to have too many of those you know. The public sector has been inflated massively over the last 10 years, and while its all so easy for other Tories to say there all 'Diversity Officers' and like I know this is not true. Its faily pointless having x amount number of new coppers when half of them are stuck in a back room filling in paperwork, we need reform and a sensibly sized public sector.
    200k is to much for a council salary, but I don't see the heads of Labour councils saying no to it, and I very much doubt they vote Tory.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    It is possible to have too many of those you know. The public sector has been inflated massively over the last 10 years, and while its all so easy for other Tories to say there all 'Diversity Officers' and like I know this is not true. Its faily pointless having x amount number of new coppers when half of them are stuck in a back room filling in paperwork, we need reform and a sensibly sized public sector.
    200k is to much for a council salary, but I don't see the heads of Labour councils saying no to it, and I very much doubt they vote Tory.
    Are you really suggesting we have too many nurses, teachers and police? You are having a laugh? If anything, in all 3 areas, we have too few.

    And yes, they probably do vote tory. Especially if its a tory council (like Suffolk - who have one of the highest paid council chiefs in the country).
    I'd agree that Labour aren't saints in this either, but if you are going to make cuts, then it need to be made where most money is wasted (aka at the top).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zii2...e_gdata_player

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...olice-uk-uncut
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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: April 3, 2011
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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