Confronted with what they had last week, they showed great restraint. Not many other nations would have put up with that without much stronger action.
Must say, I think it's rather underhanded the way the pol's are now going on about how they're going to "investigate" the polices actions during these protests.
Talk about getting the sh*tty end of the stick?!
The pol's piss everybody off until they protest and then rely on the cops to minimise damage and control an angry mob and then blame them for upsetting the students.
I wish I was a chief constable at that meeting.
I'd love the opportunity to explain to DC that the easiest, safest and most effective way to pacify the protestors would be to pay for the students education but, failing that, he needs to accept that protests are going to be ugly.
I really, really despised Thatcher but at least she didn't try to back-stab the cops she sent to spank the miners.
Any future ones will be even worse, and should be banned to prevent injury and major damage.
Banning the protests will simply cause people to protest about the lack of the right to protest.
Streisand effect. If the government want the protests to get worse, that's exactly what they should do. Hell, I'd go hobble on that one, and so would many people I know who didn't feel the need to protest the student fee increases.
Why ever not? It's their right to protest (not to riot, though).
Hope you never feel the need to protest - and don't say it'd never happen unless you have a functional crystal ball
You can't go to or knowingly stay at a protest which is turning into a full on riot, then moan when you get battered/shoved out the way - as far as I'm concerned any students still their after it was clearly a riot where just in it for the trouble - otherwise any sensible person would have surely left?
It is quite obvious that a good many such people turned up, as they do to any big protest, because they can hide within a big crowd, and cause havoc. Some such people are actually students too.
Any future ones will be even worse, and should be banned to prevent injury and major damage.
The original cause of the protests are pretty much forgotten, as all the discussion is about the violence.
So the actions of a minority of demonstrators gives police carte blanche to act in the way that they did ? They even dragged a disabled man from his wheelchair.
How very typical of you Deep Purple.
Did I quote "mask" or "scarf"? You'll note I removed "mask", because the thermal properties of a paper mask are indeed weak... however, scarves over the face have perfectly legitimate uses, especially at sub-zero-temperatures.
Was replying to something that wasn't there the only way you felt you could make a point to demonise protesters?
You seemed to be implying that people wore scarves over their faces for warmth.
I was raising the issue of protestors wearing masks to highlight the fact that a number of protestors clearly DID wish to hide their identity and, on that basis, I think it's fair to assume that scarves were also used for that purpose.
I think their tactics are by-and-large correct but not implemented correctly. By all means use the truncheons on the scum element but not on innocent, peaceful protestors and bystanders (cameramen included), You only have to look at videos taken of the protests to realise this happens (Tomlinson for example).
If you're faced with a fast moving crowd of people, how are you supposed to be able to discriminate between those likely to be violent and those simply caught up in it? You can't, it's an unrealistic expectation-all you can do is try to keep the crowd as a whole back. The protesters got themselves into that situation, it was their choice to be there, it's for them to accept the consequences.
You can't go to or knowingly stay at a protest which is turning into a full on riot, then moan when you get battered/shoved out the way - as far as I'm concerned any students still their after it was clearly a riot where just in it for the trouble - otherwise any sensible person would have surely left?
Completely unrelated to what I said and what you said to gain my reply.
You said they shouldn't have been there. You've not answered my question of "why".
You seemed to be implying that people wore scarves over their faces for warmth.
I wasn't implying it, I was stating it as a fact.
Obviously not all of them did - some wore them for the same reason as others wore masks - but in sub-zero temperatures it's a bit much to automatically assume a scarf on the face must be to hide their identity.
A mask - sure. A scarf? Much less so, as there's perfectly logical, rational and reasonable reasons for wearing one.
So the actions of a minority of demonstrators gives police carte blanche to act in the way that they did ? They even dragged a disabled man from his wheelchair.
How very typical of you Deep Purple.
So what? why was he even there - AT THE FRONT OF THE RIOT?
How are the police supposed to act when paint, missiles, bowling balls are being chucked at them and buildings/cars around them are being damaged? :rolleyes: I'm sure you would feel differently if you lived near one of these riots and some long haired bloody 'student' was smashing your car windows in as we saw in the Daily Mail pictures.
You can't go to or knowingly stay at a protest which is turning into a full on riot, then moan when you get battered/shoved out the way - as far as I'm concerned any students still their after it was clearly a riot where just in it for the trouble - otherwise any sensible person would have surely left?
Just waiting for the usual jokers to turn up in this thread advocating the use of tasers & rubber bullets on the kids. As for people saying that protesters shouldn't have been there, the government has pretty much sold out their entire future! This 'deficit' isn't their fault, yet they're the ones paying for it? I don't blame them for protesting quite frankly.
Individual troublemakers should be arrested, if you kettle an entire crowd for 10+ hours, obviously people are going to get angry.
One of the articles linked in the OP gives the account of someone that tried to leave when things got rough... and was prevented from doing so by the police.
So what? why was he even there - AT THE FRONT OF THE RIOT?
How are the police supposed to act when paint, missiles, bowling balls are being chucked at them and buildings/cars around them are being damaged? :rolleyes: I'm sure you would feel differently if you lived near one of these riots and some long haired bloody 'student' was smashing your car windows in as we saw in the Daily Mail pictures.
One of the articles linked in the OP gives the account of someone that tried to leave when things got rough... and was prevented from doing so by the police.
Link please? (i see it now)
My friends had no trouble whatsoever leaving but then they werent in the front line of it, werent covering their faces with masks and werent throwing missles at the police im not saying your friends were but if they were shouting and screaming and up front and in the thick of it i can see the polices point.
So what? why was he even there - AT THE FRONT OF THE RIOT?
How are the police supposed to act when paint, missiles, bowling balls are being chucked at them and buildings/cars around them are being damaged? :rolleyes: I'm sure you would feel differently if you lived near one of these riots and some long haired bloody 'student' was smashing your car windows in as we saw in the Daily Mail pictures.
So the actions of a minority of demonstrators gives police carte blanche to act in the way that they did ? They even dragged a disabled man from his wheelchair.
How very typical of you Deep Purple.
It sounds more to me like you're trying to generalise the police and make 1 isolated incident look like the norm in order to backup your anti-police agenda whilst single handedly forgetting how difficult the police's job was on those days with thousands of thugs causing violence.
could you send your tips on crowd control to the London Police Dept Im sure they could use your contribution about what professionally means... in other countries they d be water cannoned or shot.
Just waiting for the usual jokers to turn up in this thread advocating the use of tasers & rubber bullets on the kids. As for people saying that protesters shouldn't have been there, the government has pretty much sold out their entire future! This 'deficit' isn't their fault, yet they're the ones paying for it? I don't blame them for protesting quite frankly.angry.
Meh,
When they're old enough to vote they'll have a chance to f*ck things up for themselves.
So what? why was he even there - AT THE FRONT OF THE RIOT?
How are the police supposed to act when paint, missiles, bowling balls are being chucked at them and buildings/cars around them are being damaged? :rolleyes: I'm sure you would feel differently if you lived near one of these riots and some long haired bloody 'student' was smashing your car windows in as we saw in the Daily Mail pictures.
It sounds more to me like you're trying to generalise the police and make 1 isolated incident look like the norm in order to backup your anti-police agenda
Hmm, replace "police" with "protesters"...
Anyone can play the generalising game. Not all the police were abusive. Not all the protesters were violent. It was a minority of each (and yes, there was a fair bit of violence, but it still wasn't a majority of protesters nor police).
Link please? (i see it now)
My friends had no trouble whatsoever leaving but then they werent in the front line of it, werent covering their faces with masks and werent throwing missles at the police im not saying your friends were but if they were shouting and screaming and up front and in the thick of it i can see the polices point.
Many people weren't covering their faces, throwing missiles, etc - including the people in the account in the OP's link. They were still prevented from leaving.
It sounds more to me like you're trying to generalise the police and make 1 isolated incident look like the norm in order to backup your anti-police agenda whilst single handedly forgetting how difficult the police's job was on those days with thousands of thugs causing violence.
Says you who seems to trying to generalise protestors as all violent thugs.
Anyone can play the generalising game. Not all the police were abusive. Not all the protesters were violent. It was a minority of each (and yes, there was a fair bit of violence, but it still wasn't a majority of protesters nor police).
Many people weren't covering their faces, throwing missiles, etc - including the people in the account in the OP's link. They were still prevented from leaving.
The police are trying to do a very difficult job in almost impossible circumstances if i had been there and been prevented from leaving while the police regained control i'd have found a quiet spot to wait it out. Seems any excuse to place the blame firmly with the police instead of the rioters causing havoc and mayhem
I wonder if you and others would feel the same were this riot on a council estate over benefit cuts, would you think police brutality then? GENUINE people i believe shouldnt have a problem with the police regaining control over a violent situation, if they are forced to use violence to protect themselves and in the long run me, then im all for it and stuff the cry babies, youll want the police there if they were rioting outside YOUR house im sure.
just for one moment imagine that the police stood back and watched this all unfold and did nothing.. they whole of London would have been smashed up and some Royals might have been murdered.. Would we have praised the police ,,I think not.
Comments
If they are old enough to go on a protest, they are old enough to accept the consequences.
Particularly in the light of previous protests turning violent.
Must say, I think it's rather underhanded the way the pol's are now going on about how they're going to "investigate" the polices actions during these protests.
Talk about getting the sh*tty end of the stick?!
The pol's piss everybody off until they protest and then rely on the cops to minimise damage and control an angry mob and then blame them for upsetting the students.
I wish I was a chief constable at that meeting.
I'd love the opportunity to explain to DC that the easiest, safest and most effective way to pacify the protestors would be to pay for the students education but, failing that, he needs to accept that protests are going to be ugly.
I really, really despised Thatcher but at least she didn't try to back-stab the cops she sent to spank the miners.
Banning the protests will simply cause people to protest about the lack of the right to protest.
Streisand effect. If the government want the protests to get worse, that's exactly what they should do. Hell, I'd go hobble on that one, and so would many people I know who didn't feel the need to protest the student fee increases.
"The consequences" were nothing to do with what I just said. I was replying to someone saying they shouldn't be there.
Im not denying that at all. Im angered that a section of the police force are far too brutal towards innocent people, thats all.
You can't go to or knowingly stay at a protest which is turning into a full on riot, then moan when you get battered/shoved out the way - as far as I'm concerned any students still their after it was clearly a riot where just in it for the trouble - otherwise any sensible person would have surely left?
So the actions of a minority of demonstrators gives police carte blanche to act in the way that they did ? They even dragged a disabled man from his wheelchair.
How very typical of you Deep Purple.
You seemed to be implying that people wore scarves over their faces for warmth.
I was raising the issue of protestors wearing masks to highlight the fact that a number of protestors clearly DID wish to hide their identity and, on that basis, I think it's fair to assume that scarves were also used for that purpose.
If you're faced with a fast moving crowd of people, how are you supposed to be able to discriminate between those likely to be violent and those simply caught up in it? You can't, it's an unrealistic expectation-all you can do is try to keep the crowd as a whole back. The protesters got themselves into that situation, it was their choice to be there, it's for them to accept the consequences.
Completely unrelated to what I said and what you said to gain my reply.
You said they shouldn't have been there. You've not answered my question of "why". I wasn't implying it, I was stating it as a fact.
Obviously not all of them did - some wore them for the same reason as others wore masks - but in sub-zero temperatures it's a bit much to automatically assume a scarf on the face must be to hide their identity.
A mask - sure. A scarf? Much less so, as there's perfectly logical, rational and reasonable reasons for wearing one.
So what? why was he even there - AT THE FRONT OF THE RIOT?
How are the police supposed to act when paint, missiles, bowling balls are being chucked at them and buildings/cars around them are being damaged? :rolleyes: I'm sure you would feel differently if you lived near one of these riots and some long haired bloody 'student' was smashing your car windows in as we saw in the Daily Mail pictures.
^ as did my friends
Individual troublemakers should be arrested, if you kettle an entire crowd for 10+ hours, obviously people are going to get angry.
One of the articles linked in the OP gives the account of someone that tried to leave when things got rough... and was prevented from doing so by the police. I'll hazard a guess... protesting.
Or are us disabled people not allowed to protest..?
In a word, professionally.
Link please? (i see it now)
My friends had no trouble whatsoever leaving but then they werent in the front line of it, werent covering their faces with masks and werent throwing missles at the police im not saying your friends were but if they were shouting and screaming and up front and in the thick of it i can see the polices point.
It sounds more to me like you're trying to generalise the police and make 1 isolated incident look like the norm in order to backup your anti-police agenda whilst single handedly forgetting how difficult the police's job was on those days with thousands of thugs causing violence.
Meh,
When they're old enough to vote they'll have a chance to f*ck things up for themselves.
Spot on.
Hmm, replace "police" with "protesters"...
Anyone can play the generalising game. Not all the police were abusive. Not all the protesters were violent. It was a minority of each (and yes, there was a fair bit of violence, but it still wasn't a majority of protesters nor police). Many people weren't covering their faces, throwing missiles, etc - including the people in the account in the OP's link. They were still prevented from leaving.
Says you who seems to trying to generalise protestors as all violent thugs.
The police are trying to do a very difficult job in almost impossible circumstances if i had been there and been prevented from leaving while the police regained control i'd have found a quiet spot to wait it out. Seems any excuse to place the blame firmly with the police instead of the rioters causing havoc and mayhem
I wonder if you and others would feel the same were this riot on a council estate over benefit cuts, would you think police brutality then? GENUINE people i believe shouldnt have a problem with the police regaining control over a violent situation, if they are forced to use violence to protect themselves and in the long run me, then im all for it and stuff the cry babies, youll want the police there if they were rioting outside YOUR house im sure.