what sort of government uses water cannon on protestors?

tillycat123

leveller2911 wrote: »

Actually I put away £40 per month for the last 12 yrs to help pay for my kids further education if they choose to go to uni then good on them, if they need more then they will be encouraged to get part time jobs.We expect too much from the nanny state and its about time people grew up and started providing for themselves..By your comment you mean the millions of people who DON'T go to university?Then yes I speak for millions of people, although I didn't realise I had so much clout......

I had been putting away my only handout, family allowance for exactly the same thing. I'm soon to lose that!

ninky_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are purposely ignoring the criminals.

You are using this water cannon business on a political level (hence your title), while simply ignoring WHY the water cannon may be used, as you wish to first pretend its it's simply a nasty tory government intent on using a water cannon against peaceful protestors, sticking to their planned routes, and walking calmly through the streets getting their point across.

No point really in going any further is there?

If you are unable to seperate peaceful protests with riots, intent to injure, and intent to cause damage, this really is a lost cause.

Probably best to let you bang on your labour drum.

i think the condems are keen to make the protests as dangerous and scary as possible. hence the water cannon threat and ketlling. they want to scare people enough that they stay at home and don't come out in vast numbers causing embarrassment and headlines and highlighting the lack of popularity for the condems.

there would be no riots if people weren't angry in large numbers as there would be no mass protests.

Cleaver

ninky wrote: »

so the royals are innocent but someone who goes on a protest is guilty if the person next to them throws a brick? this is a very stupid thing to say.

Sorry, but you're putting words in to my mouth. Where have I said that people who peacfully protest are somehow guilty? You can't make up things I didn't say, then call me stupid for saying them.

I said that if you go to one of these protests it's clear that there will be a significant number of people there who are criminals. You make the decision whether you want to join them or not and therefore face getting wet with a water cannon. I fully support people's right to peeacfully protest.

ninky wrote: »

if you have ever been on a protest (have you)

Yes, I have.

ninky wrote: »

you would realise how little choice you get about who you stand next to (not least when the police start kettling people). with crowd numbers like that it's a bit like saying it's your fault if you end up in a packed tube carriage next to someone with BO.

I went on a demonstration a number of years ago about cuts in nursery funding. I went with a number of teachers, mothers and kids on a peaceful march through London along to Downing Street. No one caused any trouble.

If I had got down there and saw people in masks, with bats, breaking windows and throwing bricks I wouldn't have joined the protest. It's as simple as that.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

because they are a very small minority. just because you watch something on BBC news that isn't everyone and it's all like that.

Q - how can someone who lives in a village in Devon be such an expert on a protest march in London??
A - because they watch the BBC News

you can't make this stuff up

Barking up the wrong tree here chucky. Unless you were in the middle of the the crowds causing damage, you have as much of an idea as I do. Where I live makes absolutely no difference.

As for the small minority. Those are the people who will get the water cannon. It's not really all that hard to understand. Therefore you really don't need to be an expert to comprehend it.

The government isn't saying they are going to unleash water canons at every single protestor, capturing shoppers, general public and the media at the same time, now, are they?

Just as they didn't charge at literally any group of people they saw. They only charged when criminal damage was taking place....and the charges came when patience had worn very thin, after several calls for the damage to stop.

lostinrates

chucky wrote: »

the Tories aren't the answer, Labour weren't either. the Lib Dems aren't even worth considering, the jokers... .
.

chucky, may I ask what or who you think the answer might be? Its never clear to me!

chucky

ninky wrote: »

i think the condems are keen to make the protests as dangerous and scary as possible. hence the water cannon threat and ketlling. they want to scare people enough that they stay at home and don't come out in vast numbers causing embarrassment and headlines and highlighting the lack of popularity for the condems.

there would be no riots if people weren't angry in large numbers as there would be no mass protests.

they've been made to be the victims in all of this. not sure how they've done this. spin at it's best.

what about the students who will now suffer due to the funding changes??
a few broken windows is more important now.

Cleaver

ninky wrote: »

i think the condems are keen to make the protests as dangerous and scary as possible. hence the water cannon threat and ketlling.

Classic. You honestly think it's the government that are making these protests 'dangerous'? Because I'm of the opinion it's the criminals who are smashing windows, lighting fires, throwing bricks and fire extinguishers, urinating and dragging police off horses that are causing most of the danger.

ninky wrote: »

they want to scare people enough that they stay at home and don't come out in vast numbers causing embarrassment and headlines and highlighting the lack of popularity for the condems.

Again, you seriously think this? You don't think that the criminal element are putting people off? Funnily enough my Dad feels very strongly about these fee rises (much stronger than me) and wanted to go down to London to protest, but said to me that he's put off doing so because he doesn't want to mix with criminals. Is that the police's fault?

Spartacus_Mills

ninky wrote: »

and what happens if a perfectly innocent protestor is next to someone who chooses to throw a brick? do they deserve to get hosed to the ground? maybe if police officers spot a pick pocket on oxford street they should open the water cannon on the high street?

Only an idiot would come up with such a stupid example.

Utterly ridiculous thing to write.

olly300

ninky wrote: »

is that why there are no tuition fees for higher education in norway and they are paid for entirely by the state? is that why higher education is also free in sweden (for swedes and foreigners)? is that why higher education is also free in finland? there are also no tuition fees for eu students in denmark.

the research on young age education is important and is surely to improve applications. however i don't think you will find any scandinavian government that sees introducing tuition fees as a way of improving equality of opportunity.

Their highest rate of income tax kicks in at a much lower level than in the UK meaning that more people pay a higher rate. Hence they can afford to fund both their pre-school education and higher education.

You can't have it both ways. You either have to pay more income tax plus something like 9-25% VAT on currently zero rated items such as food, or you can pay the current level of tax we do now.

Graham_Devon

ninky wrote: »

i think the condems are keen to make the protests as dangerous and scary as possible.

I'm lost for words.

If that really was the case. Just let them storm the treasury. Job done.

Or better still, let them nearer downing street.

Deary me. Come on Ninky, you are better than this, and you didn't even answer my question.