what sort of government uses water cannon on protestors?

Really2

PhylPho wrote: »

The only frankly humiliating naivety on display here stems from your decision to post such a comment about mass murder.

Society is fallible. Its institutions are fallible. The blindingly obvious doesn't need dramatising.

You have muddled your quotes, I never said any of that.

ChrisMcKendrick

ALIBOBSY wrote: »

Whilst I don't believe the police get everything right and have to be subject to public scrutiny like any public body, these protests have been hijacked by left wingers determined to make some polictical mileage out of this issue, it has been turned from a protest into pure riots and any chance that the majority of people in this country would support their position has long since been destroyed by the violence and disgusting behaviour.

Having looked at the new system and various reports on it, it doesn't seem any less fair than the old system, just differently weighted. It is fairer on thos from less affluent backgrounds and at the end of the day if your degree doesn't end up giving you a higher income later in life you will never pay a penny for it.

The money going into higher ed has to be cut (unless the NUS would prefer the NHS to be cut, or primary schools perhaps) at least this way the opportunity is still there, the only other way would be to cut places at uni.

ali x

BTW agree with the poster who said all costs for damage should come out of the HIgher ed budget.

Whilst I don't believe the police get everything right and have to be subject to public scrutiny like any public body

They are subject to some public scrutiny, but it's accountability that seems to be lacking. Also, you should read about 'kettling,' the police's institutional policy of deliberately winding protesters up, sometimes for hours at a time, without access to toilets, warmth, food or shelter, sometimes in extremely cramped conditions.

it has been turned from a protest into pure riots

While there are a few bad eggs ruining it for everyone, this statement is, in all likelihood, patently untrue. The media loves a story, and sensationalism shifts copy. In the event of big protests the media will almost always focus on the violence - it's more interesting, and many of the major news outlets are owned by people who support the government's agendas. Basically, don't expect impartiality from a media industry that has highly concentrated ownership, and an interest in the furtherance of the same/similar political agenda as the government.

hijacked by left wingers determined to make some polictical mileage out of this issue

It is a political issue, and I don't consider myself a lefty. The issue is about whether the broad mass of tax payers should effectively be forced to pay for the economic crash, while public services are reduced, including education. Personally I take issue with an increase in my taxes and a simultaneous reduction of the public services I AM PAYING FOR. The question is also one of principles. As a recent graduate, it grated to have free higher education taken away by a cabal of politicians who had themselves enjoyed a free further education, many of whom have had little contact with the real world, and know nothing of what it is like to be struggle to pay bills and afford food.

As for the economic situation that is precipitating the attacks on everything public... Basically, the banks took on unacceptable risks and WE are paying for it. That is the long and short of it. An oversimplification perhaps, but true nontheless. The long version of the story is that starting in the 80s manufacturing in the western world was destroyed by the like of Thatcher and Reagan who allowed the offshoring of many industries to places where wage prices where lower, and banking was massively deregulated to allow reckless and predatory lending, pitiful reserve requirements and the formation of 'exotic financial instruments' that allowed speculators to get exceptionally rich. Alas, the last 20 years of western 'growth' (if there can be said to have been any) was largely dependant on the availability of credit, but all of this credit needs paying back. When individuals, businesses, banks and governments cannot pay down their debts, the banks face a problem - when they create a loan they simply write money into existence (no, really, google 'fractional reserve banking'). Or rather, they write debt into existence. Without sufficient export trade our society cannot pay down all these debts; merely moving largely imaginary money around in the City is not sufficient to support a whole economy, no matter what 'trickle down' economic theory says. If we don't make anything, we don't strictly speaking generate any 'real' wealth.

So we bailed out the banks, to the tune of trillions of £s globally. If you do your research, you will find that this bailout is tantamount to the single greatest transfer of wealth from the common (wo)man to the wealthiest 1%. Just have a look at how many new billionaires were created in 2008-2010, and the net increase in the wealth of the richest individuals in that same period. And now, government debts (funnily enough to many of the banks who were bailed out) need paying back. It doesn't matter that the country has run higher deficits in the past, it doesn't matter that some of the national debt is actually debt incurred bailing banks out, the political decision has been made that WE the taxpayer are going to pay for the economic crash. What is near anathema to mention, is that perhaps the rich should also be helping us pay for the crisis.

The money going into higher ed has to be cut (unless the NUS would prefer the NHS to be cut, or primary schools perhaps) at least this way the opportunity is still there, the only other way would be to cut places at uni.

I find it sad to see that the idea that 'sacrifices have to be made' has been internalised by so many people. That we have had higher government debts & deficits in the past is largely overlooked by a compliant media, as is the fact that many of the financial problems of government could be largely solved by instituting more progressive taxation (after the financial crash of 1929, the top rate of tax in some countries soared to above 80% for the outrageously wealthy, these days many of them will pay a lower rate of tax than you or I), actually making wealthy individuals and businesses pay their taxes (tax dodging by the wealthiest costs somewhere in the region of £25billion per year, just ask George 'we're in this together' Osbourne, who personally skipped out of paying £1.6 million in tax last year) and instituting some sensible reforms to the financial sector, such as a separation of speculative and regular banking, a tax on speculative profits, and requiring reasonable reserve requirements of the banks. Hell, we could even pull fully out of Iraq and Afghanistan, that would save a few billion £s and many lives. No need for cuts to education, the NHS, the Police etc. Education could be free to all based on ability, and we could have a thriving high tech, manufacturing based, communications and finance based economy, unfortunately the chances of this were severely damaged by the short sightedness of previous and current governments, who allowed all our critical manufacturing jobs to be offshored, and deregulated finance to the point it became a house of cards - all for the short term gains of their corporate friends.

Sadly, the current government is doing all the right things to make the recession worse, such as laying off up to half a million public sector workers and thus suppressing the already diminished demand for products and services. I actually believe this is the agenda though, to make Britain competitive with the emerging economies such as China. Depressingly this means an all out assault on our standards of living, public services, wage levels and the middle class as a whole to 'rebalance' our economy, and make it possible for us to compete with the east properly.

BTW agree with the poster who said all costs for damage should come out of the HIgher ed budget.

Absolutely, collective punishment is definitely the best way to proceed! :mad: I was once mugged by two men, so I think all men should be punished for it (I joke, but I hope you see the intellectual redundancy of such an argument)

Anyway, I apologise, I have digressed massively in this post, but it's hard to talk of a single issue such as education without a broader understanding of context, something I think is sadly missing from many people's view of the current economic situation.

[/tl;dr]

1984ReturnsForReal_2

ChrisMcKendrick wrote: »

BTW agree with the poster who said all costs for damage should come out of the HIgher ed budget.

Absolutely, collective punishment is definitely the best way to proceed! :mad: I was once mugged by two men, so I think all men should be punished for it (I joke, but I hope you see the intellectual redundancy of such an argument)

Anyway, I apologise, I have digressed massively in this post, but it's hard to talk of a single issue such as education without a broader understanding of context, something I think is sadly missing from many people's view of the current economic situation.

[/tl;dr]

Are you sure it was men? Could it not have been 2 women dressed as men or 2 boys that just looked old?

Best punish everyone including yourself, just in case.


Thanks for the apology. I didn't read any of it apart from the first & last paragraphs.

Don't do it again.

PhylPho

Really2 wrote: »

You have muddled your quotes, I never said any of that.

Many apologies, Really2. My post was intended to reference an earlier contribution of Stryder's.

PhylPho

@ Chris McKendrick: a welcome and thoughtful post but I'd have to quibble over some of the points.

For example, the reference to the 'cabal' of politicians ushering in the cuts, as if we're all peasants and subject to the whims of Sun King courtiers. We're not, and they ain't. A pragmatic electorate voted pragmatically at the last election and the will to end the days of the UK dining out on credit is actually a desire of many. Not the hobby-horse of some elite group.

As to the banks, the extent to which this country's finances were getting out of control was pretty obvious before the credit crunch.

In respect of the banking / finance sector, Society needs it to function for Society to function. The amoral thugs who turned banking into gambling knew that just as much as the elected institution of governance knew it. The tab we're picking up now for 'saving the banks' is a necessary tab in everyone's interests, though that we're having to do so as much because of the cynical greed of bankers as the utter dumb incompetence of our elected representatives is galling.

Your concluding point about context is well-made, though as your post refers to earlier episodes of history it might've been best to keep context in mind in that respect.

For example: when these current days of ultra-low interest rates come to an end, many will no doubt complain how unfair it is that earlier generations benefited from mortgage interest relief at source (MIRAS) and why then can't they?

The answer is in your word 'context' -- that and an explanation, perhaps, that contexts change. Always have. Always will.

Really2

PhylPho wrote: »

Many apologies, Really2. My post was intended to reference an earlier contribution of Stryder's.

No worries, I did a rant post first then realised what you had done.

Stryder

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How many people would have died if police just let riots go and let them do what they like?

Catch 22 isnt it? You'll slam police for taking action, but I bet you'd slam them more if they didn't and simply let things get out of hand.

The police are the suppose professionals. They get paid to uphold the law.
If they break the law then who polices them?

You can not right a wrong by adding another wrong. If the police can not handle demonstrations then they should go back to the training college.
Dont forget, half the rights we have in this country we have got from protest, and not by talking.

Stryder

PhylPho wrote: »

Stryder wrote: »

The only frankly humiliating naivety on display here stems from your decision to post such a comment about mass murder.

Society is fallible. Its institutions are fallible. The blindingly obvious doesn't need dramatising.

where is the dramatisation... these are facts.
If you prefer to divert your eyes from what is going on, then do so.
And I never suggested "mass murder", I was simply comparing the statistics of violence in response to some nonsense suggesting the police were out numbered 1000-1, suggesting 1,000,000 people at the protest. And to remind that the police are not the law, they are employed to uphold it. The law is the basis of this country and it can be attacked by protesters wielding petrol bombs or police wielding batons.

sabretoothtigger

Really2 wrote: »

You have your quote, I said that.

:beer::beer:

awesome sig stryder

Stryder

Really2 wrote: »

Now I never went uni but I make 30,000 - 40,0000 student / >3000 police = more than 1000:1

Thank you for illustrating the need of universities, that you admit to having missed out on.

30,000 student / 3,000 police
3000 : 300
300 : 30
30 : 3
10 : 1

So you say there was an approximate 10 students and children to every heavily armed policeman? somewhat different to 1000:1