what sort of government uses water cannon on protestors?

Stryder

Really2 wrote: »

Yes, knee jerk and no calculation on my behalf, you would not have done such a thing though surely.


Perhaps you would after all, I make that 1:2

But back on original point if 43 students were injured (not all by the police either) and 9 police
who has the highest ratio of injured?
1 in 697 student (based on A generously low 30,000)
1 in 333 police.

So does not really fit in with the police being indiscriminate, they were twice as likely to walk away injured from a "peaceful protest"

Would be a calculation error but in fact, it was a typo - and if you read the links, it was 20,000.

Stryder

Really2 wrote: »

Yes, knee jerk and no calculation on my behalf, you would not have done such a thing though surely.


Perhaps you would after all, I make that 1:2

But back on original point if 43 students were injured (not all by the police either) and 9 police
who has the highest ratio of injured?
1 in 697 student (based on A generously low 30,000)
1 in 333 police.

So does not really fit in with the police being indiscriminate, they were twice as likely to walk away injured from a "peaceful protest"

Funny - not heard of any police with brain injurys! One of the police horse riders fell off, and if you know anything about riding you would know that the guy had not secured his saddle girth.

So do you therefore think that in theory 43 policeman should be charged with assault, compared to 9 students?

Of course the proportion of policeman is higher, half the students were never near the fighting. virtually of the police formed lines of contact. The students were in a mass so many in the center was never close to any policeman. If you understand volume against circumference ratios you would know that in any mass that the majority of people in a mass are not a the edge ... this taken into account you can soon see how the ratio changes

and point stands - you used a ridiculous and uninformed "1000-1" comment to paint a picture of brave policemen against a tide of violence. Reality - there were thousands of protesters and two gangsof thugs, it is just that one of those gangs carry warrant cards.

Asheron

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh no!!!

People causing criminal damge may get sprayed with water.

That's disgustingly outrageous. Frankly, I find it appauling that these people causing criminal damage, costing the taxpayer 10's of thousands of pounds, should get wet.

Or, another idea.

Don't cause criminal damage, you won't get hit with a water cannon.

A Water Cannon is a form of torture! and so is a Taser Gun.

Torture is against our Human Rights! does the government care? No

ninky_2

Really2 wrote: »

Is that not an option if you don't go to uni? I often get called about part funded places for staff.

there has been a massive cut in funding for vocational FE courses - and related loss of courses. the welding course my husband was on got completely wiped from the face of the earth. luckily he already has a job but it just means he can't now get some of the codes he wanted on that course.

ninky_2

ChrisMcKendrick wrote: »

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]

i wish i could thank you more than once for a sensible and thoughtful post.

PhylPho

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

>

>The NUS organised these protests but they have not taken one iota of responsibility for them, except for some feeble, half-hearted saying 'Please be peaceful'.

Anyway, I wonder if the police could have gathered intelligence in the way that they have done with football hooligans. But am unsure what they could have done with that intelligence.

Agree absolutely re the NUS's public stance: a vigorous condemnation of masked thugs would've helped with the credibility the NUS so desperately needs. Absent that kind of condemnation, however, a vacuum has been created and is being filled by the likes of London University's ultra Left NUS leadership, an array of adolescent parrots to whom no Socialist cliche should ever pass unuttered.

As to the police: whilst I hold no particular hopes of competence where they're concerned, penetrating and monitoring the anarchist and other extremist groups should be a doddle -- I've dipped into their websites and postings out of interest a few times, and now that they've combined into a Coalition of the Confuddled (or whatever the latter word is) developing intelligence about them isn't difficult.

What makes it particularly easy at the moment is the sheer desperation of this lot to recruit to "the cause", for in advance of the recent NUS London protest demo the Coalition was pretty triumphal in its assertions that "London workers" would be turning out in force for that event.

As London's "workers" did no such thing, faces should be as red as that lot's pseudo-politics -- though as none of 'em have the slightest iota of self-awareness, it's no surprise that they're still seeing success when the rest of us see only failure.

For the moment at least though, it's kiboshed the planning for a General Strike, during which workers everywhere will rise up against their masters, bring down the Government, destroy the corrupt institutions of State (I'm quoting here) and build the New Kremlin paradise every 'ordinary' person wishes to see. . .

A._Badger

PhylPho wrote: »

Agree absolutely re the NUS's public stance: a vigorous condemnation of masked thugs would've helped with the credibility the NUS so desperately needs. Absent that kind of condemnation, however, a vacuum has been created and is being filled by the likes of London University's ultra Left NUS leadership, an array of adolescent parrots to whom no Socialist cliche should ever pass unuttered.

What's really tragic is that this troupe of clowns will be the lecturers and tutors of the next generation of wanabe Gramscis.

That's how we got into this mess and is the reason why the tree of tertiary education needs to be given a good, hard shake. It's the only way of making sure the nuts fall out.

System

ninky wrote: »

the last time this country saw street riots like this it lead to the welfare state.

I think you may have picked up some imaginary history there.

The welfare state came in in 1945 as a result of broadly agreed political concensus between the parties. Beveridge produced his report at the request of the coalition national government, and Labour implemented it when they won the next election.

I don't think it had anything to do with riots.

ninky_2

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

I think you may have picked up some imaginary history there.

The welfare state came in in 1945 as a result of broadly agreed political concensus between the parties. Beveridge produced his report at the request of the coalition national government, and Labour implemented it when they won the next election.

I don't think it had anything to do with riots.

not according to this...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11990316
Ian Hernon, author of Riot!: Civil Insurrection from Peterloo to the Present Day
Whether or not you think it's morally right, rioting played a part in bringing about the right to vote and in the formation of the welfare state.

Really2

ninky wrote: »

not according to this...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11990316
Ian Hernon, author of Riot!: Civil Insurrection from Peterloo to the Present Day
Whether or not you think it's morally right, rioting played a part in bringing about the right to vote and in the formation of the welfare state.

I must admit that interested me so I googled riots and welfare state vote = nothing
added 1945 still nothing I got this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/mar/14/past.education
But still no mention of riots

What riots is he on about or is it his own view seeing as he wrote a book called riot?

I could understand the suffragettes riots, but that alone (the riots) did not cause the change in the system. the riots were 1910 they were allowed to vote in 1918. (I seem to remember that was something to do with male numbers of over 30s because of the war also, may be wrong)