Violent Protests As Mps Vote To Raise Tuition Fees

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Violence is unacceptable from either side (if we correctly assume there are just two sides which personally I don't believe).

If someone pushes, hits, kicks, or uses force then of course it is acceptable for you to respond in kind if necessary.

 

And yes, these things start off with something minor. But there would be no violence against other persons if the police were absent or well out of the way. Though they weren't. They were in the thicks of things and were used to contain and control those who were demonstrating.

 

I am not an anarchist. I just agree with the anarchist outlook. Though anyway, it isn't my raison d'etre to hate the police. It is simply the result of being anti-statist through a recognition of the role of the State and reasons for its existence. It isn't about bad policemen but a recognition that WHAT the police are is bad.

[ballaughbiker]

But there would be no violence against other persons if the police were absent or well out of the way

That's a bit like saying there would be no violence against other persons if the radical violent small percentage of the demonstrators were absent. It might well be true but it's not going to happen.

 

I am not an anarchist. I just agree with the anarchist outlook

 

It isn't about bad policemen but a recognition that WHAT the police are is bad.

:blink:

 

You drawn a very fine distinction between the illustrated points which isn't necessarily readily discernable in real life.

[jimbms]

Violence is unacceptable from either side (if we correctly assume there are just two sides which personally I don't believe).

If someone pushes, hits, kicks, or uses force then of course it is acceptable for you to respond in kind if necessary.

 

And yes, these things start off with something minor. But there would be no violence against other persons if the police were absent or well out of the way. Though they weren't. They were in the thicks of things and were used to contain and control those who were demonstrating.

 

I am not an anarchist. I just agree with the anarchist outlook. Though anyway, it isn't my raison d'etre to hate the police. It is simply the result of being anti-statist through a recognition of the role of the State and reasons for its existence. It isn't about bad policemen but a recognition that WHAT the police are is bad.

On the sane thought there would be there would be no violence against other persons if the violent element of the protesters stayed away, as someone said there are two sides to this and if the protesters deliberately goad and assault the police then they have no excuse when they gat it back. Violence by any party is wrong and there is no excuse for it for any reason.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

That's a bit like saying there would be no violence against other persons if the radical violent small percentage of the demonstrators were absent. It might well be true but it's not going to happen.

You seem confused as to the reasons for this violence. The violence wasn't some spontaneous, random, and irrational action taken by those who just went to these demos to offload their violence tendencies. It was directed at symbols of the State and it was in response to State use of force to sherperd the demonstration and contain it. Were there to be no police or were they to have had a distant presence, there would be no violence against them.

 

I don't undertake any direct action at present and I do not fully agree with every strand of anarchist thinking, I am therefore not an anarchist.

 

It isn't a fine distinction. In your mind you see the Police (the institution) as a force for good and one that maintains order and makes society a better place. When the police do wrong it is individuals who are at fault - bad apples. I see the institution as a tool of the State to be used to maintaining AN order that suits the interests of a powerful minority. They aren't a force for good. Any terrible act by the police is an example of their worst aspects of the role, not an exception to otherwise good work.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

On the sane thought there would be there would be no violence against other persons if the violent element of the protesters stayed away, as someone said there are two sides to this and if the protesters deliberately goad and assault the police then they have no excuse when they gat it back. Violence by any party is wrong and there is no excuse for it for any reason.

But again, the police were in the way. They were presenting barriers and were determining the course and nature of the demonstration. The use or threatened use of such force was responded to.

 

And I think your last comment is pretty silly. If someone was slapping you about the head and maybe putting your life at risk, I presume you would use violence to defend yourself? And (without recourse to police help) what if someone was preventing you from moving from place to place (to work maybe) and therefore getting in your way. Would you ensure that they were stopped?

[ballaughbiker]

1) Part of this was a reaction to earlier protests where violence had been directed at other targets other than the police but I am in no way defending the police thuggery that took part. Both the police and the violent portion of the protesters are both at fault.

 

2)

I see the institution as a tool of the State to be used to maintaining AN order that suits the interests of a powerful minority

I should like to say what a load of bollox but in an attempt to remain civil I shall just have to agree to disagree. Would you really like to live in a country with no police? No don't answer that but answer this. If you could live anywhere in the world, what place would match your interesting ideals the most?

[jimbms]

On the sane thought there would be there would be no violence against other persons if the violent element of the protesters stayed away, as someone said there are two sides to this and if the protesters deliberately goad and assault the police then they have no excuse when they gat it back. Violence by any party is wrong and there is no excuse for it for any reason.

But again, the police were in the way. They were presenting barriers and were determining the course and nature of the demonstration. The use or threatened use of such force was responded to.

 

And I think your last comment is pretty silly. If someone was slapping you about the head and maybe putting your life at risk, I presume you would use violence to defend yourself? And (without recourse to police help) what if someone was preventing you from moving from place to place (to work maybe) and therefore getting in your way. Would you ensure that they were stopped?

I did not mention using force in self defence I said the deliberate use of violence against another party i.e. a protester throwing a brick at a police office or a police officer striking a protester without first being assaulted and as for where the police happened to be, they was doing as instructed i.e. ensuring the protest went on the pre arranged path with both parties and to prevent damage to property by those who had infiltrated the protesters with the sole intent on violence and destruction. the latter for me should be taken out of the peaceful protest as soon as they are spotted, that way the peaceful element can put thier point accross without being tarnished and undermined by such scum.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

1) Part of this was a reaction to earlier protests where violence had been directed at other targets other than the police but I am in no way defending the police thuggery that took part. Both the police and the violent portion of the protesters are both at fault.

I see what you mean. I was talking purely about the violence against the police and police against the protestors. If you are including the damage done to the Conservative Party offices, why do you have an issue with that?

 

2)

I should like to say what a load of bollox but in an attempt to remain civil I shall just have to agree to disagree. Would you really like to live in a country with no police? No don't answer that but answer this. If you could live anywhere in the world, what place would match your interesting ideals the most?

Probably the United States. The state where the people are most free would most closely match my politics. But all nation states have States. It a pointless matter to discuss where one SHOULD live.

But I don't think you understand what I mean. It has be questioned who the State serves and why it exists, then look at the apparatus of the State and how it is used and then come to your own conclusion on what the police (and even the military) exist for. It isn't just some matter of acknowledging there is a crime in seeing the police existing to deal with it.

[P.K.]

There's nowt wrong with demonstrating. I nearly went on a march or two when Bliar to us to war (quiet PK!) but whatever your gripe, violence, whilst it may ultimately work, is unforgivable.

 

On which side? I'm increasingly uncomfortable that the Met are denying the citizens whose rights they are there to protect those citizens' rights to peaceable protest.

[pongo]

what place would match your interesting ideals the most?

Probably the United States. The state where the people are most free would most closely match my politics.

 

The US is a federation of independent federated states. Which in theory is a fantastic model. One of the problems with the US now as an ideal model seems to be that the Federal govt seems to be increasingly trying to extend its power (and the power of big business). There are very few serious US politicians who seem to be against this. Obvious example being, the libertarian, Ron Paul who more or less founded (ETA: OK - inspired the foundation of) the Tea Party. But the Tea Party has already been taken over by moral conservatives and deranged nationalists.

 

People seem to have stopped thinking of the US as the states.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I only mention the United States because it is the nation where the citizens have the most freedom. But choosing the USA is a bit like choosing which of the former socialist states was the least bad (Vietnam, Soviet Russia, China, etc.)

 

The power of big business in the United States has always been predominant throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century. The Federal Government may be extending its power but the power of the State is if anything in very slow decline via-a-vis that of business.

 

And it shouldn't be surprising that so few politicians are against the increase of federal government power and maintainence of the power of big business. The democrats and republicans are parties that represent business interests. They just represent different interests within the business structure.

 

As for the 'libertarians', they are what you could call true capitalists. Their emphasis on private property rights, individualism, and opposition to socialist policies goes hand in hand with conservatism.

[Alex]

I support students paying for their own education once they're adults - jeez is free education until you're 18 not good enough?

 

Suppose they could go about it slightly better, such as a student tax or whathaveyou, but it's better that they pay for their own education IMO. I don't see why those who don't use it should all have to pay. What is the % of people who go to Uni these days? I know heaps of people who've gone & come back with their mickey mouse degrees, then settled down to become full time parents or work in local offices! what a joke.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

But look at it this way, by paying for such courses we are keeping bright and intelligent people away from the local offices of the Island for another few years. That is a gift. And we make them more interesting people by having them study something for a long time.

 

Anyway, being more less facetious, I think very few of the people who study these so-called 'mickey mouse' degrees think for a moment that they will end up in the finance sector on the Island or accounting. Circumstances, the job market, and familial relations make it hard for people to do stuff that they find interesting and in a job that relates to their course. The subject of uni courses don't directly relate to what jobs people get.

[VinnieK]

I support students paying for their own education once they're adults

 

Suppose they could go about it slightly better, such as a student tax or whathaveyou, but it's better that they pay for their own education IMO. I don't see why those who don't use it should all have to pay. What is the % of people who go to Uni these days?

 

It's always interesting the way so many people view it as a case of them subsidising some generic mass of pesky ungrateful students. Surely an equally valid view is that the tax you pay towards higher education entitles your children, members of your own family, or even yourself to take advantage of the same support.

 

Besides which, your point entirely ignores the whole substance of the debate regarding fees: such as the possibility of such higher fees making a fair subsection of higher education the preserve of mainly the wealthy, the potential for fees to have a deleterious effect on the whole ethos of higher education (in accelerating the shift of focus away from education and towards fees chasing diploma mills), and so on.

 

I know heaps of people who've gone & come back with their mickey mouse degrees, then settled down to become full time parents or work in local offices! what a joke.

 

What is it that you expect? For everyone to become scientists and CEO's (in which case they'd probably be off Island for the rest of their lives)?

 

Also, it's very optimistic to presume that fees will sound the death nell for so called 'mickey mouse' degrees. If the experience of the United States is anything to go by, we might even end up with more questionable degree programmes because typically they're cheap to run, and hence can be offered for lower fees and marketed wholesale to those who can't afford anything else.

 

jeez is free education until you're 18 not good enough?

 

That makes it sound like you begrudge contributing to primary and secondary education.

[Cambon]

When the uk government decided to call all places of further education "Universities", the reason for doing so was that there was a stigma attached to having a degree from a polytechnic as opposed to a uni. By doing this they cheapened all degrees. At around that time only 10-15% of school leavers went on to further education and those that did on average earned an extra £400,000 over their lifetime. Broon then unofficially raised the school leaving age to 18 to try to force more people into further education. In reality he was trying to reduce the unemployment figures. So these days we are at 45-50% of school leavers going on to further education, and it is estimated that those who do will earn an extra £100,000 over their lifetime. Quite a reduction from the £400,000 when the scheme started. Add to this the £40,000 debt that they will leave uni with and it is hardly worth the bother.