Violent Protests As Mps Vote To Raise Tuition Fees

[Terse]

CLICK

A 20-year-old student was left unconscious with bleeding on the brain after a police officer hit him on the head with a truncheon, his mother said today.

After falling unconscious on the way to Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, he underwent a three-hour operation for bleeding on the brain.

Susan Meadows, 55, an English literature lecturer at Roehampton University, said: "He was hit on the head by a police truncheon.

"The surface wound wasn't very big but three hours after the blow, he suffered bleeding to the brain.

He survived the operation and he's in the recovery room."

Mr Meadows was with a number of friends, including two lecturers, Nina Power, a colleague of his mother's, and Peter Hallward, a philosophy lecturer at Kingston University.

But as they tried to leave the area where protesters were being held in a police "kettling" operation, the second-year undergraduate suffered a blow to the head.

"The policeman offered to get him an ambulance but he was in shock and didn't know how serious it was."

She said he had been trying to get out of the "kettle" because police had announced people who were obviously not trouble-makers would be allowed to leave.

 

Aren't our policemen wonderful?

[jimbms]

Simple solution

From a simple mind. You miss the point. Which is that the Lib Dems courted the student vote by including in their manifesto a pledge to abolish student fees over two parliaments. Not raise, or even reduce, but ABOLISH. As u turns go, you have to admire the completeness of it, never mind the speed. And I suspect they may now self destruct.

No moron you missed the point, violence is not the answer to a policy you do not like and in my comment it was stating their are always other methods often more effective of gaining your degree, also the Lib dems are not in power it is a calition and as such policies are combined and the one that the cabinet feels has the most merit is implemented.

[ManxTaxPayer]

No moron you missed the point, violence is not the answer to a policy you do not like and in my comment it was stating their are always other methods often more effective of gaining your degree, also the Lib dems are not in power it is a calition and as such policies are combined and the one that the cabinet feels has the most merit is implemented.

Actually, it's a coalition. (Where did you get your degree again?........; )). And the Conservatives would never have carried this vote without those Liberal Democrats who voted for the measure, contrary to the pledge of their manifesto. So they have a certain balance of power. Why do you think they are squirming so much?

[Lonan3]

The Lib Dems have completely betrayed those who voted for them. Anyone with any knowledge of UK politics is aware that Conservatives are prone to squeezing the poor in order to protect the assets of the rich - that is the nature of the beast - but the Lib Dems presented themselves as a very acceptable alternative until they were offered a share of power ("Come and join us on the dark side, Nick") and I've no doubt that they've ensured the end to any possible revival of their party's fortunes.

[Lost Login]

No moron you missed the point, violence is not the answer to a policy you do not like

 

It maybe should not be the answer but unfortunatly it seems that without it totally quiet and peaceful protests are ignored by the powers that be. I would also suggest that the UK has a long history of less than totally peaceful protests some of which we would probably stand up and applaud the achievments. e,g the Suffreagettes and votes for Women Movement might not have achieved what it did in the time scale they did if they had all stood around and protested demurly.

 

I have to admit that as a student in the distant past I have attended the odd peaceful demonstration and march, not because I believed in the cause but there was this girl I fancied. I am generally peaceful and law abbidding but I have to adnmit that if I was "kettled" by the police for hours my patience would be tested.

 

It does bug me that politicians keep saying the public has a right to protest peacefully but when they do that the police tend to "kettle" for hours protestors an apparent punishment. Yes there may be an element who are unruly but many are not not and even if it is easy to identify those peacful ones they are still not released from the kettle. e.g. in the anti war protests many middle aged and elderly ladies were kettled for hours on end, what threat were they to law and order.

[censorship]

I don't understand why people think fees mean that everyone will suddenly start studying Chemisty or Medicine.

I think it is because universities which specialise in sciences like those already make a lot of money from research work, and therefore won't need to ramp up their charges as much as others. That could mean people who want to go to uni, for the sake of going, may choose such a course because it is the cheaper option. Or, more likely, it will mean while people who wanted to study arts are dissuaded from attending university by the cost, those interested in studying certain sciences won't be. The numbers on science courses won't increase, but the ratio will.

[pongo]

people who want to go to uni, for the sake of going, may choose such a course because it is the cheaper option. Or, more likely, it will mean while people who wanted to study arts are dissuaded from attending university by the cost, those interested in studying certain sciences won't be.

 

Going to university "for the sake of going" is one of the best reasons for going. Especially for people who have been brought up in remote and very conservative rural locations far away from the centres of economic activity and cultural diversity. Culture, the arts and the media are a very significant and important part of the British and european economy.

 

On the plus side ideas often flourish during times of social strife. These protests seem like a healthy aspect of the whole mix IMO. Charles Windsor is often going on about his love of the counter culture (well Leonard Cohen, reggae and jazz). He should have got out of his car and expressed his support for the Facebook-anarchists. And then abdicated.

[Lonan3]

I've noticed that David Cameron hasn't said much about the world cup bid failure.

I'd love to hear his views on a corrupt organisation, with members who'll happily say one thing and do the complete opposite.

 

And when he's finished talking about the Lib Dems, I’d like to hear his views on FIFA.

[Alias]

I don't understand why people think fees mean that everyone will suddenly start studying Chemisty or Medicine.

I think it is because universities which specialise in sciences like those already make a lot of money from research work, and therefore won't need to ramp up their charges as much as others. That could mean people who want to go to uni, for the sake of going, may choose such a course because it is the cheaper option. Or, more likely, it will mean while people who wanted to study arts are dissuaded from attending university by the cost, those interested in studying certain sciences won't be. The numbers on science courses won't increase, but the ratio will.

Really? I bet they're the ones that do hike up the fees. Research is competitive, and any money you can get your hands on helps that aim.

 

At least they can sort of justify it; how can 4-6 hours a week of lectures for 20-25 weeks in something such as sociology justify £6000 a year. Or even £9000, before the cost of accommodation and living.

[pongo]

Some (possibly much) research funding, certainly on the engineering side, is tax money down the drain via development grants awarded by govt or the EU to consortia which then effectively subcontract the universities. Sometimes the people putting together the consortia already have close relations with university depts. I would guess that winning the funding (which is really govt / EU grant money) is the real business. Even on projects which will ultimately go nowhere.

 

This sometimes happens for basically political reasons when some govt or inter governmental project is being considered and the process more or less demands that a number of different solutions are funded to a certain level of consideration (even though the project will eventually be awarded for political reasons to which ever consortium already had the best political connections).

 

So projects which everyone in the process knows will not get anywhere are awarded research funding because the process requires more than one solution to be considered. University depts are often in the business of winning a role in that funding - and winning the funding is the real business of the depts. The end result of the funding will typically be a cut-and-paste report of no substance, a Power Point presentation, a table of numbers and perhaps a crappy website.

[Mutley]

Labour who were obviously starring at years in the political sidelines must be laughing their cocks off. LibDems will struggle to win a village by-election in the future. Lot's of pissed of students and their extended families out there now.

[BigDave]

The Lib Dems were foolish to pledge to abolish fees in the first place. They could never ever have been in a position to actually do it even if they won the election outright - they knew the country was skint before the election.

 

It was all a PR stunt and when they all signed the pledge to abolish fees not one of them realistically thought they end up in power or in a coalition.

 

Their aim was, in my opinion, to bulk up numbers of Lib Dem MPs by exploiting the student vote, lose the election anyway, let the Conservatives or Labour reduce the debt or fuck it up more, then go for power at the next election - end result, power for the Lib Dems and either a winning policy if they can afford to scrap fees or a convenient scapegoat in the form of the previous government if they can't.

 

Clegg and Cable have had to u-turn on their policy because it's now the only feasible alternative politically with them sharing power, and it was never a promise they'd have been able to deliver on anyway.

[Cambon]

Simple solution

From a simple mind.

 

 

And rubbish from another!

 

Had the Lib Dems not courted the students, they would have received far fewer votes and the tories would have had an outright victory. The students should be thanking their lucky start that there is a coalition as it is the only fucking way the Lib Dems will EVER get a say in politics. At least they may have some influence in other areas of politics.

 

Personally, I agree with people paying for their higher education. and basically agree with gazza. We have recently taken on a graduate and he admits he only attended lectures for half a day a week (Friday afternoon), spent a couple of mornings studying, and "enjoyed" himself the rest of the time. He also says he worked harder than many or most. Value for tax payer's money? I think not!

[Non-Believer]

The Lib Dems were foolish to pledge to abolish fees in the first place. They could never ever have been in a position to actually do it even if they won the election outright - they knew the country was skint before the election.

 

It was all a PR stunt and when they all signed the pledge to abolish fees not one of them realistically thought they end up in power or in a coalition.

 

Their aim was, in my opinion, to bulk up numbers of Lib Dem MPs by exploiting the student vote, lose the election anyway, let the Conservatives or Labour reduce the debt or fuck it up more, then go for power at the next election - end result, power for the Lib Dems and either a winning policy if they can afford to scrap fees or a convenient scapegoat in the form of the previous government if they can't.

 

Clegg and Cable have had to u-turn on their policy because it's now the only feasible alternative politically with them sharing power, and it was never a promise they'd have been able to deliver on anyway.

And cut their own electoral throats, as far as the student vote (and many others) goes, for the foreseeable future...

[P.K.]

The Lib Dems have completely betrayed those who voted for them. Anyone with any knowledge of UK politics is aware that Conservatives are prone to squeezing the poor in order to protect the assets of the rich - that is the nature of the beast - but the Lib Dems presented themselves as a very acceptable alternative until they were offered a share of power ("Come and join us on the dark side, Nick") and I've no doubt that they've ensured the end to any possible revival of their party's fortunes.

 

Very true. The manifesto I voted for didn't have a VAT rise to 20% for starters!

 

Myself and a lot of others feel totally betrayed by "turncoat" Clegg. At a stroke he has halved the membership and basically hit the Lib-Dem self-destruct button.

 

But I'm starting to find the police tactics a little bit unsettling as well. People have a right to protest. The police have NO RIGHT to stop them. Public disorder is another story of course.