Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I love it, haven't had a good laugh like this since the poll tax riots. I thought this generation had no spirit, seems I may have been wrong.

1 Trampled by his own horse, incompetent ****.

Originally posted by Free_Speech
1 Trampled by his own horse, incompetent ****.

link?

Originally posted by inimalist
link?


I'm watching on telly, try here

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Sky-Live-TV

is this in response to University tuitions then?

Originally posted by inimalist
is this in response to University tuitions then?

Yes; but, that's the tip of the iceberg in dissent at the moment, Britain and indeed Europe is very fragmented at the moment and that's not just the borders between nations. It's more the people... Vs the establishment, be it our politicians or the banks etc.. We distrust: Everything!

They've kettled the Police, hahahah love it. I predicted this when the students had numbers it would happen!

it will be interesting to see

there is precedence from the French student riots, however. They were only taken seriously once they were joined by major labour unions, and once the unions were sold out by the French Communist Party and sent back to work, nobody took the students seriously anymore.

God, it would be amazing if they accomplished something here, but young folk just don't have anything to leverage against the system

EDIT: kettled?

Originally posted by inimalist
it will be interesting to see

there is precedence from the French student riots, however. They were only taken seriously once they were joined by major labour unions, and once the unions were sold out by the French Communist Party and sent back to work, nobody took the students seriously anymore.

God, it would be amazing if they accomplished something here, but young folk just don't have anything to leverage against the system

EDIT: kettled?

It's a tactic the Police have used since the G20 riots (surround and forcibly contain) I said when people had numbers on the Police they'd do it back.

All these things in Europe overlap G20 the banks, etc....

We've done this shit before in the U.K. many times look up Brixton and Toxeth or the Poll Tax demos.

Quite why you would cheer on the deeply unpleasant spectacle of clueless crowds attacking the police- who have been acting with an exceptionally soft touch as of late- is beyond me. An exceptionally distasteful viewpoint.

Luckily, the have no widespread public support, and their position is ludicrous anyway.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Quite why you would cheer on the deeply unpleasant spectacle of clueless crowds attacking the police- who have been acting with an exceptionally soft touch as of late- is beyond me. An exceptionally distasteful viewpoint.

Luckily, the have no widespread public support, and their position is ludicrous anyway.

I don't see charging students with the cavalry as soft, that's perhaps just me though.

The definition of 'charging' is being applied quite broadly there. You like the idea of brutal horses trampling innocent civilians underfoot, but no such thing happened. I don't see the kind of mass injuries that you conjure up an image of when you say such a thing.

The tenor of the protests has not been one of police brutality- if anything, it has been one of the police losing control because they have not been firm enough.

Of course, all that has simply further cost the students what support they had. A great deal of them are selfish, clueless fools.

The Police teach a whole generation at once, they are not always fair or friendly, good call.

Originally posted by Free_Speech
We've done this shit before in the U.K. many times look up Brixton and Toxeth or the Poll Tax demos.

thats what I mean though

in those other examples, it wasn't just students who were rioting, but large numbers of people from all parts of society. Their involvement gives the protest some ability to make demands against the state.

If it is just students, it will be incredibly difficult for them to effect any change. They need the support from organized labour. I don't know if that still exists in the UK though...

You go on consoling yourself with such babble. In the mean time, this protests will be remembered only for one thing- how pointless they were. No major party supports their position; there's no will for what they want, the universities themselves have asked for these means and all possible serious studies on the issue have concluded that this is the only way. And most people are fine with that. The scare stories of this keeping people away from university have absolutely no foundation.

Those who have issued with the Lib Dems on this are just showing ignorance of how a Coalition works. The selfishness on display is unbelievable.

People like yourself, free speech, are a far worse example for anyone than any police here.

Originally posted by inimalist
thats what I mean though

in those other examples, it wasn't just students who were rioting, but large numbers of people from all parts of society. Their involvement gives the protest some ability to make demands against the state.

If it is just students, it will be incredibly difficult for them to effect any change. They need the support from organized labour. I don't know if that still exists in the UK though...

It's not just students even the Police are worried about the cost to their children.... The Majority of the House are not for this. The vote may be very close indeed.

Originally posted by inimalist
thats what I mean though

in those other examples, it wasn't just students who were rioting, but large numbers of people from all parts of society. Their involvement gives the protest some ability to make demands against the state.

If it is just students, it will be incredibly difficult for them to effect any change. They need the support from organized labour. I don't know if that still exists in the UK though...

Whether it did or did not, they'll never get any such support. They are complete alone in a selfish, illogical and unsupported position.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You go on consoling yourself with such babble. In the mean time, this protests will be remembered only for one thing- how pointless they were. No major party supports their position; there's no will for what they want, the universities themselves have asked for these means and all possible serious studies on the issue have concluded that this is the only way. And most people are fine with that. The scare stories of this keeping people away from university have absolutely no foundation.

Those who have issued with the Lib Dems on this are just showing ignorance of how a Coalition works. The selfishness on display is unbelievable.

People like yourself, free speech, are a far worse example for anyone than any police here.

We'll see who wins the vote

Originally posted by Free_Speech
It's not just students even the Police are worried about the cost to their children.... The Majority of the House are not for this. The vote may be very close indeed.

The majority of the House? Labour is only voting against as an attack on the coalition. I'll remind you that Labour INTRODUCED tuition fees, and it was Labour that first rejectded a graduate tax as unworkable. The majority of the House supports such fees.

The cost to children is a complete red herring of an argument.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Whether it did or did not, they'll never get any such support. They are complete alone in a selfish, illogical and unsupported position.

We'll see who wins the vote

If the vote fails, the universities are screwed, and the idiots have won the day. That'd be nice work.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The majority of the House? Labour is only voting against as an attack on the coalition. I'll remind you that Labour INTRODUCED tuition fees. The majority of the House supports such fees.

The cost to children is a complete red herring of an argument.

The vote will show the support of the house for this surely, or are you saying our country is so fragmented that the parties are that petty.

Oh, Police Baton Charges!

Of course parties are that petty- opposition is always about trying to destroy the Government.

Are you seriously saying you don't think Labour are in favour of tuition fees or removing the cap? You are a fool if so.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Of course parties are that petty- opposition is always about trying to destroy the Government.

Are you seriously saying you don't think Labour are in favour of tuition fees or removing the cap? You are a fool if you do.

Obviously i'm not saying that i'm being extremely cynical. I believe the vote will go through in favour for both parts...

Opposition isn't always about trying to destroy the Government, it's only in favour of that when it doesn't affect the old order.

Opposition right now is- Labour's only option is to break the Coalition; they have no other platform that anyone recognises.

And this is indeed a big strain on the Coalition. Like I say, a lot of those complaining about 'betrayal' don't understand how Coalition works.

Well, it's passed- a big Lib Dem split though. They think 21 voted against... this is going to have repercussions.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, it's passed- a big Lib Dem split though. They think 21 voted against... this is going to have repercussions.

Exactly the majority did not vote in favour.....

Sorry, what's your definition of 'majority'?

Originally posted by Ushgarak

And this is indeed a big strain on the Coalition. Like I say, a lot of those complaining about 'betrayal' don't understand how Coalition works.

Believe it or not I remember the last coalition, I was a kid at the time.
Coalition can never work, it's why we need PR. The headmistress cop girl is hilarious.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sorry, what's your definition of 'majority'?

The number who did not vote in favour either by abstaining or voting negatively. The majority did not vote in favour.

Counting abstentions in votes like this is a waste of time; you may as well say all General Elections are invalid as no party ever gets more than 50% of the country voting for them, if you count all of those who did not vote.

Of those who voted, the majority were in favour. Hence the conclusion that the House supports the law. That's democracy.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Counting abstentions in votes like this is a waste of time; you may as well say all General Elections are invalid as no party ever gets more than 50% of the country voting for them, if you count all of those who did not vote.

Of those who voted, the majority were in favour. Hence the conclusion that the House supports the law. That's democracy.

General elections don't serve the majority I agree, particularly as so few vote now because they feel so disenfranchised. It's old fashioned undemocratic democracy, aimed at seving the state and not the people. Which is hilarious when you look at what demos and kratis means.

Don't confuse the political definition of democracy with a literal one. The etymology of Democracy goes for beyond its linguistic roots, especially the constitutional democracy we follow.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Don't confuse the political definition of democracy with a literal one. The etymology of Democracy goes for beyond its linguistic roots, especially the constitutional democracy we follow.

Constitutional............When did we get one of those in the U.K.

You may want to check out some basic politics before you post. We have a constitution and we live in a declared constitutional monarchy. We don't have a CODIFIED constitution in a single document- that's very different.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You may want to check out some basic politics before you post. We have a constitution and we live in a declared constitutional monarchy. We don't have a CODIFIED constitution in a single document- that's very different.

We have as you say no written constitution. Declaration only means something if it is supported by it's peoples perception. We have an unwritten constitution...According to those that hold power. All I've seen over the last 25 years is an erosion in my freedoms and rights, through legislation. This in part is due to not having a codified constitution. Whilst my degrees, yes, I have more than one are not in Humanities or Social Sciences, I do have an A level in Politics thanks, from the days when A levels meant something.

Actually, irrelevant to perception we have a constitution, and are factually protected by it regardless of opinion. Your paranoid views don't change that, and your feeling that codifying it will improve anything is simply amusing.

Well, I say amusing- but your glee in seeing police attacked brings it more into the area of being simply disturbing.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Actually, irrelevant to perception we have a constitution, and are factually protected by it regardless of opinion. Your paranoid views don't change that, and your feeling that codifying it will improve anything is simply amusing.,

Well we're not protected because we have no bill of rights.... This means that things like anpr cameras by stealth have turned the UK into little more than an open Prison. Legislation has been pushed through to criminalise almost everone and remove the ladders of opportunity for many.

Having no Bill of Rights doesn't mean we don't have Rights- that's a ridiculous confusion. We have many, many legally enshrined rights. Why get so fixated on one piece of paper, which would be no different in effect from what we have now?

This sort of talk, of course, only comes when democratic votes are going AGAINST what someone thinks. Such protests purport to be pro-democracy. In fact, they are often the opposite; they are anti 'what the person does not want', using rights as a fake cover for the argument.

Someone on the television night now just called the vote undemocratic. What possible definition could there be for that? It was passed by the democratically elected house. It is, precisely, democracy in action.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Having no Bill of Rights doesn't mean we don't have Rights- that's a ridiculous confusion. We have many, many legally enshrined rights. Why get so fixated on one piece of paper, which would be no different in effect from what we have now?

This sort of talk, of course, only comes when democratic votes are going AGAINST what someone thinks. Such protests purport to be pro-democracy. In fact, they are often the opposite; they are anti 'what the person does not want', using rights as a fake cover for the argument.

Someone on the television night now just called the vote undemocratic. What possible definition could there be for that? It was passed by the democratically elected house. It is, precisely, democracy in action.

If someone on the television called it undemocratic.... It must be true.
Our legally enshrined rights have been greatly eroded, particularly under labour since 97 and some credit to the Tories they have paid lip service to changing this. The biggest erosion of rights was when terror laws got used on ordinary people.

Just a few of the thousands of changes I could list

ASBO legislation introduces hearsay evidence, which may result in a person being sent to jail.

- The Criminal Justice Act (2003) allows the prosecution to make an application to be heard without a jury where there is a danger of jury tampering. This will include fraud trials.

- The admissibility of evidence concerning a person's bad character, previous convictions and acquittals.

- The Proceeds of Crime Act (2002) gives the state powers to confiscate assets in circumstances where it does not have enough evidence for prosecution.

-Special Immigration Appeals Court hearings are held in secret. Those terror suspects whose cases come before the court are not allowed to know the evidence against them or to be represented by a lawyer of their own choice.

- The Courts and Tribunals Enforcement Act abandons the tradition of an Englishman's home being his castle, which since 1604 has made breaking into a home by bailiffs illegal.

Each of those being an erosion of freedom is greatly debatable, which this is not the topic for (and I have no idea what your last one even means, it is being given in such emotive, semantically empty terms). All I['ll say, though, is that your idea that as Bill of Rights would somehow make none of that possible... is simply incorrect. The actual amount of difference it would make is zero.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Each of those being an erosion of freedom is greatly debatable, which this is not the topic for (and I have no idea what your last one even means, it is being given in such emotive, semantically empty terms). All I

Well we haven't got a Bill of rights so we don't know if it would make a difference.

Whilst that is true, I don't think that's a helpful observation.

Well, I am glad the crowds are now (ineffectually) smashing windows of government buildings in the name of democracy.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Whilst that is true, I don't think that's a helpful observation.

Well, I am glad the crowds are now (ineffectually) smashing windows of government buildings in the name of democracy.

It's always been the way violent dissent against the eddifice of power. In this case the treasury, it's wonderful symbolism in my opinion.

I would disagree over the helpfulness of my observation, i've never felt it's wrong to long for what you don't have. Especially if it should be a fundemental right.

It wasn't helpful because it was such useless conjecture. I could just say back that a Bill of Rights would make things much worse, and silence your protests by saying "Well, you cannot say it would not be worse as we haven't had one." Any argument on the subject has to be based on what logical facts we can bring to bear; that something has not been tried yet is in no way at all a reason to try it. You have to justify it for other reasons.

My opinion of you being happy at them smashing things up I think is already clear.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It wasn't helpful because it was such useless conjecture. I could just say back that a Bill of Rights would make things much worse, and silence your protests by saying "Well, you cannot say it would not be worse as we haven't had one." Any argument on the subject has to be based on what logical facts we can bring to bear; that something has not been tried yet is in no way at all a reason to try it. You have to justify it for other reasons.

My opinion of you being happy at them smashing things up I think is already clear.

It wouldn't silence anything it would just create a circular argument which is what we have.

I have always enjoyed the spectacle of just civil disorder... I was in Market sqaure Nottingham 20 years ago and I particularly enjoyed throwing things at the NF in Bexley in 85.... It's a right of passage for a generation in my opinion.

Some, what looks like crusty - arts students are having a barbecue in the road... I do love civil disobediance.

Prince Charlie big ears has had his car attacked.