TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum  

Go Back   TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum » Main Forum » Politics

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 26-11-10, 12:29 AM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default Student protests: Met chief warns of new era of unrest

Student protests: Met chief warns of new era of unrest

Sir Paul Stephenson says 'game has changed' as tuition fees campaign gathers momentum


* Paul Lewis, Matthew Taylor and Patrick Wintour
* guardian.co.uk, Thursday 25 November 2010 20.49 GMT

Police hold protesters back during a demonstration against tuition fee rises and funding cuts Police hold protesters back during a mass demonstration in London against tuition fee rises and funding cuts. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Britain's most senior police officer warned today of a new era of civil unrest as the national campaign against university fee increases and education cuts gathered momentum.

Sir Paul Stephenson, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, said the two large-scale student demonstrations of the past fortnight had been marred by a previously unseen level of violence, adding: "The game has changed."

His comments were seized on by critics, who said the hard-line rhetoric risked escalating tensions with students organising the nationwide grassroots campaign against education cuts.

Meanwhile, protesters today occupied 16 university campus buildings around the country. Six of the occupations – in Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds, Plymouth, Edinburgh and London – were expected to continue through the night. The Southwark and Bermondsey constituency office of Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat deputy leader, was also occupied by around 30 students from the London School of Economics.

More demonstrations are planned for the next month. More than 11,000 students have signed up to another wave of classroom walkouts and marches planned for next Tuesday. The demonstration will coincide with a Commons debate staged by Labour in a bid to expose Lib Dem divisions over the coalition's plans to dramatically increase tuition fees.

Hughes said today that he had not yet decided how he would vote, but that he was willing to meet students this weekend to discuss it. He told Young Voters' Question Time on BBC Three this week that he would "like to vote against", and was deliberating with other colleagues whether to do that or abstain.

Gareth Thomas, the Labour higher education spokesman, said: "Parliament is about to be asked to vote to make British universities some of the most expensive and worst funded worldwide without being allowed to consider in full, through a white paper, how the government's plans are supposed to work for students and their families. Too many questions remain unanswered."

Stephenson made his comments at a meeting of London's Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA). He said that the demonstrations had been characterised by outbreaks of violence that were not typical of student protests, and he conceded police were unprepared during a march on 10 November. But he said large numbers of riot police had successfully contained disorderyesterday . In total, 109 students have been arrested in connection with public disorder this month, suggesting a scale of student unrest unseen in decades.

"We have been going through a period where we have not seen that sort of violent disorder," Stephenson said. "We had dealt with student organisers before and I think we based it too much on history. If we follow an intelligence-based model that stops you doing that. Obviously you realise the game has changed. Regrettably, the game has changed and we must act."

In recent years the Met had reduced the numbers of officers deployed to tackle demonstrations, he said. "Regrettably, we are going to have to review that. We are going to have to take a more cautious approach."

Andrew Dismore, a former Labour MP who last year chaired an influential parliamentary inquiry into the policing of protests, said the commissioner's comments had been misguided. "I don't think the game has changed," he said. "The basic principles on how to police protest will be the same." Dismore questioned the tactic of containing schoolchildren within a "kettle", an area enclosed by police, and said Stephenson should resist using language that could inflame unrest.

"There is always a risk [that talk of disorder] becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy," he added. "He should be trying to de-escalate problems, not escalate them. The way to do that is to say he made a mistake at the demonstration outside the Tory party central office [on 10 November]. But that isn't then an excuse for overkill the next time protest comes along."

Dismore was backed by Aaron Porter, the National Union of Students' president, who said: "I would very much hope that the actions of a very small minority do not lead to an undermining of the public's right to protest peacefully."

Michael Chessum, a co-founder of the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts, the group that called yesterday's day of action, also rejected Stephenson's comments. "It is the kind of policing we saw on Wednesday that creates disorder," he said. "If you refuse to allow people, many of them young, first-time protesters, the right to walk down the streets of their own capital city, and then 'kettle' them in Whitehall for eight or nine hours, people are going to get frustrated." He added that the vast majority of people on both demonstrations behaved peacefully.

Stephenson was also questioned by members of the MPA over the tactic of containing schoolchildren for several hours in freezing temperatures. "When you imprison thousands of people, which is essentially what you did yesterday, you do have a duty of care to them," said Jenny Jones, a representative from the Green party. "You kept people for nine-and-a-half hours. You punished innocent people for going on a protest. How can that be right? I just do not see it."


Student protests: Met chief warns of new era of unrest | Education | The Guardian
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 28-11-10, 11:23 AM
insignificant data point
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,799
Default

Supposedly, a humane way to kill lobsters is to freeze them to death and it should also work with child protesters.

What are they protesting about? There is no money left to lavishly subsidise their education, health care, welfare and retirement costs. It has all been spent by their parents and grandparents. Protesting in the streets will not bring it back.

On the other hand if the number of today's children could be humanely reduced by around 50-75%, their elders would realise that there is no longer any money for them either.

Everyone is fucked.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 30-11-10, 08:31 AM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Originally Posted by roadkill View Post
What are they protesting about? There is no money left to lavishly subsidise their education, health care, welfare and retirement costs. It has all been spent by their parents and grandparents. Protesting in the streets will not bring it back.
Fatuous bollocks. If money was "spent", then that means it circulated, and paid peoples wages, and was invested in production, etcd ad infinitum. I really wish people would get over this idiocy.

I remanind you, there has been no material crisis. London did not burn down; the crops did not rot on the stalk; we were not flooded out; storms did not knock down all our factories. All our producdtive capacity is exactly the same as it was before the crisis. The argument that our living standards have therefore of necessity to be reduced it utterly bogus.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 30-11-10, 10:51 AM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

But solveable demand did disappear...
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 30-11-10, 10:55 AM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais View Post
But solveable demand did disappear...
... becuase it was in the interests of some that it should. Why should everyone else suffer?
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 30-11-10, 11:01 AM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Originally Posted by contracycle View Post
... becuase it was in the interests of some that it should.


Yeah, right, I am sure that the factory owners and evil capitalists are really fucking happy to see capacity utilisation rates at 65-75% instead of above 80%. The less you sell, the better off you are is an original concept!
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 30-11-10, 11:23 AM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

So, if people were not acting in their interests, why was demand withdrawn? They did it out of spite? On a bet? To see if they could? Why?
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 30-11-10, 11:32 AM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

Oh, the demand is still there, theoretically. People still want TVs, cars, yatchs etc. They just cannot afford it anymore. Solveable demand has been destroyed. Demand is, always was and always will be so near to infinite as to not matter. Keynes made that point, iirc.
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 30-11-10, 09:30 PM
contracycle's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,150
Default

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais View Post
Oh, the demand is still there, theoretically. People still want TVs, cars, yatchs etc. They just cannot afford it anymore. Solveable demand has been destroyed. Demand is, always was and always will be so near to infinite as to not matter. Keynes made that point, iirc.
Yes, and why was it destroyed? The ability of people at street level to exert effective demand is dependent on their wages and job secusirty, which is of course being reduce by...?
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 01-12-10, 10:47 AM
Gilles de Rais's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,639
Default

... a crisis with many root-causes.

It still remains that money can be spent and that it is in no one's interest to see solveable demand disappear...

I mean, technically, you could see the bubbles and the associated excessive spending by everyone as a-brought-forward-demand. Just as when the parents and grandparents of present-day students spent the money (and created the associated economic activity you describe), they basically just spent that money & generated that growth in the stead of their children/grandchildren i.e. they brought it forward...
__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.
Reply With Quote
Reply


(View-All Members who have read this thread : 6
contracycle, Gilles de Rais, LiberalNation, roadkill, Zichao
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0