Tory HQ stormed

  On 11/13/2010 at 4:35 AM, chenGOD said:

I must disagree on two counts. Violence is never justified, unless it is in self-defence. The students "kicking up a bit of class war" are a bunch of cowards who know they'll never have to face any consequences, and they do a disservice to students who have actually faced down serious threats to liberty.

The idiot that threw the fire extinguisher from the roof should probably face a judge, but I see nothing wrong in smashing tory central office(or any parties) to get a valid point across as they wouldnt have listened any other way. Regardless of how high fees go, their children will never need to worry about an education.

A Levels should be made harder. I know so many idiots who managed to scrape three A's. Less students in third level education- fewer pointless courses for people who should really probably just be training in carpentry or something- lower tuition fees.

How did you do in youre A levels Jim?

Ha, 3 A's. I'd like to think I'd still have done well if they were made harder, who knows. Doesn't matter anyway, I went to music college instead where you get in on the strength of an audition.

Just seems a bit harsh claming someone who worked to get 3 A's an idiot. The standard of A and O levels is much higher than 20 years ago, but the modular nature makes it appear otherwise. Congrats on your 3 A's, I would feel a bit of a cunt trying to belittle your achievement =)

Well I don't know, perhaps it's more to do with how they're taught. Kids in high school, at least when I left 6 years ago, were being coached for exams in a very intensive, strategic and, ultimately, narrow way. They were being spoonfed on things like exam technique and, as you say, the modular nature of assessment meant they never had to hold too much in their heads for too long. This is as effective a way as any I can think of to make students appear brighter and more capable than they actually are.

  On 11/13/2010 at 4:20 PM, Dirty Protest said:

  On 11/13/2010 at 4:35 AM, chenGOD said:

I must disagree on two counts. Violence is never justified, unless it is in self-defence. The students "kicking up a bit of class war" are a bunch of cowards who know they'll never have to face any consequences, and they do a disservice to students who have actually faced down serious threats to liberty.

 

The idiot that threw the fire extinguisher from the roof should probably face a judge, but I see nothing wrong in smashing tory central office(or any parties) to get a valid point across as they wouldnt have listened any other way. Regardless of how high fees go, their children will never need to worry about an education.

So you think that throwing the fire extinguisher was wrong, but smashing the offices was fine. That's an arbitrary line you've drawn there. care to define it more? And has it been effective? Have they listened now?

babar: i'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate - that some form of emotional violence has been done to the french worker? I'm also not sure why you're declaring the British police as amateur: I thought they were very restrained. Or do you mean amateur in that the students were able to gain access to the rooftop in the first place?

Throwing a metal lump from a high building at a persons head is slightly different to breaking a window =)

Socialists don't seem to like the concept of private property

The reason they're protesting is because their teachers at school wrongly taught them that the Suffragettes were heroes to be emulated. They haven't been taught to destroy the opposition with better reasons and arguments or poke holes in logical fallacies. What these punks need is to throw the Charlie Brooker DVD in the bin, put out the joint, stop listening to sociologist mothers, and read some Aristotle and Plato once in a while.

  On 11/13/2010 at 6:58 PM, Dirty Protest said:

Throwing a metal lump from a high building at a persons head is slightly different to breaking a window =)

Yes they are different, certainly, but why is one more right than the other?

  On 11/13/2010 at 6:55 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 11/13/2010 at 4:20 PM, Dirty Protest said:

  On 11/13/2010 at 4:35 AM, chenGOD said:

I must disagree on two counts. Violence is never justified, unless it is in self-defence. The students "kicking up a bit of class war" are a bunch of cowards who know they'll never have to face any consequences, and they do a disservice to students who have actually faced down serious threats to liberty.

 

The idiot that threw the fire extinguisher from the roof should probably face a judge, but I see nothing wrong in smashing tory central office(or any parties) to get a valid point across as they wouldnt have listened any other way. Regardless of how high fees go, their children will never need to worry about an education.

 

So you think that throwing the fire extinguisher was wrong, but smashing the offices was fine. That's an arbitrary line you've drawn there. care to define it more? And has it been effective? Have they listened now?

 

babar: i'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate - that some form of emotional violence has been done to the french worker? I'm also not sure why you're declaring the British police as amateur: I thought they were very restrained. Or do you mean amateur in that the students were able to gain access to the rooftop in the first place?

I was saying that the way the newsman pinpointed his questions were biased. "Do you regret your acts ? Will you admit it was silly ? Say yes, say yes, and look down".

French police rocks because they send ninjas among demonstrators.

  On 11/13/2010 at 7:29 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 11/13/2010 at 6:58 PM, Dirty Protest said:

Throwing a metal lump from a high building at a persons head is slightly different to breaking a window =)

 

Yes they are different, certainly, but why is one more right than the other?

and what about students that are forced to sell their bodies because they are unable to make ends meet. How violent is that ?

  On 11/13/2010 at 7:31 PM, Babar said:

 

 

I was saying that the way the newsman pinpointed his questions were biased. "Do you regret your acts ? Will you admit it was silly ? Say yes, say yes, and look down".

French police rocks because they send ninjas among demonstrators.

 

  On 11/13/2010 at 7:29 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 11/13/2010 at 6:58 PM, Dirty Protest said:

Throwing a metal lump from a high building at a persons head is slightly different to breaking a window =)

 

Yes they are different, certainly, but why is one more right than the other?

 

and what about students that are forced to sell their bodies because they are unable to make ends meet. How violent is that ?

Oh well in that case, you should watch videos of the Korean riot police in the 80s fighting students who were actually fighting for freedom. Efficient and brutal.

And I'm guessing you're talking about that study on UK students in the sex industry? That as a sample of 130 students, not meaningful. Also, no one is forcing the students to work in the sex industry.

  On 11/13/2010 at 7:37 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 11/13/2010 at 7:31 PM, Babar said:

 

 

I was saying that the way the newsman pinpointed his questions were biased. "Do you regret your acts ? Will you admit it was silly ? Say yes, say yes, and look down".

French police rocks because they send ninjas among demonstrators.

 

  On 11/13/2010 at 7:29 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 11/13/2010 at 6:58 PM, Dirty Protest said:

Throwing a metal lump from a high building at a persons head is slightly different to breaking a window =)

 

Yes they are different, certainly, but why is one more right than the other?

 

and what about students that are forced to sell their bodies because they are unable to make ends meet. How violent is that ?

 

Oh well in that case, you should watch videos of the Korean riot police in the 80s fighting students who were actually fighting for freedom. Efficient and brutal.

 

And I'm guessing you're talking about that study on UK students in the sex industry? That as a sample of 130 students, not meaningful. Also, no one is forcing the students to work in the sex industry.

i think i saw a few of those korean footages. A guy got his neck broken because he was standing peacefully in front of a cop who didn't hesitate to smash his head with his shield. or something like this.

But you know, korean riots are really a joke when you compare them to medieval slaughters and i'm not even mentioning prehistory : our ancestors had to fight against FUCKING LIONS !

Social progress must go on, you can't just say "stop moaning you fucking cunt and shut up because it could be worse". Okay then, i'll content myself with that, anyway that's what capitalism is all about right ? Don't companies content themselves with what they already possess ?

NOw , if i were an anarchist leader, i woudln't tell my men to go break things and jump on crushed windows. I would send them to telephone exchanges with microwave-producing devices, so as to really fuck things up. And that wouldn't be really violent. Because that's the point : if you're violent, media will focus on the fact that you're a primate driven by based instincts and will shadow what leads you to do what you did, what your intentions were etc... If you're not you won't get heard. Microwaves are cool in this regard because they really destroy things without changing their appearance. They don't feature the kind of graphical violence media like to shoot.

And I didn't read this study about students in the sex industry. I was just trolling my way through this thread.

  On 11/13/2010 at 7:29 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 11/13/2010 at 6:58 PM, Dirty Protest said:

Throwing a metal lump from a high building at a persons head is slightly different to breaking a window =)

 

Yes they are different, certainly, but why is one more right than the other?

Is this a serious question? If so, I think you really have something quite wrong with your head. It wasn't Kristallnacht ffs, it was the office of the conservative party. It will be replaced quickly and easily.

  On 11/13/2010 at 8:35 PM, jim said:

  On 11/13/2010 at 7:29 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 11/13/2010 at 6:58 PM, Dirty Protest said:

Throwing a metal lump from a high building at a persons head is slightly different to breaking a window =)

 

Yes they are different, certainly, but why is one more right than the other?

 

Is this a serious question? If so, I think you really have something quite wrong with your head. It wasn't Kristallnacht ffs, it was the office of the conservative party. It will be replaced quickly and easily.

one could say the same of a police officer....

Monetary considerations aside, you still have done nothing to justify the violence...

Babar, I don't know you what's got your french knickers in a twist, but please remember that elephants look best in formal wear :)

thought this video was interesting:

http://vimeo.com/9502472

The protest going on today

"Excellent computer science student protest sign: '404 Error Funding Not Found.'"

you all need to be men and boycott the universities. everyone finish the semester theyve already paid for, and then no one else pay for any more classes until a significant drop in tuition fees takes place

dont be a fucking coward, go protest against tuition fees, then go pay for more classes

im guessing you're doing that et?

  On 11/13/2010 at 7:29 PM, chenGOD said:

  On 11/13/2010 at 6:58 PM, Dirty Protest said:

Throwing a metal lump from a high building at a persons head is slightly different to breaking a window =)

 

Yes they are different, certainly, but why is one more right than the other?

One of those options doesn't hurt or potentially kill anyone except the person doing it.

Stop putting valuation on the consequence and put value on the act.

We as a nation are rubbish at protesting. Much better at moaning.

  On 11/25/2010 at 3:35 AM, chenGOD said:

Stop putting valuation on the consequence and put value on the act.

The act of throwing a metal lump at a person is different from the act of kicking a window. Youve gone wrong chen =)

  On 11/25/2010 at 3:35 AM, chenGOD said:

Stop putting valuation on the consequence and put value on the act.

This isn't really my argument, but you're saying that there's no difference in destroying an object, and destroying a living thing? Or are you just taking the piss?

Any action has an infinite number of possible outcomes. The highest likely outcomes help predict the doer's decision. The decision's consequences are part of the equation of the action.

The thing is, in situations like these, it's better for the group that wants change to not hurt anyone. It only brings bad press. So throwing a fire extinguisher off a building is a pretty piss poor decision, eh?

Just been reading Billy Braggs take on it, nothing surprising.

  Quote

THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT

Those lining up to condemn the actions of students at Millbank as contrary to the traditions of British democracy should be reminded that it is the Liberal Democrats who have failed to live up to those traditions, not the students. By making a manifesto commitment to abolish tuition fees, the LibDems picked up hundreds of thousands of votes from those hoping to see the return of the fully funded education that was enjoyed by earlier generations.

 

Photo opportunities were staged at which candidates signed pledges. Leaflets were distributed promising abolition. This week, a Labour MP was thrown out of parliament and his election declared unlawful for printing lies in his campaign material. Will any Liberal Democrat MP be named and shamed in the same manner?

 

The last parliament was blighted by a lack of trust between MPs and voters over the issue of expenses, but that charge could arguably be laid at a minority of self-serving members. The Liberal Democrat’s betrayal over tuition fees goes much deeper, to the very heart of our democracy.

 

When people cast their vote, they do so in the belief that voting is the best way to achieve the changes to society that they desire; that citizens coming together on the same day to express their opinion via the ballot box is the fairest method yet devised for holding politicians to account. Candidates make their commitments in the hope of winning support and, having chosen the party that most reflects their views, the voter seals the deal on those commitments by marking their cross on the ballot paper.

 

This process was developed over many years as a way of ensuring that change came with consent and not with violence and bloodshed. People got angry and took to the streets, but the ultimate sanction was always democracy. But when the democratic system breaks down and puts into government a party that not only breaks its commitment to abolish tuition fees but actively supports their increase, then the anger of those who feel they have been betrayed is surely justified.

 

The coalition cabinet contains a majority of Oxbridge educated millionaires whose parents could easily afford the kind of privatised education now being planned by the government. And what excuse did Nick Clegg offer for his U-turn in the Commons yesterday? The financial situation. While the bankers who got us into this mess pile up billions of pounds to distribute in bonuses, the tax-payers who bailed them out are facing cuts in public services across the country.

 

The students laid down the first challenge to the coming cuts and, thanks to a few thousand hotheads at Millbank, their arguments are headline news and a new generation are radicalised. How long will it be before they are joined on the streets by nurses, teachers, firemen, public sector workers and the citizens they serve? And, yes, perhaps even by the same policemen who confronted them today.