Riots in the UK?

[Skipper]

Good.

“Every generation needs a new revolution.”

Thomas Jefferson

The only thing about that riot that made me angry was this...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2010/n...tests-live

One of the protesters who was outside Millbank today, @mikarv, has sent me the video below which shows activists on the roof of the building which houses the Conservative campaign HQ allegedly throwing a fire extinguisher towards riot police below.

The crowd on the ground respond with by booing, before beginning to chant "Stop throwing shit."

@mikarv said he couldn't see whether it struck an officer or not, "but it fell exactly where a dense crowd of riot police were".

Utterly pathetic that protesting students would turn on the ones who were doing what is only natural in protests. When did student protestors turn into such pussies in the UK? LOL if people think throwing a fire extinguisher at a handful of police is a step beyond civilisation behaviour they should thank their stars they don't live in France where they could enjoy watching a french cop get a fucking car thrown at him on an average student demo.

And note the cowardly tactics police use to warn people away from protests that's been in effect for a long time...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/11...tinguisher
Notice how they now don't make an attempt to arrest protestors in front of other crowds of protestors, they now wait several days and pick them up and charge them with attempted murder.

Not amusing.

Protesting and occupying buildings is fine. Throwing a fire extinguisher off a building at people and trying to burn buildings is bullshit. It could have killed a police officer or another protester. That proves nothing and dosen't help any cause.

[Cerrone]

@Cerrone

Have you lost all sense of rationality??? What those students did was inexcusable. Protests are a form of freedom of speech; rioting and destroying other people's property (as well as attacking others) is not.

So why is it that when however many million people peacefully demonstrate against something they achieve nothing, and when people do take more vigorous action that they're usually successful in getting what they want?

Protests in all forms have existed long before "freedom of speech" was even authorised. If people didnt agree with something their leader was doing they would attempt to be diplomatic, but if the leader refused to listen they would turn violent, wage a little war then be able to negotiate their terms with that leader who now realised that the people he was dealing with weren't some spineless rabble who'd disappear when they got bored, but a force who were capable of bringing him down. And that's the only thing that anybody in power respects.

Perhaps you didn't do any actual research before writing your post, but had you done so, you may have realised that the police sent to the event were unprepared for the riot, and as such, had to hold off the protestors on their own before riot police could turn up, and even then it wasn't enough. If they had tried to arrest people at the time, they would have (a) lost at least 2 officers who could have helped prevent more students from getting in, and (b) caused a wave of anger through the already angry crowd, possibly putting more lives at risk.

Don't accuse me of not doing research.. thats such a cliche lol.. yeah the cops were unprepared, and drafted in the army eventually (wow btw) but so what? They were fucking cowards, fuck them, and fuck the pussyassness of the more passive of the students who objected to the sit in.

It so absurd, the level the people here have reached it really is without a doubt like it could be a chapter from Brave New World, where the citizens displeased with the government start to condemn the citizens who stray from the governments legal guidelines of "peaceful protest". I'm sure at least a handful of old school activists from the 80's got a good laugh out of it when they realised the same thing.

Anyway thats my rant.. fuck it

[lrh9]

No. Don't fuck it. I'm glad somebody tried to do something. Conservatives always wave the flag of the free market, but really their only angle is to keep their money and get more of it by keeping everybody too poor and stupid to make a living.

I don't see why the heads of the greedy bastards shouldn't roll.

[theVOID]

It's really not a complicated issue... Do you want to be taxed more and have resources spent for you, or do you want to have less taxes and more freedom to spend your money where it best suits you? I'm for the latter, because government spending is much more likely to be wasted, their level of efficiency compared to personal and private spending is pathetic.

It's all about maths, the economy is in disrepair and there are only so many things you can do to fix it, you can raise taxes or cut spending, the torries are about low taxes and low spending, so what the fuck did people expect? Oh no, the party we voted for is cutting spending... Wait, that's what they fucking campaigned on!

People need to realise you either raise taxes or cut spending, because they're the only damn things that are going to affect the deficit in any significant way short to mid term. Why cut spending rather than raise taxes? Because it has both the short/mid term benefits AND a long term benefit in terms of reducing the deficit and increasing economic growth.

And really, borrowing 66% more over 3-7 years, while paying low taxes over the time you are qualified and earning all balances out if not becomes advantageous for the majority of all individuals who will pass their university programmes.

[Skipper]

It's really not a complicated issue... Do you want to be taxed more and have resources spent for you, or do you want to have less taxes and more freedom to spend your money where it best suits you? I'm for the latter, because government spending is much more likely to be wasted, their level of efficiency compared to personal and private spending is pathetic.

It's all about maths, the economy is in disrepair and there are only so many things you can do to fix it, you can raise taxes or cut spending, the torries are about low taxes and low spending, so what the fuck did people expect? Oh no, the party we voted for is cutting spending... Wait, that's what they fucking campaigned on!

People need to realise you either raise taxes or cut spending, because they're the only damn things that are going to affect the deficit in any significant way short to mid term. Why cut spending rather than raise taxes? Because it has both the short/mid term benefits AND a long term benefit in terms of reducing the deficit and increasing economic growth.

And really, borrowing 66% more over 3-7 years, while paying low taxes over the time you are qualified and earning all balances out if not becomes advantageous for the majority of all individuals who will pass their university programmes.

People vote in labour, get unsustainable government taxing and spending, get a welfare state who want to run every aspect of peoples lives. They then vote in the Tories who reverse what labour have done, tax less and spend less, cut services and let the country be driven by market forces then people get pissed off and go back to labour who fuck it all up again. The British voters need to decide what it wants a stick with it. I'll take the Tories, for all their faults over Labour any day.

[lrh9]

Um... theVOID, I don't see how that response touches on raising school fees. I mean, it is a general knee jerk reaction that attacks tax and spend economics, but raising school fees has nothing to do with government efficiency or cutting spending does it?

[Ashendant]

It's really not a complicated issue... Do you want to be taxed more and have resources spent for you, or do you want to have less taxes and more freedom to spend your money where it best suits you? I'm for the latter, because government spending is much more likely to be wasted, their level of efficiency compared to personal and private spending is pathetic.

It's all about maths, the economy is in disrepair and there are only so many things you can do to fix it, you can raise taxes or cut spending, the torries are about low taxes and low spending, so what the fuck did people expect? Oh no, the party we voted for is cutting spending... Wait, that's what they fucking campaigned on!

People need to realise you either raise taxes or cut spending, because they're the only damn things that are going to affect the deficit in any significant way short to mid term. Why cut spending rather than raise taxes? Because it has both the short/mid term benefits AND a long term benefit in terms of reducing the deficit and increasing economic growth.

And really, borrowing 66% more over 3-7 years, while paying low taxes over the time you are qualified and earning all balances out if not becomes advantageous for the majority of all individuals who will pass their university programmes.

People vote in labour, get unsustainable government taxing and spending, get a welfare state who want to run every aspect of peoples lives. They then vote in the Tories who reverse what labour have done, tax less and spend less, cut services and let the country be driven by market forces then people get pissed off and go back to labour who fuck it all up again. The British voters need to decide what it wants a stick with it. I'll take the Tories, for all their faults over Labour any day.

has there been any lib dem party? that won the elections

[theVOID]

Raising school fees lowers the amount of government spending (in subsidies). Our student loans program in tiny NZ costs billions of dollars, and that is with 1/12th the population of the UK. Our loans are interest free but our fees are equivalently

The govt is paying the vast majority of the cost to send students to Uni, as well as giving loans below the cost to service, if they increase the amount of revenue returned from loans (by 66% though increasing base fees), cut student numbers (like the students who sign up for uni because it's cheap and they cbf working, which happens way too often) and boost the quality of education for the students who are serious about their attendance then you get an education system with less waste in dollars, resources and higher success rates.

[Cerrone]

People need to realise you either raise taxes or cut spending, because they're the only damn things that are going to affect the deficit in any significant way short to mid term. Why cut spending rather than raise taxes? Because it has both the short/mid term benefits AND a long term benefit in terms of reducing the deficit and increasing economic growth.

And really, borrowing 66% more over 3-7 years, while paying low taxes over the time you are qualified and earning all balances out if not becomes advantageous for the majority of all individuals who will pass their university programmes.

It'd be a start if the government was pressured into spending our taxes on things we actually need rather than wasting it on the kind of ineffective shit that Labour was so famous for over the last 10 tens, that'd be a real start.

Someone pointed out to me yesterday that regardless of those in "higher education" at university, its just delaying the inevitable unemployment they're going to face when they graduate anyway! Labour encouraged young people to go into training during their term, now labour are out and those people graduate and they can't find work! The typicla government policy is to DELAY anything until the end of their 4 year term to make it look as though they've achieved something by altering the statistics on a short term basis during that time with little regard paid to what happens afterwards.

[Skipper]

has there been any lib dem party? that won the elections

Never on their own in the UK. They have formed coalition governments with other parties, such as right now with the conservatives.

---

The govt is paying the vast majority of the cost to send students to Uni, as well as giving loans below the cost to service, if they increase the amount of revenue returned from loans (by 66% though increasing base fees), cut student numbers (like the students who sign up for uni because it's cheap and they cbf working, which happens way too often) and boost the quality of education for the students who are serious about their attendance then you get an education system with less waste in dollars, resources and higher success rates.

In the UK it used to be something like 10% of young people going to university and this was fully funded by grants. Now it's more like 45% of people, because labour decided university was for everyone. Which it clearly isn't. I know some people who are thick as shit that have gone to university and studied courses to go and end up in a job they could have got straight out of high school and been better off for the work experience and have zero debt.

It should never have been seen as a entitlement. The more intelligent people should have gone to uni, had their courses all paid fully by grants and this would mean even people from poor backgrounds could easily have gone had they been clever enough. They could all have had quality education, with far less people there who are just going to fuck about and delay their entrance into the real world.