Riots in the UK?

[Sam]

Do whaaat? What member of the public is against them? Everyone i've spoken to -aside from armchair critics on the internet- agrees with the students, applauded them for their efforts and mentioned how the government and police were bastards who deserve whatever they get pelted with.. be it eggs, fire extinquishers or bags of medical waste..I think you meant to say Adrian, that the MEDIA is trying to influence public opinion against them, as the media are puppets of puppets and so on.

Really Cerrone?

I'm a student, my friends are students, many of us support the motivations behind the 'protest' and the right to protest.

However, sine the riots even the Student population is slightly disheartened. Not because of how they were treated, No, because of how a minority of their number devalued the entire affair.

Me and Adrian may disagree about the implementation of these methods BUT he is spot on the money when he says that what those few did was inexcusable.

Also, many of the people I've spoken to since the event have shown the same turn away from the student cause. Is this because of the media portrayl? Possibly. The overwhelming opinion however, is that those activities were wrong and as such the publics view of this issue has changed.

Quite personally, it seems that each generation has to find out for themselves that peaceful protest is ineffective and seem to need education on the subject. You're under some delusion if you think peaceful protest has ever achieved anything; look at the massive anti-war demonstrations in london for a recent example, then look back through history and see how every single attempt has proved to be completely useless. Perhaps with the exception of Ghandi of course, but even with Ghandi- like Malcolm X and MLK- Ghandi was the more attractive option when politicians where eventually forced to choose a side BECAUSE of rioting Indians in the colonies attacking british soldiers. It's not as simple as making a decision as to which tactic is more effective- peace or violence- the crucial point is that "violent" action forces the people in power to do something because the don't understand "peace" as you or I do, they take "peace" to mean pacified and harmless i.e not worth paying attention to anymore.

So your contention is that the student body should, if they care enough, start rioting, killing, vandalising at whim? In order to force those in power to the table?

Obviously your view of activism is confined to the great struggles of history. In fact the zeitgeist is changing, the majority want peacefull protests and political action to acheive their goals. It is the anarchist few who delay this process by disrupting the efforts of others.

I believe peaceful process and political pressure, if resolutely applied for a worthy cause is more than enough to sway public opinion and in doing so; achieve your goals.

Well there you go, certianly the three parties need hauling out of parliament by a meathook through the nose.

Actually i'm personally more inclined to do what Cromwell did and just take over by force, then hand over power to reformed local citizen councils that're actually comprised of people instead of politicians, and having a new "government" existing only in a vanguard capacity.

Because it ended so well for Cromwell?

Cheers

Sam