Riots in the UK?

[Tiberius]

In this case there is massive common ground, since the students all want the same thing and the government and police will continue to oppose them. When the government is pressured into giving them what they want the common enemy won't exist anymore and they can go back to argueing about the artic monkeys or whatever. Not exactly comparable to the soviets, yankees and nazi germany is it.

The "allies" that the students need are the general public...the taxpayers. These are the people that could be said to share a "common enemy" with (i.e. the government). The only problem is, the public want less taxes, and the students want free education. With the government trying to cut spending in order to save the economy, the public know that the two goals are on opposite sides of a pair of scales. If you want free education, you need higher taxes. If you want lower taxes, you'll have to cut spending (and in this case, the cut is education).

Ohhhh hahaha define morality atheist! No I don't throw "personal standards" away for the sake of accomplishing goals, if a situation can be resolved diplomatically then you should make every effort to do so, but for diplomacy to happen the party trying to achieve their ends must have something that the other party wants or theres no reason why that party is going to pay mind to the request of the other.

I define morality the same way everyone defines it. As I've said, in this case, the parties involved are the students, and the working public. The students want free education, and that can only come at a cost to the working public. The government don't want to anger the public anymore than they already are, so they can't bow to the demands of the students (who, by the way, make up a far smaller percentage of the electorate than the rest of the public).

The government aren't going to listen- as they never have- to the demands of peaceful protests, nor do police care what happens since they're, as you said, just doing their job.

I gave examples of the government listening, so stop trying to use that old excuse...it won't work. Your last line is interesting though. Despite the fact that you've now admitted that the police are only doing their job, you still think it is perfectly fine and moral to try and kill them by throwing heavy pieces of metal at them? You sicken me.

Oh excuse me, I meant to say an example of peaceful protest regarding anything meaningful that would go against the interests of those in power. I assumed you realised i was talking about "actual relevant issues" and not about Simon Singh scribbling rubbish about Chiropractors.

So free speech isn't meaningful? Bullshit. Numerous governments have tried to stomp on free speech, and it arguably goes against the interests of those in power. Why you chose to ignore my other two examples (which dealt with sexual liberation and animal rights...two other important issues) is very telling though. Did you have a rebuttal to them, or did you ignore them and think I wouldn't notice?

So Labour lost seats, so what? We;re still at war and nothing was changed. All we've done is replace one bad CEO with another bad CEO while their toxic product is still being mass produced and sold.

Even under the modern standard of "democracy" the elected governments are hardly held accountable for the actions they take and people can't just change their minds when they don't like whoever's in charge, that'd require some form of revolution to happen. Remember Gordon Browns term as PM? He wasn't even elected, nobody wanted him in charge, people called for him to resign but he just sat there and nobody took any steps to get rid of him.. with the only "legal" steps to do so being to elect the fucking conservatives.

The government and it's legal methods Do Not Work in bringing change, the only reason they exist and were brought into existance was tp maintain the status quo. And it needs changing, by peaceful methods if possible, but you've got to be prepared to take direct action if they don't listen. I have the foresight of knowing that they won't listen, which is why i'm forced to take the position i've taken on the subject.

I'm in complete agreement; the government needs to change, but the fact remains that your points are completely empty in that I have demonstrated that your assertions are simply untrue; that enough people can change the law and bring about a referendum, and that the people are the ones with all the power.

If enough people wanted it, they could elect an entirely new government. Have you ever wondered why it hasn't happened? It's because right now, at this moment in time, despite the people being angry at the government, they still vote them in.

That may annoy people like you and me, but rather than deny reality like you, and make up ridiculous claims about what the people want, I accept the fact, and hope for change in the future. Just because the masses don't agree with you doesn't mean you aren't wrong, but it doesn't give you the right to make up lies about people in order to convince everyone that you are in the majority, because you clearly aren't.