Video: Mounted police charge students in London.

edit to add ,Warning some strong language in the video

Here's a video of some of the police actions over the Student protests in London. Remember many of the kids on the demo were young teenagers, some as young as 14. These kids are demonstrating to protect their future and have every right to protest on the streets of London.

Tens of thousands of school and college pupils and university students demonstrated in largely peaceful protests across the country against government plans to increase tuition fees and scrap the education maintenance allowance, but there were violent scenes at the central London protests. Hundreds of protesters were corralled or "kettled" by police, and later advanced upon by mounted officers.

www.guardian.co.uk...

reply to post by woodwardjnr


I guess we get to see where the violence is REALLY coming from on these protests.
Doesn't seem like the students were doing a damn thing to me

I watched many hours of live footage from both this week and a couple of weeks back, and I think you can see it from both sides. The vast majority of people were there to peacefully protest. However, there were a small minority who were there simply to cause trouble. A lot of these guys were youngsters just looking to smash things up and get themselves on the news, they should be found and held accountable for their actions, as at the end of the day, it will only hit the tax-payer in the pocket.

It does seem a bit daft they left the police van where the protesters were- I missed the events leading up to that, as up until then it was just a regular protest, not really worth watching hours of live feed of that! A cynic could perhaps argue the police did it purposefully, as they predicted the protesters would act the way they did, in order to not only vilify them in the eyes of the public- even though it was the a small minority (though in fairness skynews did broadcast live images of a genuine protester attempting to stop people vandalising the van) but also, by demonstrating this harsher, indiscriminate stance on any protester, deter future uprisings. I know I wouldn't want to stand in one place with no amenities for several hours, though eventually they did provide portable toilets and water.

I have to say though, that the news coverage was fairly unbiased. The previous riot a couple of weeks before, the reporting was very biased. For example, they had a protester on the phone for a live interview and they basically personally attacked her, implying some quite offensive things about her character.

reply to post by davespanners


The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that the police left the lone riot van as a honeypot and target for the more militant protestors. By doing so it gave the police the justification to Kettle the protestors and put an end to any protest.

Having being kettled at the G20, I know it is a very frustrating experience, losing all your freedom of movement and being collectively punished. The aim is to put off people ever wanting to protest.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Police in london do not care for rights, look at my thread about why they did not micorwave these people.

I seem to remember spears, pikes and other various polearms being pretty key in ending a mounted charge. Perhaps it's time for protests to get medieval?

All the discussion of the reason for protest, their right to protest aside; charging into the crowd on horseback? Really? People die that way.

reply to post by ScepticalBeliever


I too have been watching this as it unfolds, and while I hate violence for no reason, there are times when anger and violence absolutely have to be displayed.

This is one of those times.

The destruction of property, while the media and authorities would have you believe is extreme, is actually an ants fart in the wind compared to the budget.
The graffiti and destruction costs nothing to repair in comparison to the damage done by this government.

It is pennies. So if people really want to get all angry about the damage done by a bunch of rowdy students who are justifiably angry, they should compare it to the expenses of MP's, the pay of senior officials, the quangos and any number of other needless bills paid out of the public coffers.

The expense for a bus shelter, few broken windows and a beaten up van is absolutely nothing.

The government stated that evening that they support the democratic right to protest. In the same sentence they also stated that protesting is futile. They categorically stated on national TV that no amount of protest will change their policy. They will ignore it.

So what are the public to do then?
If your government states that your opinion is meaningless, if repeated protesting over every important issue from banking bail-outs to education are comprehensively ignored, what are the people supposed to do?

Are we supposed to just say "oh well, never mind" and go home?
Are we supposed to wait until the damage has been done, and elect another government who will just do even more damage?

I bring this up again and again in every one of these threads where protesting is raised. And no one seems to have an answer.

When a government becomes a dictatorship or a freakish combo of capitalist fascism, what the hell are the people supposed to do if violence is out of the question?
What will it take before violence IS acceptable, snipers taking out protesters? Tanks on the streets? Mass imprisonment?

Please, if someone can tell me I'd love to know. But right now all I see are a lot of limp lefties crying about graffiti on bus shelters while offering no alternative means of "peaceful" resistance.

reply to post by detachedindividual


I agree with your sentiments, basically words are a powerful weapon, but only if the opposing force is prepared to listen- if they aren't, you have to speak to them a bit louder- i.e through actions.

I realise that marches- as has been proven in several instances in the recent past, Iraq springing to mind here for one- will almost definitely fall on deaf ears. However, the dispute I have is that the majority of those that were destroying the property, in both instances, were infact nothing more than a group of trouble makers, a combination of organised anarchists and just people looking for a buzz and actually had nothing to do with the cause. Most of them probably don't even know the bulk of the finer details behind the legislation, which though perhaps unfair, isn't as much of an atrocity as some are making out. You don't need to pay any of the loan back until you earn over £20,000, the repayments aren't as big as you'd imagine, the interest rate cannot rise above the Bank of Englands set rate- my student loan was at 0% interest for a long while- and also any amount unpaid is written off once you reach a certain age (not sure what that age is being change to admittedly, 60 at an educated guess)

Don't think I'm standing up for the government, or condemning a right to free speech at all either, and as I say I fully support stronger actions when all else has failed. After all, it wasn't a few million people marching for world peace that prevented Hitler ruling all of Europe, was it?

The point is though, a group of 100 with scarves wrapped around their faces, with drum and bass blasting out of a ghetto blaster, drinking cans of beer, making fires and running around with bricks, throwing them through windows and spray-painting #$@! Tories! anywhere they can isn't going to change anything, for the better, at least...

maybe the protesters should use their own horses
next time around. The po po just upped the ante.

reply to post by ScepticalBeliever


Don't get me wrong, I wasn't attacking your position. We seem to have very similar opinions on most of this. I was just responding to the common sentiment expressed when it comes to protesting.

I have no doubt that there are three groups of people protesting here,

1. Genuine Peaceful Protesters
These are the people who I view as naive. They still believe in the myth of democracy and freedom. Even after the banking bail-outs, the MP's expenses scandal, the evidence of possible corruption by Mandy and Co. they still think our government is in position to run the country and that they will listen to public opinion.

2. The Anarchist
These are the ones who are not students and just want to jump on any opportunity for a ruckus. They have no interest in the issues and will go along to any event if there's a chance they can smash things up.

3. Genuinely Angry Protesters.
These are the ones not mentioned. These are the people the government doesn't want to admit exist, and these are the ones who, I believe, are in the majority.
They will go along to a peaceful protest because they feel genuine anger at the situation and they feel powerless to change things. This is their only outlet. While they might not have an ambition or even an intention to cause damage, given the chance they will gladly take out their frustrations on a stranded Police van. The protesters won't admit it because they don't want to be tarnished.

Why doesn't the government want it mention them? Because they reflect the wider British public. They are a representation of the UK on every issue from the bail-outs to the cut-backs.
We are all seething with rage against the poor decisions by this and previous governments. We are completely fed up with being lied to, coerced, conned and bullied by our government.

The government knows that this is the majority, but they cannot let us know that this is the most common sentiment, because that could lead to to what politicians fear the most; revolution.

And of course all of this will continue. It will escalate with the government refusing to budge, preferring to brand those protesting as simple anarchists.
The students will gradually come to realize that their opinion doesn't matter, and they will become more and more angry in the face of that disregard.
They will join up with every other group planning to protest in the months to come and London will be a sea of protests day-in and day-out with riot Police unable to control it.

Something that makes me chuckle is the Police Commissioner stating that they will have to adjust for increased protests and more violence. We were discussing all of this on these very forums two years ago, predicting escalating protests and violence across Europe and the US. It wasn't difficult.

Maybe we should be seeking their kind of paycheck for being able to see so much further into the future?

If they only knew how to push back

Slightly misleading title there.....you would be looking at many injuries had that been a police horse charge.

Using a few horses to control a crowd is slightly different. Yes they were running there, but not charging AT students.

The police are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. After the Millbank Tower protests the other week, people were shouting that there were too few police. Two weeks on they put the police in place and people whinge again.

If the police had stayed away, you would have still got the element that is intent on causing damage and occupying buildings like they did at Millbank. That is not acceptable and you need a police presence for that.

As for people whinging about the younger kids being kettled, some will say they were right to be there, others will say they should have been at home or at school.

CX.

Originally posted by eNumbra
I seem to remember spears, pikes and other various polearms being pretty key in ending a mounted charge. Perhaps it's time for protests to get medieval?

this scene comes to mind
with ur statement