Student Jailed For Throwing Fire Extinguisher!!!

reply to post by Xcathdra


I agree with you, but theres no where in law that says that those assumptions of good behaviour and decorum , should be expected to be honoured when the government are carrying out more vandalism than the population are CAPABLE of , let alone guilty of.
The government had the letters from the persons aggreived by the situation, they had every chance to turn thier back on thier dangerous, regressive, and segregational approach to education, and failed in every particular to obey the will of the people on the matter. Hence there were protests. Those suit wearing thieves in parliment will either learn to bow to the superior numbers and power of the people, or they will be beseiged and thier buildings will be attacked, until they get thier backsides in gear and start doing as they are damned well told, which when you boil it down, is actualy thier job.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by TheWill

 

No.. I think some missed my point. Protests are fine, as its a true sign that freedom is alive and well. My point is the protestors in the UK, and even here in the states, protest actions / policies by the Government.

My point is in this case student in the UK are upset about the Government changing tution costs. So the students protested, again fine. Where does destroying personal private property (cars, windows, etc etc) come into play in the protest? Their beef is with the Government, not the car or shop owners.

Its like prostesting the manner in which a university does animal experimentation by going downtown and ransacking a book store while igniting cars out front on fire.

What do those items have to do with the protest, or even the reason for the protest? The same holds true for the US, and im not singaling out the UK here. I am just saying its one thing to take action to let the Government know you are pissed, its another matter entirely when those same people who are upset about money and cost to turn around and vandalise or destroy items who belong to people not involved, who now have to spend their own money to fix / replace the items destroyed.

Counter productive and undermines the argument about cost of education, even more so when they cause economic damage to others not involved.

Could you cite any shops and cars that were targeted without reason. It's my understanding that government buildings were targeted. And a chain store that supports literal slavery. I can't recall anyone 'not involved' being targeted.

reply to post by TrueBrit


Some good points TrueBrit.

I too work for the British Government and am currently doing 12 hours per day 6 days a week. Doing very hard graft outside. We are having cuts all the time and we have to justify ourselves to keep our jobs and to stop civilian companies stepping in. My workplace is a classic example of overspending because 'thats the price they charge'.

Recently we paid 400,000 pounds to have an airfield dug up and a different type of grass planted to deter birds from landing on it. Ultimatily (sp?) to stop bird strikes on aircraft. Total waste of money.

However, Democracy works if everyone plays fair. Student riots simply used more of the governments funds correcting the result of that riot.

My point was that if people want to have something, they can't kick off and use riots to try and 'persuade' the government to give them what they want. This will only make matters worse.

It actually reminds me of a screaming child wanting chocolate, even after the parents said no.

The government can't make everyone happy, I left school with very little but still found a good job and now I make the most in my family.

The UK is very strapped for cash, and there will be cuts. Although I doubt it'll be to 'Foreign Aid', thats too important to our country

reply to post by Xcathdra


Looks like I did misunderstand - I thought you were doing what Cameron did, dismissing the whole movement just because of a small number of nitwits who decided that they would add to the protest with violence and vandalism.

Originally posted by johnyelland1234
reply to post by TrueBrit

 

Some good points TrueBrit.

I too work for the British Government and am currently doing 12 hours per day 6 days a week. Doing very hard graft outside. We are having cuts all the time and we have to justify ourselves to keep our jobs and to stop civilian companies stepping in. My workplace is a classic example of overspending because 'thats the price they charge'.

Recently we paid 400,000 pounds to have an airfield dug up and a different type of grass planted to deter birds from landing on it. Ultimatily (sp?) to stop bird strikes on aircraft. Total waste of money.

However, Democracy works if everyone plays fair. Student riots simply used more of the governments funds correcting the result of that riot.

My point was that if people want to have something, they can't kick off and use riots to try and 'persuade' the government to give them what they want. This will only make matters worse.

It actually reminds me of a screaming child wanting chocolate, even after the parents said no.

The government can't make everyone happy, I left school with very little but still found a good job and now I make the most in my family.

The UK is very strapped for cash, and there will be cuts. Although I doubt it'll be to 'Foreign Aid', thats too important to our country

The government could make everyone happy, actually. If they stopped stealing billions of pounds from British tax payers every year to support unjust wars and the subsidising of bankers. If they stopped that, they'd have plenty of money to pump into free Education. Afterall, that's where the tax money should be going in the first place.

And that's what it boils down to. If they were a truelly Democratic force and supported the will of the people we'd have money for Education.

We also owe most of our rights to rioting and violent revolt. Tell me what peaceful protest ever achieved?

reply to post by NadaCambia


Martin Luther King Jr. was a big advocate of peaceful protest.


Of course, so were the suffragists... no notable progress there until the rather more outspoken and frequently borderline terrorist suffragettes came along.

reply to post by NadaCambia


Sure

Students stage protest - Talks about Damage by students

Students cause damage

Damage by protesters

Protests turn violent

Protest hijacked by anarchists


Granted in any major protest damge is inevitable. Targeting outside of the focus of the protest to me defeats the cause.

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Looks like I did misunderstand - I thought you were doing what Cameron did, dismissing the whole movement just because of a small number of nitwits who decided that they would add to the protest with violence and vandalism.

Lol its cool.. I am a firm beleiver in peoples right to protest.. I just take exception to damage caused by people that have nothing to do with the issue.

Originally posted by NadaCambia
The government could make everyone happy, actually. If they stopped stealing billions of pounds from British tax payers every year to support unjust wars and the subsidising of bankers. If they stopped that, they'd have plenty of money to pump into free Education. Afterall, that's where the tax money should be going in the first place....

Respectfully that is the problem. Peoples sense of entitlement, which is very obvious is not sustainable. Why should education be free? or even subsidized for that matter?

Entitlements are the problem, across the globe.

reply to post by NadaCambia


Well I think the war is very just, but thats another thread altogether.

Do you have sources for the billions that have been stolen from the tax payer each year?

The government will never make everyone happy, You'll always have people that are pissed off about something, but if they riot, should they get what they want? Of course not.

I believe the government is trying, and trying very hard. But riots do not make it any easier for them to make people happy.

peaceful protest results:

thegordonschools.typepad.co.uk...

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by NadaCambia

 

Martin Luther King Jr. was a big advocate of peaceful protest.


Of course, so were the suffragists... no notable progress there until the rather more outspoken and frequently borderline terrorist suffragettes came along.

And that's my point exactly. MLK was pushed by those in power because Malcolm X was on the verge of genuine revolution. MLK was also a Zionist nut job.

The same can be observed in India. Ghandi was negotiated with because there was a very real violent uprising and he was a useful tool to keep the Indian majority from real revolution.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by NadaCambia
The government could make everyone happy, actually. If they stopped stealing billions of pounds from British tax payers every year to support unjust wars and the subsidising of bankers. If they stopped that, they'd have plenty of money to pump into free Education. Afterall, that's where the tax money should be going in the first place....

Respectfully that is the problem. Peoples sense of entitlement, which is very obvious is not sustainable. Why should education be free? or even subsidized for that matter?

Entitlements are the problem, across the globe.

I don't know, because we pay some of the highest taxes in the world. Maybe that's why Education should be free.

If you pay for something, you're entitled to it. We're happy to pay high taxes to improve Education, Health Care and transport. What's happened is the government is stealing tax money to subsidise bankers and fund wars nobody wants.

You're confused. Education isn't free, neither is Health Care. It's paid for, by the tax payer. And it is sustainable. Until the elite start stealing the funds

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by NadaCambia

 

Sure

Students stage protest - Talks about Damage by students

Students cause damage

Damage by protesters

Protests turn violent

Protest hijacked by anarchists


Granted in any major protest damge is inevitable. Targeting outside of the focus of the protest to me defeats the cause.

All that damage is to government buildings. With the exception of a few buses.

reply to post by NadaCambia


The taxes you pay do not amount to everything you think you are entitled to. Taxes go to subsidize the system in an effort to make it available to all, which is the classic redistribution of wealth program, which does not work as England and other countries in Europe, and the US is seeing.

Originally posted by johnyelland1234
reply to post by NadaCambia

 

Well I think the war is very just, but thats another thread altogether.

Do you have sources for the billions that have been stolen from the tax payer each year?

The government will never make everyone happy, You'll always have people that are pissed off about something, but if they riot, should they get what they want? Of course not.

I believe the government is trying, and trying very hard. But riots do not make it any easier for them to make people happy.

peaceful protest results:

thegordonschools.typepad.co.uk...

edit on 11-1-2011 by johnyelland1234 because: link

Well respectfully, you're in a small minority.

The point is they shouldn't have to riot. The protestors were protesting against an unpopular government decision that nobody but toffs wanted. If the government represented the peoples interests, as they should in a Democracy, they'd be no need to riot or protest.

And I won't provide sources for the billions stolen each year. Go look up the bailout or the cost of the war. This money comes from where?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by NadaCambia

 

The taxes you pay do not amount to everything you think you are entitled to. Taxes go to subsidize the system in an effort to make it available to all, which is the classic redistribution of wealth program, which does not work as England and other countries in Europe, and the US is seeing.

It works fine. Go look at the cost of education vs cost of war. And tell me the government doesn't have money. They don't have money for education but they have money for war? Tell me how that works. I'd love to hear.

Suppose the government never bailed out the banks.

How many people do you think would be pissed off, and protesting? Or even the families left without any savings because of the banks negligence, there'd be people homeless and it was a good thing that the government bailed out the banks.

In the long run our economy will get stronger when it recovers.

As for the war, i've been to both Iraq and Afghan and I see what a huge difference we've made to these countries. It's my own opinion that we've done the right thing by getting involved.

The government isn't a greedy coalition of people just after our hard earned money, it all goes somewhere and gets spent on this country.

Originally posted by johnyelland1234
Suppose the government never bailed out the banks.

How many people do you think would be pissed off, and protesting? Or even the families left without any savings because of the banks negligence, there'd be people homeless and it was a good thing that the government bailed out the banks.

In the long run our economy will get stronger when it recovers.

As for the war, i've been to both Iraq and Afghan and I see what a huge difference we've made to these countries. It's my own opinion that we've done the right thing by getting involved.

The government isn't a greedy coalition of people just after our hard earned money, it all goes somewhere and gets spent on this country.

And who's fault is that? If the government kept the banks in line in the first place they'd never have been a problem! The fact is the government turned a blind eye because they were getting their pockets lined, aswell as massive financial support from banks and bankers.

If we had a government that wasn't full of corrupt money swindlers they'd have been no need to subsidise fat cat bankers in the first place!

The government IS a greedy coalition of people just after our hard earned money.

reply to post by NadaCambia


Because again a sense of entitlement that people have, who are upset that not everything is free and handed to them, will target areas they dont agree with in order to get more of their "fair shar".

If people had your same level of thinking, we would not be having this conversation because the Gestapo would not allow for it.

The nations that can, try to help the nations that cant. I would assume people would have larned that lesson from the 9/11 or 7/7 attacks. At the rate the British Government is gutting their military, I hope like hell you guys have backup plans in the event a situation somewhere goes tits up that affects the U.K.

If we really want to go down the road we are on, then how come the people of the UK have not been sending mass amounts of money to African countries that were once under British rule?

Entitlements, and the view of people who think they are entitled to items all the time, cannot work, at all. And to answer your other answer that it works just fine in England, I disagree. The military is gutted, spending slashed because of entitlements, mass protest over that by students, energy issues.

If the tax system worked as you say, and there is enough money for entitlments, then why are they slashing spending across teh board at such deep levels?

...because it does not work.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by NadaCambia

 

Because again a sense of entitlement that people have, who are upset that not everything is free and handed to them, will target areas they dont agree with in order to get more of their "fair shar".

If people had your same level of thinking, we would not be having this conversation because the Gestapo would not allow for it.

The nations that can, try to help the nations that cant. I would assume people would have larned that lesson from the 9/11 or 7/7 attacks. At the rate the British Government is gutting their military, I hope like hell you guys have backup plans in the event a situation somewhere goes tits up that affects the U.K.

If we really want to go down the road we are on, then how come the people of the UK have not been sending mass amounts of money to African countries that were once under British rule?

Entitlements, and the view of people who think they are entitled to items all the time, cannot work, at all. And to answer your other answer that it works just fine in England, I disagree. The military is gutted, spending slashed because of entitlements, mass protest over that by students, energy issues.

If the tax system worked as you say, and there is enough money for entitlments, then why are they slashing spending across teh board at such deep levels?

...because it does not work.

What on earth are you talking about? What does ex-African territory have to do with British taxes and the education system?

I've already told you why they're cutting spending. Because they pissed away our money on subsidising the banks and mongering war in the Middle East. That's why. 100's of Billions have been spent on those 2. Money that if put into Education, would have prevented any need to increase costs.

Nobody is talking about anything being free. We pay for it every day. That's what taxes are for. I don't know how it works in America but over here tax money goes into Health care, transport and education, largely. And the governments in power right now campaigned on the fact they wont cut spending in these areas! The Liberal Democrats promised not to increase Education fees. Labour said they'd increase spending in these areas.

People do have my same level of thinking as I do, If they didn't I wouldn't be making these points. What I'm saying is a commonly held view in Britain. We're not all little indoctrinated Ron Paul cariactures. Socialism is embraced and welcomed here.