mj.scuba Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 I'm all for the right to make your voice heard but draw the line at violence against person or property. So, considering that the costs of today's student protest will run into millions should the National Union of Students* be getting a bill for the damage and policing costs? *My assumption, if the organiser is somebody else please mention it. Protest is and should always be free. But I share your sentiment about paying for damage, therefor any costs should be shared by anybody arrested for criminal damage during the protest. So if 5 people are found guilty, they would have to each pay 20% of the total damage. Might be a big incentive not to go wrecking things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 Maybe we should let vandals off when they smash bus stops or shop windows if they don't make a profit from it. A reasonable person can express displeasure without bringing chaos to the streets. Should everybody be guaranteed the 'human right' to riot if the urge takes them? What about the ordinary people caught up in the riots? I know one old lady in Sheffield who was in town doing some shopping and ended up caught up in at all, terrified and traumatised. What of her 'rights'? Or are 'rights' only important for those who want to be antisocial? your mixing up two DIFFERENT things here (as usual) the person that goes to protest and the rioter.......................generally they are both completely different, both student demos in london, apparently had people going hell bent on a riot, NOT peaceful protest. why should an organiser pay for it when they get hijacked? its not so black and white as yes and no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 your mixing up two DIFFERENT things here (as usual) the person that goes to protest and the rioter.......................generally they are both completely different, both student demos in london, apparently had people going hell bent on a riot, NOT peaceful protest. why should an organiser pay for it when they get hijacked? its not so black and white as yes and no No, I'm mixing nothing up at all. The organisers are responsible for the lot, because anybody with more than sawdust between their ears knew that this would end up in violence and destruction - it was inevitable. If they wanted to make a statement, each and every one of them could have separately written to their MP - a few weeks of mail sacks would get political attention. Even if they didn't get hijacked, why should people who aren't interested in students' whining be inconvenienced by a demonstration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 No, I'm mixing nothing up at all. The organisers are responsible for the lot, because anybody with more than sawdust between their ears knew that this would end up in violence and destruction - it was inevitable. Mmm, didn't see the riots coming me... Even if they didn't get hijacked, why should people who aren't interested in students' whining be inconvenienced by a demonstration? It wasn't a NUS placard on the trashed Police van, it was an Anarchy placard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 No, I'm mixing nothing up at all. The organisers are responsible for the lot, because anybody with more than sawdust between their ears knew that this would end up in violence and destruction - it was inevitable. If they wanted to make a statement, each and every one of them could have separately written to their MP - a few weeks of mail sacks would get political attention. Even if they didn't get hijacked, why should people who aren't interested in students' whining be inconvenienced by a demonstration? ah i see, your telepathic now? the police could be doing with you, they understaffed the first one cos they DIDNT see it coming. people inconvenienced are also benefitted by any changes brought after a protest, theyre generally too apathetic to get involved tho, you cant pick and choose what protest you want to happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 ah i see, your telepathic now? the police could be doing with you, they understaffed the first one cos they DIDNT see it coming.The whole point is that they did see this one coming. As did everybody else capable of outwitting a bar of soap (or using one). people inconvenienced are also benefitted by any changes brought after a protest, theyre generally too apathetic to get involved tho, you cant pick and choose what protest you want to happen Why not? I'd be happy for them all to be illegal. As for apathetic for those who don't get involved is protests, perhaps a better word would be wise? Or dignified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 I'd be all for this idea if the police weren't the way that they are. The problem is the way protests are policed in this country is an absolute joke. Protesters should not have to pay the police to beat them up and get kettled in, that is ridiculous. Perhaps if the police were providing a service and actually making things safer instead of being violent and deliberately antagonistic then I would agree with the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 I'm all for the right to make your voice heard but draw the line at violence against person or property. So, considering that the costs of today's student protest will run into millions should the National Union of Students* be getting a bill for the damage and policing costs? *My assumption, if the organiser is somebody else please mention it. If people here want to get their voice heard, but are scared of getting caught up in unrelated violence, perhaps supporting the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI), which (allegedly) requires the EU commission to act when it receives a request from over 1 million citizens. The EU sorely needs such a mechanism. Please lend your support here: http://www.avaaz.org/en/eu_citizens_initiative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 Why not? I'd be happy for them all to be illegal. What, take away freedom of speech in the form of protest? Somewhat draconian don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted November 25, 2010 Share Posted November 25, 2010 The whole point is that they did see this one coming. As did everybody else capable of outwitting a bar of soap (or using one). Why not? I'd be happy for them all to be illegal. As for apathetic for those who don't get involved is protests, perhaps a better word would be wise? Or dignified? What's dignified and wise about throwing away your hard won freedoms and rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.