Do governments "listen" to peaceful protests?

[taxman]

Perhaps it's because the government knows that it won the last election, and therefore has a mandate from the general public, that it ignores protests set up by a small minority.

 

No it didn't.

[taxman]

No it doesn't.

 

The problem is though that as currently as soon as protest goes violent it allows those in authority to ignore the reason for the protests and comment purely on the violence (as cameron did yesterday - ignored the very real feelings abut the fees and commented purely on the riots themselves.

 

In other word, the right to protest is a meaningless right.

 

Hence all the headlines today and news reports are focusing on the attack on Prince Charles rather than the wider troubles and protest. Self defeating.

[andygardener]

Peaceful protest is like trying to **** the government up the arse hole with a Flump. Why do people think government allows peaceful protest? Because they know it's useless! Feigned dissent as far as .gov is concerned. Although, I wonder if government didn't allow peaceful demonstration whether there would be violent protests about it?

 

Demonstrations (peaceful or violent) in this country since universal sufferage tend to achieve zip. If you look at the major mass participation protests in the last few decades what have they achieved? Miners marches - mines shut down. Countryside Alliance - hunting banned. Stop the war - war started. Only the poll tax protests coincided with the desired result occurring and that had far more to do with nearly 99% disapproval for the poll tax than the riots themselves.

 

We have a means of changing governments, it's called voting. Protests are a day out and a chance to shout slogans and pretend just because you've got a placard that the government will take more notice of your vote than the next guys - which they won't.

[Tony]

They probably listen but don't work. I can't think of a peaceful demonstration throughout history that has worked.

 

That would be Tienanmen Square you're not thinking of among many others like Burma, India, Venezuela, the Isle of Sheppy.

[Wildcat]

No and neither do violent ones. The only thing a violent protest achieves is alienating yourself against those who otherwise could be beneficial towards your cause.

 

Apart from those occasions when it doesn't.

[Wildcat]

If it wasn't for violent protests we would still be an absolute monarchy

[andygardener]

If it wasn't for violent protests we would still be an absolute monarchy

 

That's rather the point. We're a democracy now. In non-democracies protest, violent or peaceful, is one of the only ways to achieve change. I assume the OP was discussing protest in modern Britain rather than in Burma or 1642.

[Mr Prime]

Let's face it, in modern Britain the endless town hall riots culminating in the March 1990 mega riot contributed to the fall of the poll tax. It had simply become embarrassing.

 

The IRA too bombed their way to the negotiating table. Ordinary demo's were simply ignored or batoned away before 1969.

 

Uncomfortable for some to accept but the truth nonetheless. What is war if not a violent protest against the wishes of another country?

[Trudger]

Let's face it, in modern Britain the endless town hall riots culminating in the March 1990 mega riot contributed to the fall of the poll tax. It had simply become embarrassing.

 

The IRA too bombed their way to the negotiating table. Ordinary demo's were simply ignored or batoned away before 1969.

 

Uncomfortable for some to accept but the truth nonetheless. What is war if not a violent protest against the wishes of another country?

 

All of that is true.

[hitch_1980]

All of that is true.

 

Theres a fine line to everything...also part of a protest is to make sure you have the backing if things dont go well.