http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11954333

Really stupid move by these protesters. If the bodyguards had felt that the couples lives were in danger they were well within their rights to draw their weapons and open fire...

Quoting alberchico (Thread starter): draw their weapons and open fire

A) I'm not sure they have any weapons.
B) I should hope that these particular bodyguards have received adequate training which will of course stop them from making such atrociously wrong decisions.

There are legitimate protestors, and there are vandals.

Legitimate protestors never engage in violence in order to make their point. Those who engage in violence are criminals and should be treated as such. Just from reading that article, there is definitely a case for assault and criminal damage.

As a student myself, I support their cause, just not their methods. I agree with the OP, that was really, really stupid.

Quoting aloges (Reply 1): A) I'm not sure they have any weapons.

I sure hope people protecting the royal family have some type of firearm.

Given that none of the Royal family have been assassinated in recent years, I am sure our cousins across the Atlantic know what they are doing.

From the chants of "Tory Scum" in the video, it would appear that the people who attacked the car had no idea who was actually in it. They saw a large car with minimal police protection and probably thought it was a Cabinet Minister. Not that it makes any difference. The Tories will be quite unmoved by a handful of demonstrators smashing windows. And it won't gain them many supporters. Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall may not be all that popular, but most of the British people would draw the line at physically assaulting them.

The UK tends not to go overboard with personal protection for the Royals. In a situation like the one described, the priority would be on getting HRH away from the immediate vicinity. Armed security is available but tends to be discreet. It is more fitting with the notion of rule by consent.

I found it very wierd that Prince Charles was in an old-fashion vehicle with no bulllit proof glass and otherwise unarmoured. Further, I think whoever does security for the Royals should have told the Prince to stay home last night, due to the tremendous hostility in the streets.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 2): There are legitimate protestors, and there are vandals.

The recent protests in London have been used as an excuse by mindless thugs to go on the rampage. When you see a group of youths with their faces hidden behind scarves and balaclavas, one can assume they're not there to protest about tuition fees. I doubt they could even spell 'university'.

I have absolutely no issue with peaceful protest and I don't doubt the vast majority of those on the streets yesterday were doing just that. What occurred last night (not just the attack on the royal car) was nothing less than an act of anarchy perpetrated by a small minority.

Specifically on the attack of Charles, one has to feel a certain lack of thinking was involved. A royal engagement in the same area as a major protest that anyone could have predicted would be hijacked by violent yobs couldn't be anything other than risky. Someone cocked up big time. I'm no royalist, but this shouldn't have been even a remote possibility.

Quoting alberchico (Thread starter): Really stupid move by these protesters. If the bodyguards had felt that the couples lives were in danger they were well within their rights to draw their weapons and open fire...

Idiots.

Oh, and just to note, Fox News in the US has shown footages of these protesters, linking them with Tea Partiers. I wonder if they'll continue that line when reporting on this.

Actually I remember having heard that Prince Charles used to be a pretty good shot with a 9mm Browning High power Model 1935, when he did his time in the British Army.

Jan

Quoting alberchico (Thread starter): Really stupid move by these protesters. If the bodyguards had felt that the couples lives were in danger they were well within their rights to draw their weapons and open fire...

All "RPO's" Royal Protection Officers - are armed. The minimum weapon issue is a 9mm handgun.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 12): I found it very wierd that Prince Charles was in an old-fashion vehicle with no bulllit proof glass and otherwise unarmoured. Further, I think whoever does security for the Royals should have told the Prince to stay home last night, due to the tremendous hostility in the streets.

The royal limos - like the one Charles was in - are armoured.  

Quote: Fox News in the US has shown footages of these protesters, linking them with Tea Partiers.

Not sure what could connect these two almost diametrically-opposed protest movements in the mind of Fox News. One wants the government to continue subsidizing education, the other wants to end government spending on education. The government that is hiking the tuition rates is doing essentially what the Tea Party says it wants to do - drastically cutting government spending. But then, it's Fox News and they don't operate in reality.

The attack on Prince Charles was ill-conceived at best, and most likely just the result of the appearance of a large luxury car that appeared to be conveying an MP or some other wealthy Briton (as if all wealthy people in England are Tories...sigh). A bad move on the part of the protesters but no doubt the work of the same sort who always turn out to cause chaos at protests...

Quoting BMIFlyer (Reply 20): All "RPO's" Royal Protection Officers - are armed. The minimum weapon issue is a 9mm handgun.

Correct, though discreetly.
The Met Police Commissioner has stated that they were 'seconds from drawing their guns', which only illuminates the situation that his officers allowed to develop, in the case of choosing a route.

However, I would hate to see convoys of armoured limos with loads of escorts sweeping all before them.
It grates here, when in the early 1990's gates were fitted to the entrance of Downing Street against a terrorist threat, many years before the rise of suicide bombers - at least in the West, there was a chorus of disapproval.

To the demo itself, it's clear that the amount of effective infiltration by trouble makers has increased, a few weeks ago when a (unmanned) Police Van was being trashed, a group of schoolgirls on the demo surrounded the vehicle and joined hands to stop the trashing, effectively shaming the vandals to stop, one of them later saying that they feared their message being lost by troublemakers.
I doubt they would have been shown such restraint on the part of troublemakers last night.

The police are in a no win situation here, they were too thin on the ground at the first demo last month, however tougher action will inevitably cause complaints.

I for one think that the attack on the Royal Family was a total act of disrespect, and borders on treason. I believe the guards should have opened fire in their duty to protect the heir to the throne.

On the subject of the students, I'm sorry but why should I, as a UK taxpayer, be funding people to go to university, drink a lot and sit about doing nothing? If you want to go, you should save up and pay for it like you do in the US. Neither would I expect anyone to pay for my son to go to university, we will save up for it over the years and give him the option if he wants to go.

As has already been mentioned, there are far too many people attending university these days, there is no value in a degree these days like there used to be. A few years ago, anyone with a degree really stood out as somebody academically brilliant. These days anyone can get a degree off the back of a Cornflake packet. Anything to cap this should be welcomed.

Quoting comorin (Reply 5): Given that none of the Royal family have been assassinated in recent years,

Recent being the important word.

Quoting GDB (Reply 23): The Met Police Commissioner has stated that they were 'seconds from drawing their guns', which only illuminates the situation that his officers allowed to develop, in the case of choosing a route.

Once one is put in a situation to draw a weapon, all bets are off, the day after review is easy, especially when nothing happened, but if something did..............

As for the tuition fees, the increase is dramatic, so the conspiracy theorist in me has to ask the obvious question, why, and we all know that the budget cannot be balanced on these fees. Which is more important, UK independence not having to join the French military, or paying for school funding, how about the other social benefits being cut, is tuition fees more important?
My take, something else is afoot, how many foreign students are in schools and is this the start of decreasing those numbers, is someone claiming the UK schools are now hot bed fermenting "radicals" and changes are required?

This is an excellent point well made. It needs to be made clear that for those wishing to go to university from a less affluent background then there are subsidies, bursaries and scholarships available to them that they will not have to pay back.

I think a point that also needs to be raised is that the university's do not have to charge £9,000 PA as far as I am aware this is the new maximum that they can charge. If I am proved incorrect on this point I do apologize.

P.S. I apologize for taking this topic further off topic. Mods maybe a title change to something like Prince Charles attacked in Tuition fee riots.

Matt
MWHCVT

[Edited 2010-12-10 14:44:48]

[Edited 2010-12-11 02:50:30 by SA7700]

Quoting MWHCVT (Reply 34): I think a point that also needs to be raised is that the university's do not have to charge £9,000 PA as far as I am aware this is the new maximum that they can charge. If I am proved incorrect on this point I do apologize.

Correct - the new fees from 2012 will be £6000 PA, but Universities can charge a maximum of up to £9000 PA if they wish to.

Quoting noelg (Reply 30): I for one think that the attack on the Royal Family was a total act of disrespect, and borders on treason. I believe the guards should have opened fire in their duty to protect the heir to the throne.

I doubt the protestors even knew who was in the car. And what did they do? Throw paint or something? I say charge them with treason and hang them in Trafalgar square for daring to interfere with the evening plans of the heir to the throne (oh right, he and his family are not a waste of money)!

Quoting noelg (Reply 30): I'm sorry but why should I, as a UK taxpayer, be funding people to go to university, drink a lot and sit about doing nothing?

Well as a UK taxpayer you are already paying for the healthcare of people that smoke or don't take care of themselves, you are paying for the income and the rent of all the chavs in the UK (and you have a lot) that do nothing but drink and cause trouble, generation after generation, as well as for a Royal family who is there as a tourist attraction and does nothing productive. At least the majority of the students will come out with a degree and will become productive members of the society. I think the UK can cut other expenses before having to touch affordable university education.

Also you keep forgetting the positive effect the "business" of higher education is having all around the UK. There are places and small towns that survive due to the high number of foreign and British students (with the rents and the money flowing in the local economy). The place I used to live (Colchester) would be an even worse place (can't actually write down the word I mean) without all the money students spent around.

Quoting noelg (Reply 30): These days anyone can get a degree off the back of a Cornflake packet

Sure they can.  

Quoting Quokka (Reply 6): From the chants of "Tory Scum" in the video, it would appear that the people who attacked the car had no idea who was actually in it.

Quoting CargoLex (Reply 21): The attack on Prince Charles was ill-conceived at best, and most likely just the result of the appearance of a large luxury car that appeared to be conveying an MP or some other wealthy Briton

Quoting lewis (Reply 37): I doubt the protestors even knew who was in the car.

Having watched the video... it's obvious that they know who is in the vehicle. They yell out his name numerous times. Not to mention, the windows are not even tinted. You can clearly see who is inside.

These people knew exactly who they were attacking.

Watch the video:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...f-attack-on-Royal-car-emerges.html

[Edited 2010-12-10 16:52:47]

[Edited 2010-12-11 07:21:56 by ManuCH]

An important question that I am sure will be postulated on for many months to come and I am sure many £'s will be spent on an enquiry on is what the hell was going on with the MET Police, Scotland Yard and the RP team to cause HRH to take this routing in the first place, I am sure that heads will role, but not in the treason sense  
Matt
MWHCVT

[Edited 2010-12-11 07:22:37 by ManuCH]

Quoting noelg (Reply 30): I for one think that the attack on the Royal Family was a total act of disrespect, and borders on treason. I believe the guards should have opened fire in their duty to protect the heir to the throne.

Disrespect is not treason. Treason would cover offences like an attempt on the life of the sovereign, adhering to the sovereign's enemies in time of war, attempting to bar the lawful succession, it used to (but I am not that it still does) include sleeping with the sovereign's consort. It would be hard to prove that throwing a paint-bomb constitutes an attempt on the sovereign's life, particularly as the sovereign wasn't present. Students chanting "Off with his head" could hardly be said to be adhering to the sovereign's enemies. I couldn't see anyone having sex with Prince Philip, but they weren't present either. Disrespect certainly. Unruly and uncalled for, certainly. Treason,definitely not.

As to opening fire, at whom exactly? Random fire into the crowd and possibly hit a person who simply happened to be present but not engaged in violence? Feathers may have been ruffled, but it doesn't seem anyone in the Royal party was at serious risk, although some police officers and protesters were injured in scuffles.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 42): Watch the video:

Thank you for posting the additional link with footage from a different TV News service (ITN). It is much clearer than that offered by the BBC link above.

Top comment on the Reddit thread on the "attack" on the Prince:

Quote: Prince Charles and Camilla aren't wearing seatbelts. You'd think they'd learn...

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 46): That is why I am so upset and made such a "dramatic" post. I dont have the option of paying my tuition off the way you guys do.

Good! thats the way it shoudl be. Foreigners should pay for their degrees up front. They may get a degree and vanish in to the ether, where the UK government won't be able to collect fees from them ever again. Pay up front Mr Foreigner. Its always been the case. Simple statement. You are clouding the argument between you - foreign student - and fiance - resident student - totally different arguments. You need to stick to one track or the other.

As for costs - you have noooo idea what it costs to go to a University in the USA do you?
I checked just now for a 3 year degree at University of Pennsylvania - has to be commparative right? $160,000. for 3 years tuition and basic board.
you tell me your $30k looks bad now?

You have to start understanding the wheels of the world economy here... things are tight as a gnats chuff. We have to pull the financial reins in somewhere.... Free or "grant maintained" student education is no longer a luxury in this cash strapped economy. We have to get the money from somewhere. So tell me... why is it sooo bad to expect the students who benefit, to contribute a small percentage of their wage after they graduate, to pay off their tuition.

Please explain why that is so wrong to expect that, and if so, how you would expect them to pay for it otherwise.

And in lieu of that comment, why shouldnt higher risk foreign students who could disappear and not pay their fees, be expected to pay up front like they are in the USA and every other state in the world....

Quoting GDB (Reply 23): which only illuminates the situation that his officers allowed to develop, in the case of choosing a route.

Yes, it would appear so and normally the police would have alternative routes available. However, Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner is saying

Quote: Mr Stephenson said police had checked the route minutes before the royal couple arrived but the situation had changed quickly. "I do think that the officers who were protecting their royal highnesses showed a very real restraint. Some of those officers were armed," http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...0/12/11/3090760.htm?section=justin

Quoting bcal dc10 (Reply 49): You are clouding the argument between you - foreign student - and fiance - resident student - totally different arguments. You need to stick to one track or the other.

Firstly, I will stand corrected on the issue of my fiancee. It seems she will have an easier road than I.

Quoting bcal dc10 (Reply 49): As for costs - you have noooo idea what it costs to go to a University in the USA do you? I checked just now for a 3 year degree at University of Pennsylvania - has to be commparative right? $160,000. for 3 years tuition and basic board. you tell me your $30k looks bad now?

OK, we are talking about two different things. You are talking about total cost of a 3 year degree. I am talking about the cost per year. So, before you say I have no idea how much schools in the USA cost (I'm IN school in the USA and paying for it so I'm pretty sure I have a good idea) let's make sure we're comparing apples to apples here.

Let's divide out your cost for a 3 year degree by 3 years to obtain the annual cost. That comes out to $53,333 per year. Now, let's look at the rate for my university. Tuition, plus living expenses estimated by the unversity put the international/out of state cost of attendance at $26,000 per year. Quite a difference! So while you chose a very expensive school, there are universities in America, good universities, that cost less and still provide a great education.

Quoting bcal dc10 (Reply 49): So tell me... why is it sooo bad to expect the students who benefit, to contribute a small percentage of their wage after they graduate, to pay off their tuition.

There is nothing wrong with that. That is how the system works for Federal Direct Loans here in the USA. The important thing is that those who do not have the ability to pay so many thousands of dollars all at once can be given the chance to pursue an education that will lead them to careers that can eventually enable them to pay such a high cost back. It is EXTREMELY difficult to come up with the kind of money that universities charge if one is not already educated and highly paid. And it's harder than ever to get a loan.

Quoting bcal dc10 (Reply 49): And in lieu of that comment, why shouldnt higher risk foreign students who could disappear and not pay their fees, be expected to pay up front like they are in the USA and every other state in the world....

It depends on the figures you are charging. Tuition rates for international students are higher no matter where you go in the UK or America, and the reason for this as I was told by my own study abroad office is that international students have not contributed to the taxpayer pool and therefore are expected to pitch more money in for their un-tax subsidized education. Fair enough, and I get that. But I think a threshold is crossed when you TRIPLE the fees and make such an education damn near unobtainable by all but the most wealthy. It would be different if one could actually borrow that kind of money and pay it off out of their future income as you say, but this option is NOT granted to international students.

So what this means is that the international student must come up with $60,000 a year, up front, with no opportunity to pay this back over time unless by some miracle they can get a private student loan or a full ride scholarship, while everybody else gets the chance to go ahead and get educated so that they CAN come up with that money in the future. How is that fair? Oh, right, it's fair because your government isn't at risk of holding the bag for their expensive education, right? So let's just shut them out because they're too risky. Regular in-state students default on their loans, too, you know. But we still fund them because we understand that a nation's long term survival DEPENDS on the quality of the education of its students, whether instructed at home or abroad. I have paid no income taxes in Britain, therefore I do not feel entitled to any financial aid from the UK.

But I am entitled to aid from the USA, but am capped out at $15,500 per year. Even that is generous by some standards. If universities continue to hike their rates to well beyond the maximum assistance that any student can get, eventually few people will be able to afford a higher education anywhere other than in their own home state. That can be very limiting if your home state doesn't offer the program you need. It is also very anti-competitive. Universities are businesses, too. They need to be able to attract students in order to generate revenue beyond the government funding they receive. And just like any other business, if you raise your rates too high, eventually people shop elsewhere.

Plain and and simply, I understand the reason, the logic, behind charging international students more. And I have no objection to the host country not providing funding...the international student has not contributed to public funds so they shouldnt receive public funds except from their home country. That's all well and good. My problem lies in raising rates so high that public funds plus private funds cannot possibly cover the cost of education anywhere in the UK except for anyone but those with wealthy families or their own personal wealth. This is limiting, anti-competitive, and anti-growth and globalization. International students deserve a fair shot, too. A good international education should not become the realm of only the rich. No matter how much you care about where your taxes are being spent.

[Edited 2010-12-10 22:24:18]

The BBC's Q&A to the new funding rules

The government is continuing to lend students money for the courses, the £9000 a year fee is only allowed in exceptional circumstances with the expected norm being £6000, some students will not be charged for 2 years and the debt gets wiped out after 30 years but you only start paying back if your income is greater than £21000 a year. Is that really such a bad thing?

_______


As for the attack, it seems that the route was checked immediately prior to them taking it and the police have denied that there was any failure in communication between the main group containing the protestors and those that twere with Charles and Camilla.

As a student at a London university, I am getting really sick and tired of all of this. At first it was just a group of vandals spoiling (by burning Millbank) what was a peaceful protest. Then there was the smaller protest where the same vandals damaged that police van on Whitehall. I'm sorry, but we all know what's gonna happen now at these protests. My gut reaction to the announcement of another major demonstration for this past Thursday was just thinking that these Student Union people are just plain stupid. These acts of violence, whether perpetrated by legitimate demonstrators or not, still serve to undermine and discredit the Freeze the Fees cause (a cause, incidentally, I do not support). Stick to picketing Lib-Dem offices and use the media to spread the message, but don't have anymore mass demonstrations, we all know how they ultimately turn out.

Also, although many student unions claim that it was mere vandals that caused this damage, I know for a fact that a senior official at my university (LSE) was part of the Millbank occupation. All I can really say is that I hope these people don't try to go into PR because if they do, they will fail miserably.

Quoting AF340 (Reply 26): Stick to picketing Lib-Dem offices and use the media to spread the message, but don't have anymore mass demonstrations, we all know how they ultimately turn out.

You may not support the Freeze the Fees cause and I respect that. People should be free to express their views one way or another. But may I voice an opinion on protest generally that may apply to this situation or another that you might support at some other time?

By all means use the media and hold vigils outside Lib-Dem offices, but I would suggest mass demonstrations should not be abandoned simply because of a fear that they may be taken over by "professional" protesters. Vigils by small groups of protesters allow the Ministers to dismiss protests as that of a small, non-representative minority. Mass demonstrations may give a better indication of the degree of opposition, though there is nothing to prevent others joining who are not directly affected. That can be positive or a negative. A show of support by parents of students or by academic/ university staff may be beneficial. Being hijacked by those who simply use any event to cause trouble is another thing. The organisers of protest may wish to work with the police to ensure that those who simply wish to create a violent incident are unable to hijack the event. Of course the media who would otherwise ignore the event love to report something "dramatic" which is why the hooligan element tries to take over. They love the "buzz" and the attention. But rather than abandoning mass demonstrations, the organisers need to keep them focused.

Occupations are also a legitimate form of protest and, in certain circumstances, can be effective. Again there is nothing intrinsically wrong in obtaining support from university staff. If students remain isolated they will be defeated, it is as simple as that. The more support students can gain, the greater the chances of success. However, wanton destruction of property is counterproductive. While it may attract they hooligan element, it does nothing to advance the cause of a protest but may well make things worse. If a student body does decide on an occupation, they need to make it clear that vandalism and destruction of property will not be tolerated and those who commit it will be ejected.


Edited to correct spelling error not picked up by spellcheck.

[Edited 2010-12-11 08:32:56]

Quoting lewis (Reply 17): as well as for a Royal family who is there as a tourist attraction and does nothing productive.

Last figures I saw showed that the entire Royal Family costs the British taxpayer about 60p each a year. Unless the UK was to switch to an American-style presidency, the UK would still have a Head of State that would cost the same or more. And as you yourself point out, the Royals generate a sizable amount of tourist revenue - much of this tourism would take place anyway (the Tower of London, for example, would still be a major tourist draw even if the monarchy were to end), but their presence does keep interest in some of the historical sites alive.

If you want to argue against the monarchy on democratic principle, go ahead, but arguing against them on a cost basis just doesn't fly - they're cheap as chips, really.

Quoting david_itl (Reply 25): The government is continuing to lend students money for the courses, the £9000 a year fee is only allowed in exceptional circumstances with the expected norm being £6000, some students will not be charged for 2 years and the debt gets wiped out after 30 years but you only start paying back if your income is greater than £21000 a year. Is that really such a bad thing?

I gotta tell you, from this side of the pond that still sounds very reasonable compared to what the typical American student pays and the debt load they come out of college with.

Quoting lewis (Reply 17): I doubt the protesters even knew who was in the car. And what did they do? Throw paint or something? I say charge them with treason and hang them in Trafalgar square for daring to interfere with the evening plans of the heir to the throne (oh right, he and his family are not a waste of money)!

Actually, they did more than that, the fact the windows on the car were damaged suggests rather a lot of force was used, anyone, whoever they are, would likely be frightened by being surrounded in a enclosed space by a howling mob screaming for your blood.
And the Royal Family do, at least at the senior level, rather a lot in their roles, just they don't often shout about it, in our PR drenched, over emotive age, this does stand out.
(I do wish that those carping about the UK's constitutional Monarchy set up would bother to explain why this is also so bad for Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Spain as examples - what a bunch of Feudal, oppressive states they are......).

Though the security should be commended for restraint, in plenty of other (Western democracies), such a threat to a VVIP would have seen rather stronger action taken against the perpetrators, though it's as well for those idiotic scumbags that they did not succeed in getting into the car, then the Protection Officer would have had no further choice than to act with whatever he had to hand, almost certainly a Glock pistol.
Luckily it never came to that, by the fact a few police, not in riot gear, turned up and the Class Warriors fled.

Interesting also to note the tosser who, by his antics on the Cenotaph, effectively was vandalising the grave of millions, turned out to be the very privileged son of a very rich rock star.
Charlie Gilmour went on camera, from oh yah, we like trashed stuff to a cringing written apology.
If he thinks he's done the cause he affects to support any good, then he's as stupid as he is rich.

Quoting Quokka (Reply 27):

While I think the first two protests were necessary, I do think it is becoming counterproductive to keep on with them. The Student Unions are not gaining any friends here, the scale of the discontent is known -- let's not turn the public against the cause.

Quoting GDB (Reply 29): then the Protection Officer would have had no further choice than to act with whatever he had to hand, almost certainly a Glock pistol

Maybe the Met have learnt something having already gunned down innocent people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 31): Maybe the Met have learnt something having already gunned down innocent people.

Maybe being put in a position neither you or I have any experience of, whether by a botched intel and surveillance operation - right after a serious attempt to replicate the mass murder of 7/7 with the wannabee suicide bombers on the run, or having to consider what to do if a violent mob does get to threaten the safety of who you are charged to protect, the 'people' then not being so 'innocent', rather puts such sneering comments into perspective.

The fact that none of that mob did end up facing a pistol rather undermines the inference you are making.
Actual police shootings, justified or mistaken, are thankfully very rare.
Ever seen the stats on how often firearms are deployed, then how often they are actually used?

Looks like the UK needs an emergency shipment of tasers...

Quoting UNCRDU (Reply 33): Looks like the UK needs an emergency shipment of tasers...

Well one extra is needed - after a policeman left one on the roof of the car and it was 'lost'!

(UK Police Forces who do have them issue them to Firearms Officers, since they are used as a non lethal alternative, not to regular cops on the beat).

Quoting GDB (Reply 32): Maybe being put in a position neither you or I have any experience of, whether by a botched intel and surveillance operation - right after a serious attempt to replicate the mass murder of 7/7 with the wannabee suicide bombers on the run, or having to consider what to do if a violent mob does get to threaten the safety of who you are charged to protect, the 'people' then not being so 'innocent', rather puts such sneering comments into perspective.

Please, the Met made serious mistakes that lead to the death. False intelligence, a shoot to kill policy, bad photos, not bothering to shout "police" to the man before shooting him, poor training. What's worse is that the Met then tried to block the IPCC enquiry, told the press the killing was in relation to terrorism, altered the photo of de Menezes to make him look more like a terrorist, deleted key files from computers, didn't cooperate with the IPCC investigation, missing CCTV footage. The list goes on.

Now were faced with the situation where the Met routinely detains thousands of innocent children for hours due to the crimes of a few. Based on the Met's recent history, why should the public believe anything they say? If this were occurring in Zimbabwe we would condemn it as brutal acts by an authoritarian state.

Given the circumstances: armed police, heightened security, the police detaining thousands of citizens, adrenaline flowing, no evidence of any improvements since Stockwell, no retraction of the IPCC criticism, it is truly lucky that the people who attacked the car weren't gunned down.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 35): Please, the Met made serious mistakes that lead to the death. False intelligence, a shoot to kill policy, bad photos, not bothering to shout "police" to the man before shooting him, poor training. What's worse is that the Met then tried to block the IPCC enquiry, told the press the killing was in relation to terrorism, altered the photo of de Menezes to make him look more like a terrorist, deleted key files from computers, didn't cooperate with the IPCC investigation, missing CCTV footage. The list goes on.

The thing is, I well remember seeing the immediate aftermath of the Stockwell Shooting unfolding on the news, members of the public being interviewed by the TV people, as eyewitnesses, clearly saying what the Police were found to have reported and shown to be wrong, they of course got a lot of flak for it. In regard to the dress and actions of the person being tailed on him entering the station.
So were these, albeit mistaken, witnesses engaged in a conspiracy too?
Having the whole force run ragged in a desperate search for the attempted bombers - always never mentioned by the professional activists - having the Gold Commander in place non stop for 24 hrs due to the overstretch, the victim not being on local records as a resident in the house under surveillance, the firearms officers only arriving at Stockwell after being rushed there and told the target - one of the bombers - was getting on the Tube, not as part of an undermanned and fractious operation to tail him.
Put all this together, you have a recipe for disaster

To the demos, the organisers make plain their right to demonstrate, what they omit is the responsibility this brings to them as much as the Police.
Might help if they made clear it is not a good idea to deviate from the agreed route, covering faces implies ill intent so don't do it, the marchers cannot be made to do this, the organisers cannot easily enforce it, though they might at least make the gesture.
It's rather like advertising a party on Facebook. Some of them end badly too.
The fact is every demo so far has escalated in the amount of violence, at the first, the Police had a minimal presence and look what happened.

Don't like 'Kettling', prefer Water Cannon, or CS gas, or Baton Rounds, these sorts of things are standard for the level of trouble seen last week, in many nations including Liberal Democracies.
I don't want to see that, I doubt those on the demos do, the accent is not to maintain distance with the crowd and use the above when it kicks off, rather to stick close to the crowd and try and nip any aggro in the bud.
Doing the latter will inevitably upset and in cases, injure people on the demo not causing trouble, using the methods like water cannon or CS will be far more indiscriminate though.

The ones ultimately responsible for any injuries and damage are those in the crown bent on causing trouble, being in a crowd of course gives them some protection which is why they do it, whatever response the Police have, it will upset some, as we have already seen in the past month.

Quoting GDB (Reply 36): of course got a lot of flak for it

But no police got prosecuted for the death of an innocent man. In any other situation, the death would be unlawful and deemed manslaughter (the victim did nothing wrong, yet died.) 'Flak' makes no difference, prosecutions should have been made.

Quoting GDB (Reply 36): So were these, albeit mistaken, witnesses engaged in a conspiracy too?

I remember Ian Blair picking and choosing the witness statements which fit his view of what happened, especially in the hideous press conference he gave before knowing the full facts.

Quoting GDB (Reply 36): The ones ultimately responsible for any injuries and damage are those in the crown bent on causing trouble, being in a crowd of course gives them some protection which is why they do it, whatever response the Police have, it will upset some, as we have already seen in the past month.

But 'those in the crowd bent on causing trouble' equates to a very small proportion, by any account. That doesn't justify the mass detention and police actions.

What's the real scandal here - a woman being poked with a stick, or a boy having his brains bashed in and a kid in a wheel chair being dragged out of it by the police? These actions aren't even the same order of magnitude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQV9P61FUwg

Well, the whole issue of student fees is a bomb waiting to go off. I suspect that we will see a lot more violence before very long.

My son is in his last year at Southampton Uni, studying Archaeology. I have never seen him work so hard. He spends an inordinant amount of time in the library and rarely has time to go out drinking and carousing.

We couldn't afford to send him there had we not got the student grants he does get. Most of which he will have to repay. Not much of it is Bursary money, mostly loans.

He and all his friends are horrified by the appalling behaviour of these louts masuqerading as students. They clearly are NOT students as they would see just how damaging their pathetic actions are to the cause.

As for the attack on Charles, well, Royalist or not, it was a cowardly, pathetic and totally ruinous attack which will do so much more harm than good.

So, not all students are layabouts, not all do "Media Studies" in order to gain a degree. Some work damn hard and with little chance of a highly paid lucrative job at the end of it.

Andy   

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 37): But 'those in the crowd bent on causing trouble' equates to a very small proportion, by any account. That doesn't justify the mass detention and police actions. What's the real scandal here - a woman being poked with a stick, or a boy having his brains bashed in and a kid in a wheel chair being dragged out of it by the police? These actions aren't even the same order of magnitude.

I can You Tube too, remember this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3bfO1rE7Yg

Something to consider when using poorly lit videos for 'proof'.
The guy in the chair was interviewed on the news, I'm afraid he used most of his time going on about 'imperialism', calling the attempts to identify those causing serious trouble a 'witch-hunt'.
He might well have been very badly treated by the Police, he might also refused to remove himself from danger or from being obstructive repeatedly - he admitted the officers concerned recognised him from earlier.
What if he'd have been seriously injured in a crush/crowd surge, guess who'd get the blame then?
Neither you or I know the full story of what happened to him.

We also do not know what happened to the injured kid, his parents - both University employees seem sure even though they themselves say they were not with him at the time.
He might well have been hit with a baton, he might have been wrongly targeted and innocent, again neither you or I know for sure.

Both of them, as is their right, took part in a march, the third of a series that had got increasingly violent, the violence of these demos started when there was a very minimal Police presence, the organisers were trusted to steward this first march and found completely wanting.
When you are in a crowd that includes people bringing their own battering ram to assault the Police lines amongst other things, it might be an idea to re-evaluate your situation and safety.
Rights and responsibilities, the latter including to yourself.

But don't mistake me for someone who approves of what this government is doing on this and plenty of other issues.

But now we're in the situation where you're defending absolutely the actions of the police at Stockwell, and at the same time defending absolutely the actions of the police at the student riots.

At Stockwell the police made hideous mistakes, that lead to the death of a man. They denied it, tried to prevent the IPCC from investigating and still do not seem particularly contrite about it.

Based on that evidence, why believe their take on events at the student riots? The facts are that a disabled kid got dragged out of his wheelchair, and another kid got his brains bashed in. The evidence does not look good for the police, and based on their long history the burden is on them to show they did not treat these children unlawfully or unethically.

Who cares about a student going on TV talking about 'imperialism' - the student population is rebellious, confused and modern, as they should be. You can't take someone's views, no matter how outlandish they may be, and use them to justify in any way violence against them.

What's worse is that the police's actions have set a large student population, if not the majority, against them. The bizarre strategy of 'them and us' which the police foster to whip up support in the Daily Mail brigade does nothing to improve relations in the long term.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 21): Reply 21, posted Sat Dec 11 2010 04:46:16 your local time (6 days 8 hours 58 minutes ago) and read 715 times: Top comment on the Reddit thread on the "attack" on the Prince: Quote: Prince Charles and Camilla aren't wearing seatbelts. You'd think they'd learn...

The car in question is a Rolls Royce Phantom 6 which was presented to the Queen by Rolls Royce to mark her silver jubille in 1977. At that time no UK cars had rear seatbelts, thus it is impossible to wear seatbelts in this car.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 40): Based on that evidence, why believe their take on events at the student riots? The facts are that a disabled kid got dragged out of his wheelchair, and another kid got his brains bashed in. The evidence does not look good for the police, and based on their long history the burden is on them to show they did not treat these children unlawfully or unethically.

The "disabled kid" has been bragging on the internet of how he walked up18 floors of stairs onto the roof of Millbank during the 1st riot, he is also on camera trying to climb over railings on the 2nd march/riot. I'm not for one minute doubting that he has a disability, it does not however confine him permanantly to a wheelchair.
If anyone was completely wheelchair dependent it would be a reckless decision to push them into the front line of a demonstration which was predicted in advance to become violent.