They say (albeit mistakenly) that if you throw a penny off the top of the Eiffel Tower then by the time it reaches the ground, and if it hits someone, that person will undoubtedly die. The resulting lesson then, if you believe this piece of information, is that throwing a penny off a very tall building would be a very stupid thing to do.
I don’t know how to translate and apply the relevant physics formulae but, as an extension of this, one would believe that throwing a fire extinguisher from a medium-sized building (Millbank Tower, for example) is similarly dangerous. Consequently, the ‘anarchist’ who did such a thing yesterday is either stupid or ignorant and, one can also assume, is not a Physics student.
The protests against the coalition’s implementation of student fees were a largely peaceful affair. Would the headlines have been generated and the whole venture been worth it if the criminal damage hadn’t been carried out and does that, perversely, justify the action? Possibly but I genuinely don’t care about that aspect despite it dominating the news agenda. I certainly hope the majority of the viewers of Newsnight who were bored witless by Paxman’s toying of Aaron Porter and the random Socialist thought the same, desperate to hear about the meat of the issue instead.
I wondered on this blog what it would take for certain people to stand up, protest and raise their objections to the direction Britain is heading in and I got something of an answer yesterday. Ironically it was Nick Clegg who was amongst the first to predict widespread, “Greek-style†protests if we cut too quickly and too deeply and that may yet come to pass, largely as a result of his party reneging on its election pledges. We have had underground workers, firemen, BBC staff, students and air staff striking. Significant of course but so far perfectly manageable. What happens if teachers, nurses and social workers decide enough is enough and refuse to go to work? Are we ready for that? Is it justified?
We have a national duty to keep our shared economy flowing but we have a democratic duty to not let our political leaders take too many liberties if we feel our opinions are being trampled over. 15,000 does not a majority make, not even close, but a tipping point could be reached and it looks like it would be timed to coincide with an AV referendum that the Liberal Democrats look likely to lose. What happens then?
Scotland may well be largely insulated from the cuts thanks to a genuinely left-of-centre Government which is already thinking outside the box to minimise the effects of the cuts, the possibility of a Nordic agreement with Norway to save Lossiemouth and prioritising capital spend for example. John Swinney’s eagerly awaited Budget on December 17th shouldn’t spark widespread anger but it will be painful nonetheless, I predict continued strikes and protests in England & Wales and more of a pulling together in Scotland.
Of course we should protest if we’re not happy and of course the Government should feel free to ignore us, just let’s not get bogged down by the mind-numbingly dull philosophising over the rights and wrongs of lobbing a fire extinguisher from a building. A penny’s worth of thoughts on the matter will tell you it’s wrong but irrelevant.
#1 by Stuart Winton on November 12, 2010 - 10:01 am
I’ve done a blogpost on this, Jeff, but in essence if someone was angry at your blog then came round and put your windaes in, would you care about that?
#2 by Jeff on November 12, 2010 - 10:28 am
Fair point Stuart. To clarify what I mean by “I don’t care” though, I’m not saying I think it’s right for the violence to have taken place, I just don’t think it should dominate the news agenda. I would be annoyed if someone smashed my windows but I’d be shocked if it was deemed front page news.
Why should those who are violent be rewarded with news coverage and the thousands more who protested peacefully be denied their say?
I found it bizarre when Jeremy Paxman was telling off students for making newscasters talk about their antics, as if JP and his BBC team didn’t have any free will on the matter.
#3 by Alasdair on November 12, 2010 - 10:58 am
I think probably the most relevant point about the violent protest we witnessed the other day was that it was targeted and not a random attack on businesses and individuals.
I don’t think anyone is going to condone throwing fire extinguishers about (least of all from the tops of buildings), but the simple truth is that when it comes to protests against national govt and their actions peaceful protest has proven to be woefully ineffective … I can’t actually think of a single peaceful protest that has made a jot of a difference, but when people start breaking things (especially in a targeted fashion) it’s difficult for those in power to ignore it.
In some respects not only is violent protest our right it might be considered our duty – although I think I need to qualify that by pointing out that I don’t condone or endorse wanton destruction and violence for the sake of it. Interestingly my opinion in this matter has shifted somewhat in this since August as I’ve been involved in campaigns to save no less than six schools and now 3 state nurseries, given that the cuts have only just begun I think there is going to be a hardening of attitudes and violent protest looks increasingly likely – witness the students.
#4 by Jeff on November 12, 2010 - 11:06 am
Can’t say I agree Alasdair. ‘I hit the window I was aiming for’ isn’t much of a defence when it comes to throwing stones, regardless of context.
It is surely more important to ignore violent protests so as to not encourage more of them going forward. The best way to do this is for the politicians and leaders to engage more with peaceful protests. I would have had a lot of time for Clegg or Cable (or whoever) if they had delivered some sort of stump speech or tried to debate with the students who were protesting.
Obviously there are safety concerns involved so I’m not exactly blaming them from staying away but I agree with you when you say there needs to be more of a visible reward on show for picking up a placard and peacefully raising your objections.
Incidentally, and more to follow on from Stuart’s point, if whoever smashed the windows can be identified they should be charged and fined and whoever dropped the fire extinguisher should probably go to jail. You shouldn’t get a free pass around the law just because you are protesting.
#5 by Alasdair on November 12, 2010 - 11:54 am
Indeed, people who break the law must be dealt with by the law, but at the same time if a countries leadership feel free to disregard the opinions peacefully voiced by the population then they must expect the nature of protest to elevate. A persons rights and responsibilities are not given by the law nor can they ultimately be bound by the law.
As cuts hit deeper and harder there will be more riots, I think it would be foolish to dismiss the possibility because a political party attempts to put the breaks on it. When it comes it’ll be spontaneous and unfettered by party leanings or edicts from head office, the politicians are and have been the problem for too long why we should expect the majority to pay them any heed when such a huge number can’t even be bothered to turn out and vote for them is beyond me.
Politicians haven’t paid heed to peaceful protest in the past and won’t do in the future, they look at them, hum and haw a bit, but they’ll simply convince themselves that they are doing the right thing regardless and carry on.
#6 by Jeff on November 12, 2010 - 12:10 pm
Alasdair, you seem to be suggesting that 15,000 students constitute a majority of our 60million strong population. (Well, 55million or so since this is on the devolved issue of tuition fees). Students will only win the argument by getting more and more people out to support them, not by getting more and more violent as you seem to suggest they should do. The strength in any democracy is through numbers, not through rioting per se.
Note of course that we had an opportunity for all 60m of us to peacefully voice our opinions this very year, it was the UK election and a majority were happy to back the Tory/Lib Dem coalition.
There is of course a flaw there as the LDs pointedly pledged to not increase fees and there is a genuine case for challenging the election of some of their MPs unless they vote against this proposal but that process is seemingly underway and quite separate to these protests.
However, where I do agree with you, is that we are being ignored. We weren’t told by any of the main 3 parties the majority of what they would do once the election was over and now, a situation that on its own could and perhaps should render the result null and void. We can of course feel that disconnect between voters and politicians more forcibly where policies haven’t been considered and sanctioned by the public (VAT, fees, social welfare).
What do we do about that? You seem to suggest that violent protest is acceptable. I disagree and prefer peaceful protest but in ever-increasing numbers, hopefully leading to another election around 2012 if the Lib Dems decide to chuck this coalition as a result of a loss on the AV referendum.
The ball is in the public’s court on this though; we get the Government we deserve and a shocking lack of participation with political parties and the political process as a whole is creating these problems. That dereliction of duty really needs to change.
#7 by Alasdair on November 12, 2010 - 11:55 am
Apologies, I conflated Jeff’s and Colins comments in my response there.
#8 by Colin on November 12, 2010 - 11:30 am
I wonder why Labour’s introduction of tuition fees was not met with this kind of protest. Well, I don’t really wonder, I know the reason.
Alasdair predicts further riots. I doubt this. The antics of the NUS have embarrassed the Labour leadership sufficiently that they will instruct their other client organisations to tone it down in future.
#9 by Malc on November 12, 2010 - 1:51 pm
As an aside, isn’t it quite sensible to fight fire with fire extinguishers?
#10 by Jeff on November 12, 2010 - 2:32 pm
Not by dropping them from a great height onto the fire, no…
#11 by Fitalass on November 13, 2010 - 6:17 am
Well Jeff, chanting Tory scum while a contingent of Scottish students traveled down there to lend support despite not paying tuition fees was surreal. Even more so when those that wanted to remember or wear Thatcher masks were on an instant sticky wicket as she presided over free further education and a grant system to help students cope. And as for the idea that we are cutting too much too quickly, or that 15,000 students should demand to be listened to with this protest. Well the markets are responding well to our current coalition’s economic policy, and as for our students, it would help if they made an effort in the most positive method of real democracy, turning out to vote.
#12 by Stuart Winton on November 13, 2010 - 8:44 am
Jeff said:
“I would be annoyed if someone smashed my windows but I’d be shocked if it was deemed front page news.”
Thanks for the more general clarification, Jeff, but on this particular issue surely the point is that if a violent response is disproportionate – which it almost always is – then that makes it newsworthy?
My blogposts may not be newsworthy, but if someone smashed my windows as a consequence or responded with violence or threats to my person then presumbably it then rightly becomes more newsworthy?
Alasdair said:
“In some respects not only is violent protest our right it might be considered our duty – although I think I need to qualify that by pointing out that I don’t condone or endorse wanton destruction and violence for the sake of it.”
Well you certainly come pretty close to that. What a bizarre attitude you have anyway – you seem to think that if you object to something then that must be acted upon by the powers that be, but that’s not the way democracy works, because we can’t all get what we want, surely?
By your reasoning if people objected to the policies of newly elected Prime Minister Alasdair then you would have to change your policies accordingly, and if this didn’t happen then ultimately the objectors would be justified in resorting to violence.
Everyone only ‘agrees’ in a totalitarian state; in a democracy it’s self-evident that many people won’t get what they want, but rougly speaking the majority view prevails.
Clearly it’s not perfect, but surely that’s better than letting the mob decide?
#13 by Stuart Winton on November 13, 2010 - 8:47 am
Jeff said:
“We weren’t told by any of the main 3 parties the majority of what they would do once the election was over and now, a situation that on its own could and perhaps should render the result null and void. ”
So by that reckoning Holyrood 2007 should be rendered null and void as well?
Of necessity parties without a majority have to compromise, and of course Holyrood was set up to preclude majority governments.
Again not perfect, but what’s the alternative?
#14 by Jeff on November 13, 2010 - 11:28 am
If you think so Stuart but it’s a bit late to go scrapping a 2007-11 term. I think LIT, road tolls, prescription charges, police numbers, referendum, SFT, minimum pricing and an attempt at class sizes (and more) add up to a reasonably faithful swing at implementing te SNP manifesto, particularly with an unforeseen worldwide recession wreaking havoc halfway through the term.
We’re 6 months into a 5 year Westminster term and does any really know what the coalition plans on doing next? There’s an element of uandated carte blanche about the next 4.5 years that doesn’t sit well with me. Even the fact it’s 5 years is frustrating. When did te public decide and debate that one?
#15 by Indy on November 13, 2010 - 4:50 pm
I think Jeff’s point is that 50,000 students and academic staff took part in the demonstration. A couple of hundred anarchists decided to create mayhem (as they do, being anarchists) and lo and behold the 50,000 peaceful demonstrators are miraculously transformed into violent demonstrators by our blessed right wing press.
Le plus ce change, le plus c’est la meme chose and all that!
However I suspect this will be small beer in the long run – I hate to be ageist but it could be some of the whippersnappers here have forgotten or have not read about the widescale social unrest that went on under Maggie. Maybe we’ll see a return to that, I don’t know, but there will certainly be more demos, with the odd riot thrown in, to come. It’s the British way after all.
#16 by Stuart Winton on November 13, 2010 - 10:03 pm
Jeff, indeed you’re correct about the 2007 Holyrood election, but on the other hand if the SNP’s term could be scrapped now then that would save us six months of campaigning which only politicos, journos, bloggers et al will be interested in. Meanwhile, the country will presumably run itself. ;0)
As for the coalition, clearly to an extent the manifestos would have to be abandoned, so unless the GE was repeated until a majority was formed, then what was the alternative? And, of course, that majority Govt would have been a Tory one, which presumably would have been even more unpalatable to you than the coalition?
Indy said:
“A couple of hundred anarchists decided to create mayhem (as they do, being anarchists) and lo and behold the 50,000 peaceful demonstrators are miraculously transformed into violent demonstrators by our blessed right wing press.”
That wasn’t how I saw the reports, Indy, could you be more precise about this?
As for your final paragraph, if that was Jim Murphy talking about Ireland’s economy (say) then the like of Alex Orr would probably accuse him of gloating.
#17 by Jeff on November 14, 2010 - 7:44 pm
On the contrary Stuart, if we scrapped the SNP’s term now then the main result would be that the next budget would revert to the current budget, replete with a £1bn shortfall. Probably best to crack on as normal till May, hey? 😉
#18 by Indy on November 14, 2010 - 11:19 am
Stuart’s comment there must take the biscuit for sheer silliness. This will be the most important election in Scotland since 1979. It will decide where and how we prioritise dimishing resources to public services and it will also determine whether Scotland moves forward to take on greater economic and financial responsibility or stays subservient to decisions taken at Westminster.
#19 by Alec on November 14, 2010 - 1:51 pm
I dunno about the penny tale, Jeff, but what if I dropped a fire extinguisher on your head from a first storey window? I’m sure you’d say more than “that smarts”.
The title of the post also is misleading. There would have been no fighting fire with fire extinguishers had the over-privileged prats in the riot (seriously, listen to some of them being interviewed) had their way.
They lit fires in the stair-wells and trashed the fire extinguishers, leaving trapped office workers (cleaners, temps,who cares?) to quiver in fear.
I’d have expected this appeal to street thuggery from Sunny Hundal, but not you. Then again, considering your chosen MP believes she can ignore the will of democracy when she pleases, maybe it aint much of a surprise.
#20 by Jeff on November 14, 2010 - 2:22 pm
Care to point out where my alleged “appeal to street thuggery” exists Alec?
I suspect you’re imagining a pre-determined response from certain people which doesn’t actually exist in reality.
#21 by Alec on November 14, 2010 - 2:39 pm
As I said, Jeff, I do/id not expect this from you. Yet, where was the unequivocal description of this as what it was, rather than a side-discussion in a high skool physics problem, boredom at a possible case of attempted murder being discussed or the suggestion that this was an inevitable response to the CSR?
The Battle of Millbank is a serious threat to consider, ‘cos of the issue of entryists and profession agitators directing such street thuggery for their own ideological ends. I saw footage of some blokes in their 40s, looking very pleased with themselves; and there’s UCU with its crossover with the SWP and other trots.
This easily could have been a Greek style riot, in the sense that office workers could have been burned alive.
#22 by Jeff on November 14, 2010 - 3:16 pm
So you’re chastising me for something I didn’t say rather than something I did say?
I find that a baffling objection to make and I maintain that there’s nothing wrong with choosing to focus on the bigger issue of student funding rather than get bogged down on a smashed window here and a dropped fire extinguisher there, even if the latter are stupid, dangerous, wrong and criminal.
#23 by Alec on November 14, 2010 - 8:07 pm
Jeff, it was what you did say: that you found discussion of the fire extinguisher to be boring.
It’s hardly surprising that the headline discussion was about the Battle of Millbank. No doubt, in a few days it will return to normal.
The rioters and those encouraging them have handed the Mail et al. a perfect story of degree education being wasted on them. And, as I said, there is the issue of the political psychopaths directing this violence who’ve managed to subvert pretty much every movement they’ve got involved with.
For what it’s worth, I do think the plans for removing caps are foolish. I think Harriet Harman pointed that the Coalition plans to have the deficit down before the new fees would kick in… in other words, this is purely ideological.
#24 by Jeff on November 14, 2010 - 8:19 pm
So Alec, how does finding “discussion of the fire extinguisher to be boring” equate to “an appeal to street thuggery”, as you put it in an earlier comment?
Sorry to not let this out of my teeth but I guess I don’t take too kindly to being accused of inciting violence.
For what it’s worth, I’m glad we agree on the wider topic and that removing caps is foolish.
#25 by Alec on November 14, 2010 - 8:30 pm
Okie, Jeff, it was unfair to so directly accuse you of it, but you left an opaque comments which suggested you didn’t think the rioting was as significant as it was: namely the impending cuts are more important than the events of 10 November.
#26 by Jeff on November 14, 2010 - 8:44 pm
Admission of unfairness accepted! To (hopefully) answer your following point – I think violence and actions that can lead to terrible injury are always serious and perpetrators should always face the consequences but I think the significance and newsworthiness of such behaviour at the recent student demonstration were overplayed by a media that likes to sensationalise/dumb down and by politically-motivated individuals who wished to shift the focus away from the meat of the argument that the peaceful students in attendance were making.
No big deal, it’s already historic news such is the rolling, foward-facing beast that is the UK media.
There is a wider question though, should news bodies be giving the public what they want to see and hear (in which case exploring in depth the who, where and why of a dropped fire extinguisher is manna from heaven for the majority of TV-viewers who want insta-entertainment at every turn) or should these bodies be giving ‘news’ in the coldest, starkest, highest of brow ways, in which case I believe the violence, regrettable as it was, should have been given only a cursory side discussion.
#27 by Alec on November 14, 2010 - 10:12 pm
Jeff, this aint a media studies exercise, or discussion about why you appear to be considering the riot to have been of as much consequence as a session of Grand Theft Auto.
Of course the spectacle of it made for good headlines, but there remain the underlying issues as I have touched upon above.
If you or anyone else feel you’ve been unfairly denied an opportunity to discuss the matter of caps, I’d suggest expressing your dissatisfaction towards the rioters.
I would hope the Police are working with the universities (the NUS have lost their chance) to identify each and every student caught in the act of vandalism, with a mind for disciplinary action [regardless of proven criminality] up to and including expulsion.
That ought to focus minds.
As soon as the building was occupied it ceased to be non-violent. Building occupations are inherently violent (this one more so).
Anyone considering attending a similar protest in future should be made aware that they should be met with intense crowd pacification procedures such as kettling. I am only half joking when I say that those transgressing the line should expect the same treatment that the Countryside Alliance received outside Westminster.
#28 by Alec on November 14, 2010 - 2:02 pm
Also, can we have enough of a “tiny violent minority”? There were thousands! Both trashing the building, and outside cheering them on and acting as some sort of human shield. Anyone who was close to the building can be expected to have been in the latter group until shown otherwise.
Even before it went pear-shaped, the NUS organizers had grossly underestimated those attending; not to mention the pompous 10-11-10 tagline.
Sure, Aaron Porter (NUS President) has condemned the violence, but a wheen of local NUS reps have signed a document supporting the ‘protest’; as well as about 1/4 of the NEC for the wretched UCU.
Either Porter is insincere, or he does have full control over the NUS.
#29 by Indy on November 14, 2010 - 5:45 pm
You are exaggerating wildly Alec. According to reports 2000 of the 50,000 demonstrators went to Millbank – of that number I would guess that at least half of them were just following the people in front of them – and half of the people in front would be going along just to see what was happening. It’s always the same in these situations. The police were clearly woefully ill prepared, they should get their bottoms kicked because it was obvious that there was potential for trouble. But it was a tiny minority that caused the trouble, as it almost always is in these situations. It’s all so predicable even down to the press headlines.
#30 by Alec on November 14, 2010 - 7:59 pm
That’s not what you said, Indy. You spoke only of hundreds. Now you’re conceding there were potentially thousands cheering them on to further and further acts of vandalism and violent disorder.
Which is it?
What is this? A case for mob rule and mass hysteria? This wasn’t a carnival atmosphere. This was the biggest breakdown of public order since the Oldham Riots.
These weren’t children (well, there were some minors arrested). These were compos mentis adults who have been thought responsible enough to study for a degree (which they expect someone else to pay for), and are the same age as other adults who’re entrusted with military command/operations and the lives of others.
Anyone caught-up in this should have sloped-off or allowed the emergency services through when they saw criminal damage being effected. Not continued cheering.
I thought it only was a tiny minority which couldn’t have been predicted. If the Po-Po had come out with multiple Ground Support Units, people would have been screaming “Ian Tomilson”.
Responsibility first and foremost goes to those involved. You’re making exactly the same excuses as are made for EDL rammies.
#31 by Stuart Winton on November 14, 2010 - 8:44 pm
Indy, when you kicked off your post with “Stuart’s comment there must take the biscuit for sheer silliness”, why did I know you’d completely sidestep the substantive points I’d made?
If anyone’s being silly it certainly isn’t me, but I’ll resist the temptation to go down the namecalling avenue.
As for the police being “woefully ill-prepared”, if they had kept a lid on things they would have no doubt been accused of brutality, or whatever.
#32 by Alec on November 14, 2010 - 9:51 pm
Indeed, Stuart. Pitting Police in full riot gear against 18, 19 year olds. Good luck with that one, Indy!
#33 by Stuart Winton on November 14, 2010 - 8:47 pm
And I suspect those who’re ambivalent (at best) about the violence would perhaps think differently if they lived in an area or worked in a job blighted by violence, intimidation and criminal damage, rather than a cosy office, committee room or lecture theatre.
#34 by Indy on November 15, 2010 - 1:33 pm
Alec – if you re-read my post you will see that I said that the trouble was caused by a couple of hundred anarchists. It seems pretty clear that was the case. And that is what anarchists do.
Re the comments by the police – don’t be silly. Grown up people don’t have any objection to the police ensuring that anarchist elements aren’t allowed to hi-jack demonstrations. Because, if they do, we all end up talking about their antics and not about the issue that people were demonstrating about in the first place.
Which was Jeff’s original point I believe.
#35 by Jeff on November 15, 2010 - 1:47 pm
It was indeed my original point Indy, so while I thank the other commenters for reinforcing it, I think moving on is wise…