Post by rjdgull on Dec 19, 2010 15:49:01 GMT
A slightly belated poster of the week as amongst all the Christmas build up I missed the winning thread from last weekend. 
With the student protests the question was asked "can violence against the state ever be justified?" A great question, particularly in an general election year. Lambeth wrote a number of thoughtful posts on this thread and won PotW hands down! Well done to Lambie on his contributions this week!
Next week, find out who is the Christmas Number 1! ;D
Can I ask the question.........Is violence against the state ever justified? I would argue yes it is. When the state forgets that it is there to serve the people and not push them back into serfdom. British people are now slaves to the Banks with Gov't supplying the muscle and the means of transferring the cash to them. To achieve this they have to keep the people down and scared to rise up against them. If Gov't pass laws that only serve to keep their masters in power at the expense of the people they should be removed by whatever means necessary, including violence against the state. The problem is that the Military and Police are used as arms of the state and not protectors of the people. Our Soldiers and Policemen should remember that they too are paying the price along with their families. They should be on the side of the people and tell their masters so. That would put the wind up the faceless Banksters robbing us blind and tell Gov't to remember who they serve!
The answer is yes.
Violence and riots usually occur when people feel deprived of a voice. I happen to agree with the student's stance, not just in relation to the fees, but the disproportionate cuts to University budgets and EMA. But the big issue is the betrayal by the Liberal Democrats and the outrageous way in which they whored themselves around university campuses before the election signing explicit pledges, whilst knowing full well that this would be unlikely to be able to deliver in a coalition (and the polls were pointing towards a coalition months before the election campaign proper even started). Even after the election they could and should have insisted this was deal-breaker when entering into negotiations with the Conservatives.
Riots can and do lead to public good. The original Poll Tax riots of the 14th century did not initially succeed, but led to positive changes afterwards. The inner-city riots in the 1980s led to changes in policing, and the more recent race riots in the North of England highlighted issues which are now being addressed. Does this mean riots can always be justified or the students and their supporters were justified in the disorder they caused on 9 December? No, but maybe it's time our elected representatives realised it's them who serve us. It's certainly hard to imagine them taking much notice of Aaron Porter lighting candles on Victoria Embankment.
Are the police being used as an arm of the state? Perhaps. They have a difficult job, and clearly cannot allow a situation where people are allowed to storm and smash up buildings and Parliament. They are right to say that they have a duty to balance the right to protest against the rights of others to go about their business unmolested. That said, some of the police do see themselves as above the law. There's a widely reported story today quoting the mother of Alfie Meadows, who sustained serious head injuries as a result of being hit on the head by a police truncheon. On arrival at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital police there told hospital staff that he should be taken to another hospital because police were being treated there. The BBC quotes a source from the hospital stating that a decision had been taken to treat "police and civilians" in different hospitals. Excuse me? The police are civilians. British police are not gendarmes or a paramiliatrary force. To do a job one needs first to know what that job is.
With the student protests the question was asked "can violence against the state ever be justified?" A great question, particularly in an general election year. Lambeth wrote a number of thoughtful posts on this thread and won PotW hands down! Well done to Lambie on his contributions this week!
Next week, find out who is the Christmas Number 1! ;D
The answer is yes.
Violence and riots usually occur when people feel deprived of a voice. I happen to agree with the student's stance, not just in relation to the fees, but the disproportionate cuts to University budgets and EMA. But the big issue is the betrayal by the Liberal Democrats and the outrageous way in which they whored themselves around university campuses before the election signing explicit pledges, whilst knowing full well that this would be unlikely to be able to deliver in a coalition (and the polls were pointing towards a coalition months before the election campaign proper even started). Even after the election they could and should have insisted this was deal-breaker when entering into negotiations with the Conservatives.
Riots can and do lead to public good. The original Poll Tax riots of the 14th century did not initially succeed, but led to positive changes afterwards. The inner-city riots in the 1980s led to changes in policing, and the more recent race riots in the North of England highlighted issues which are now being addressed. Does this mean riots can always be justified or the students and their supporters were justified in the disorder they caused on 9 December? No, but maybe it's time our elected representatives realised it's them who serve us. It's certainly hard to imagine them taking much notice of Aaron Porter lighting candles on Victoria Embankment.
Are the police being used as an arm of the state? Perhaps. They have a difficult job, and clearly cannot allow a situation where people are allowed to storm and smash up buildings and Parliament. They are right to say that they have a duty to balance the right to protest against the rights of others to go about their business unmolested. That said, some of the police do see themselves as above the law. There's a widely reported story today quoting the mother of Alfie Meadows, who sustained serious head injuries as a result of being hit on the head by a police truncheon. On arrival at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital police there told hospital staff that he should be taken to another hospital because police were being treated there. The BBC quotes a source from the hospital stating that a decision had been taken to treat "police and civilians" in different hospitals. Excuse me? The police are civilians. British police are not gendarmes or a paramiliatrary force. To do a job one needs first to know what that job is.
