National Walkout Against Fees 24.11.10

[lopsidedbunny]

So what's happening now ? Have their mums turned up to take them home.

Yes believe it or not! Jesus, oh well for each penned in kid another protestor for tomrrow.

 

[Streathamite]

I'll have a dig around for you, but bear with me OK?
e2a: IIRC he and other lib dems were saying in private tehy wanted to drop the pledge, but they'd gone too far out on a limb on that to drop it at that point, without being crucified

a-ha!

The Liberal Democrats were drawing up plans to abandon Nick Clegg's flagship policy to scrap university tuition fees two months before the general election, secret party documents reveal.

As the Lib Dem leader faces a growing revolt after this week's violent protest against fee rises, internal documents show the party was drawing up proposals for coalition negotiations which contrasted sharply with Clegg's public pronouncements.

A month before Clegg pledged in April to scrap the "dead weight of debt", a secret team of key Lib Dems made clear that, in the event of a hung parliament, the party would not waste political capital defending its manifesto pledge to abolish university tuition fees within six years. In a document marked "confidential" and dated 16 March, the head of the secret pre-election coalition negotiating team, Danny Alexander, wrote: "On tuition fees we should seek agreement on part-time students and leave the rest. We will have clear yellow water with the other [parties] on raising the tuition fee cap, so let us not cause ourselves more headaches."

 

[dennisr]

Claims the van came from Sutton....

"The officers felt vulnerable"

you gotta laugh

 

[SpineyNorman]

The Lib Dems didn't win the election though, the Tories got the most votes so it's only fair most of the policy is there. What the party has done is worked with the Conservatives to make the policy fairer.

We've been through this before. Why sign a pledge that specifically says you will vote against increases if you have already decided you will vote for them if the coalition agreement dictates? This is not about ability to impliment policies, it's about lying. The whole point in the pledge was that the party could hold its promise, even if it remained outside government. Besides which, you didn't HAVE to go into coalition with the Tories. Would you go into coalition with the BNP were they the biggest party and then say, "sorry, we're opposed to compulsory repatriation in principle but we have to compromise, look - we've got them to agree to let the Irish stay, aren't we great!"

It's statements like this that make it easy to understand how and why Liberals in Italy were so instrumental to bringing Mussolini to power. Obviously, what you've done isn't as extreme as that, but where do you draw the line?

 

[Streathamite]

You sound like one of those old farts who sits in an armchair waving his stick at the pictures on the telly. "We didn't riot in my day. We had national service"! Hang on, that almost sounds like Tebbit circa 1983...

It reminds me of an old joke about an old tory couple.
Him; there was none of all this marching and fighting in my day, you know
Her; no dear. you were in the army.

 

[pk]

If that van was from Slutton it was like that before they parked it up.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

lol

 

[dennisr]

I love the Daily Wail: "Rage of the girl rioters: Britain's students take to the streets again - and this time women are leading the charge"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ST-Students-streets-girls-leading-charge.html

"* 25,000 go on mass nationwide rampage over tuition fees
* Teenage pupils protest alongside university pupils
* Police face fresh questions about handling of riot

Rioting girls became the disturbing new face of violent protest yesterday."

 

[lopsidedbunny]

"The officers felt vulnerable"

you gotta laugh

I have to agree the protest was nosy and that it until the march was blocked for some unknown reason in whitehall, the van and other stuff happened afterwards.

 

[SpineyNorman]

That's a fundamental misrepresentation of what has happened that is being whipped up by the far-left, Unions and to a lesser extent the Labour party. It's bollocks, Labour introduced tuition fees, the Conservatives want to raise them. You don't as a smaller party get to bully your way to get your own polices forced upon the much larger partner. The reality is most people voted for a party that supports fees or wants to raise them.

The students are luck the Lib Dems are actually working to try and improve on the Conservatives proposals.

You know that's not what we're saying, yet you continue to misrepresent what is being said, why is that?

I will number the points in order to help you understand.

1) Not being able to impliment your own policies is one thing. Voting FOR something you promised to unconditionally vote against is lying. Pure and simple.

2) Are you telling me that, given that you hold the balance of power (which gives you political power that is disproportionate to your number of MPs) you didn't have the option of simply agreeing that you would be free to vote against this policy. It wouldn't break the coalition; Cameron does not want to lead a minority government.

3) Political parties are supposed to stand for something. You did NOT have to go into coalition. Do you think a minority Tory government could pass this? Of course not.

I am fast coming to the conclusion that you are just as big a liar as your masters. You KNOW this is wrong, yet you continue your role as Tory apologist. Why? Have you no principles at all?

 

[DotCommunist]

payroll I say. 20 pieces of silver.

 

[Brainaddict]

I love the Daily Wail: "Rage of the girl rioters: Britain's students take to the streets again - and this time women are leading the charge"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ST-Students-streets-girls-leading-charge.html

"* 25,000 go on mass nationwide rampage over tuition fees
* Teenage pupils protest alongside university pupils
* Police face fresh questions about handling of riot

Rioting girls became the disturbing new face of violent protest yesterday."

What utter, utter twats they are.

 

[Brainaddict]

btw, let's set a date for when people can stop arguing with moon23 and just ignore him/her. It's getting boring and fills up threads like this with shit. How about today?

 

[Streathamite]

payroll I say. 20 pieces of silver.

if he has the same brilliant 'negotiating skills' his party has shown with and since forming the coalition, I'd say it's more likely to be about 20p

 

[dennisr]

What utter, utter twats they are.

There will be a layer of over 70s shitting their pants and buying up stocks of baked beans for the coming crisis as a result of this headline - no laughing matter

 

[ferrelhadley]

A scheme aimed at getting more children from poor homes into England's universities has been scrapped.

The Universities Minister, David Willetts, has confirmed the Aimhigher programme will close in July.

As many as 2,500 schools, 300 colleges and 100 universities have been involved in the Aimhigher scheme, which attempts to encourage teenagers or primary school pupils from less-advantaged backgrounds to go to university.

The project received £136m in government funding in 2004, but this had fallen to £78m by the time of the general election.

Link

And a touch more on the Sutton Mystery Wagon, (you pesky kids)
Timelines, I really regret miss watching this yesterday, too busy with work but I am really interested in the timelines all this happened.


Edited again on the horse charge

Grindrod

25 November 2010 5:30PM

I too feel compelled to comment on the issue of the mounted police 'charge' and I can confirm absolutely and unequivocally that police on horseback did charge at the public yesterday evening at around 18:15.

I was right at the back of the crowd with a good view of the police line and where there was plenty of space to walk around. Yet I too was forced to run as panic and confusion ensued. People were stumbling and falling even where the crowd was sparse so the situation at the front must have been very nasty. There were plenty of members of the public around who were either tourists or who had, like myself and a friend, recently finished work. Some of the bystanders were elderly, some with crutches.

I could clearly see that all the police on horseback were cantering at speed and it was very evident from their concurrent movement that they were acting under instruction.

This was at a point in the protest where things were relatively calm. I felt quite safe until the Police reignited tensions with their movements. Not only did they place the public in direct and considerable danger but anger and resentment amongst the protestors was greatly increased by this tactic and the disruption prolonged.

I was not involved in the protest but I am a witness to the baffling way in which the Police treated the general public on Whitehall last night. Their actions suggested that their primary concern was not to protect the public but to repair their battered pride at any cost

Post on he guardian

 

[SpineyNorman]

btw, let's set a date for when people can stop arguing with moon23 and just ignore him/her. It's getting boring and fills up threads like this with shit. How about today?

I considered starting a thread with a title like "are the Lib Dems softening the Tory policies or are they enabling them" in order to keep that kind of discussion away from these threads. I decided against it because I don't think he and his brain dead sidekick Lock&Light would be able to resist bringing it back over hear so it would be pointless.

Do you think it would be better to leave his lies unchallenged? Or is this no platform for liberals?

 

[dylans]

Ymu's right, moon. A semi literate 13 year old can swat away your pathetic attempts at trying to defend the coalition.

I'm still waiting for you answer dylan's very obvious and yet brilliant question from a few pages ago. If Clegg says this is now a good thing, why was he so openly opposed to it and calling it a bad thing before the election? The tories are probably rolling about laughing at the moment because they get their policies enacted and it's you mugs who are getting all the shit for it. The lib dems are well and truly finished now .

So am I. In fact I posted the question TWICE. So how about it moon. How about you stop avoiding it and ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION. ....please.

In fact. I will repost both in case you...erm...accidentally missed them.

Moon. See, I'm a bit confused here so help me out. The party line is that they initially opposed an increase in fees but then, on joining the coalition, they realised that the economic situation was so bad that they had to U turn on that promise for the good of the economy. That they inherited an economic situation so bad that they couldn't keep their promise to oppose fee rises. We all had to tighten our belts etc. So if this is the line then it implies that they recognise that tuition fee rises are indeed an attack on the poor but one that is necessary because of the so called "economic crisis.

That was the excuse for breaking their promise to oppose fee rises right?
But now the line has changed.According to you (and Clegg yesterday) Now the fee rises are no longer unpleasant but necessary. They are now GOOD for the poor. They are progressive. The poor should be thanking him. Which of course raises the question, if the fee rises are so good for the poorest students, why did he initially oppose them?

Forgive us for treating this line with the utter contempt it deserves. Clegg has hung himself by his own words and no manner of twisting in the wind will get him off the noose.

You conveniently ignored my question in favour of pious finger wagging I see. Let me repeat it in easy sentences. If the tuition fees plans are so great for poor students why did Clegg initially oppose them and then justify his U turn in terms of unfortunate necessity? If they are such a gift to the lucky poor students why didn't he initially support them in those terms instead of condemning them?

 

[Streathamite]

I considered starting a thread with a title like "are the Lib Dems softening the Tory policies or are they enabling them" in order to keep that kind of discussion away from these threads. I decided against it because I don't think he and his brain dead sidekick Lock&Light would be able to resist bringing it back over hear so it would be pointless.

Do you think it would be better to leave his lies unchallenged? Or is this no platform for liberals?

nope, keep ripping him to shreds

 

[ferrelhadley]

We seem to have a number plate now!

LX54CPY
http://imgur.com/7oQXm
BQV and the rust is visible. Doubt this will help anyone, but this van has piqued my curiosity.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

a-ha!

Nice one Streathamite .

So what do you say to this then, moon? This just shows that the lib dems are a bunch of two faced, lying little shit cunts.

 

[Streathamite]

Moon, there are two questions here that you are more or less compelled to answer. the one about lying/confidential documents, and dylan's one. Answer please

 

[creak]

How do we know that's the same one? Are there no pictures of the van with its number plates on from the actual protest, yesterday?

Edit: is BQV an individual reference for that particular police vehicle?

 

[Streathamite]

btw, let's set a date for when people can stop arguing with moon23 and just ignore him/her. It's getting boring and fills up threads like this with shit. How about today?

sorry but no - I'm not going to allow his shite to go unchallenged when kids in my borough are getting my future thrown away.

 

[ferrelhadley]

How do we know that's the same one? Are there no pictures of the van with its number plates on from the actual protest, yesterday?

Edit: is BQV an individual reference for that particular police vehicle?

Not 100% certain but I think so, it does have a 01 on the roof as well, but I would imagine all there personel carriers would be uniquely identifiable the same way from top and side, the top 01 may have another meaning. I am looking into it. On public order duty they also should have the serial number in the front and back windows, normally written on paper, you see all the TSG vehicles with a U followed by a number, the serial in the van. I have seen a bit of paper where it should be on the photos and videos, but have not seen what is written on the paper to know if it is the serial no.

 

[dylans]

Moon, there are two questions here that you are more or less compelled to answer. the one about lying/confidential documents, and dylan's one. Answer please

The silence is deafening.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

You sound like one of those old farts who sits in an armchair waving his stick at the pictures on the telly. "We didn't riot in my day. We had national service"! Hang on, that almost sounds like Tebbit circa 1983...

You're half way right nino, I'm now the wrong side of 50 and flatulence certainly plays a more active part than it used too. But as for violence, I'm of the same opinion now as I've always been, that is that as a society we are far too tolerant of the use and justification of it.

 

[DotCommunist]

Far too tolerant. No case to argue against Smellie. No responsibility for de menezes, tomlinson, etc.

Seems our tolerance for violence is somewhat one sided. How many attempted fit ups for blakelock now? 3?

 

[nino_savatte]

You're half way right nino, I'm now the wrong side of 50 and flatulence certainly plays a more active part than it used too. But as for violence, I'm of the same opinion now as I've always been, that is that as a society we are far too tolerant of the use and justification of it.

I'm over 50 too but that doesn't stop me from cheering on those who are smashing things up. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "as a society we are far too tolerant of the use and justification of it". You'll need to provide some evidence for this because from what I've seen of the right wing press, the opposite is true.

I always have to laugh when people say "violent protests never achieve anything". How about the Suffragettes? Their protests were 'violent' and they won the vote for women. However I don't buy this argument that smashing a few windows and attacking an empty police van equates to real violence. That's the capitalist position which holds that property is more important than people. What an obscenity.

 

[Streathamite]

You're half way right nino, I'm now the wrong side of 50 and flatulence certainly plays a more active part than it used too. But as for violence, I'm of the same opinion now as I've always been, that is that as a society we are far too tolerant of the use and justification of it.

so why not set it in the context of the violence that these cuts are inflicting on people's lives and life chances?