National Walkout Against Fees 24.11.10

[Paulie Tandoori]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/uk...zM2CRDIWgD0zzeBWA?docId=N0319161290949130269A

There was serious damage being done. There was the damage to the police vehicles, the damage that we all saw on our television screens...of windows being smashed.

"Now, I'm sure there were innocent people that got caught up in that, but there is no doubt that there is a hardened group of troublemakers - a minority - who were setting out to cause violence and criminal damage. We saw what they did the week before and I think the police were right to contain that while ensuring of course that people are properly treated within the containment area.

moon23 earlier on today

 

[shaman75]

ah, he did seem fairly eloquent (why the cameras ended up on him so often i guess).

anyone listen to his show on resonance?

nope. but they're archived here.

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator:"Heiko Khoo"&sort=-date

 

[dennisr]

He was IMT. He's a great speaker.

He recruited me to the Militant back in the day )

 

[moon23]

You've got the exact reverse of mainstream debate on a subject, as usual.
The word "Holocaust" (with a capitalised "H") has been taken to be restricted to a specific event in history for the last 65 years, rightly or wrongly.
"Genocide" is a word of relatively-modern coinage, and was not applied to the Holocaust until recently (the last 25-30 years) even in academic circles.

Well ask yourself what the thinking was of the application of the term Genocide to the Holocaust/Shoah was and why I might prefer to use that term. Then take a step back and ask yourself whether it's reasonable for someone to understand what the Nazi Genocide refers to.

 

[moon23]

So why don't the politicians vote they way the people who elected them want and expect?

(hint: because they're in favour of increased tuition fees)

Becuase of the need to work within a coalition.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Because of the lust for power.

Fixed it for you.

 

[eoin_k]

[video]http://www.youtube.com/user/gabbernews#p/u/5/O26A0aw01h0[/video]

Not sure if anyone has posted this yet. 9.13 minutes in a police inspector smurks at a colleague and can be heard saying "I just punched someone."

 

[BigTom]

[video]http://www.youtube.com/user/gabbernews#p/u/5/O26A0aw01h0[/video]

Not sure if anyone has posted this yet. 9.13 minutes in a police inspector smurks at a colleague and can be heard saying "I just punched someone."

BristleKRS is following this story on his twitter feed to try to find out who this is, iirc they've worked out it is a TSG inspector so that limits it to a small number of people. hopefully someone will be able to identify him

 

[The Octagon]

Sounds to me like he says "[the] guy punched somebody", not "I".

 

[sunnysidedown]

Sounds to me like he says "[the] guy punched somebody", not "I".

much like the details about the van - number plates missing etc - it's best not to get caught up too much in trying to prove something that isn't 100% obvious. imho.

we know the van was a plant, we know that cop could easily have hit someone, but unless we get the cunts bang to rights there's no point waffling on about dubious evidence.

and for the record, after a few listens to it I would say he says 'someone punched somebody' - but maybe we need John Travolta to work it out.

 

[The Octagon]

much like the details about the van - number plates missing etc - it's best not to get caught up too much in trying to prove something that isn't 100% obvious. imho.

we know the van was a plant, we know that cop could easily have hit someone, but unless we get the cunts bang to rights there's no point waffling on about dubious evidence.

and for the record, after a few listens to it I would say he says 'someone punched somebody' - but maybe we need John Travolta to work it out.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying, there's enough actual, provable stuff to get angry about without resorting to making stuff up based on bad audio.

 

[sunnysidedown]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying, there's enough actual, provable stuff to get angry about without resorting to making stuff up based on bad audio.

exactly!

and I was meant to say the van was probably a plant.

 

[Santino]

Becuase of the need to work within a coalition.

No one NEEDED to work in a coalition. They could have propped up a minority government on an issue-by-issue basis. But then they wouldn't have got any shiny ministerial job titles, would they?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well ask yourself what the thinking was of the application of the term Genocide to the Holocaust/Shoah was and why I might prefer to use that term.
Then take a step back and ask yourself whether it's reasonable for someone to understand what the Nazi Genocide refers to.

I'll go with the academic consensus on this that states that "the Holocaust" was a genocide, and that more people understand what you're talking about if you refer to "the Holocaust", than they do if you refer to "the Nazi Genocide", which could refer to any of a number of systematic annihilations that took place, including those of Ukrainian and Russian peasants.

 

[moon23]

No one NEEDED to work in a coalition. They could have propped up a minority government on an issue-by-issue basis. But then they wouldn't have got any shiny ministerial job titles, would they?

It's more that it wouldn't have allowed the Lib Dems to infulence policy.

 

[fractionMan]

You just go round and round spouting this mutually exclusive stuff, don't you?

"We can't get our own way because we're in a coalition, the coalition allows us to get our own way"
Then when challenged post up big lists of minor things they've not achieved claiming them as achievements.

The libdem politicians have achieved nothing but their own (short term) gratification.
You're dishonest to the core. A shining example of the libdem ethos.

 

[moon23]

We signed a pledge to oppose a rise in fees, and introduce fairer HE funding. The proposals are to increase the cap, and introduce fairer funding. Anybody who signed the NUS pledge is breaking it however they vote.

 

[fractionMan]

I should probably just save that as a stock reply btw, seeing as you roll out the same old guff every single time. ^^

 

[fractionMan]

We signed a pledge to oppose a rise in fees, and introduce fairer HE funding. The proposals are to increase the cap, and introduce fairer funding.

Wriggling like that is unbecoming, not to mention patronizing. Do you think the electorate are that stupid?

 

[fractionMan]

And that one ^^

An utter contempt for the electorate seems to be the other narrative you're attempting to weave. One of your favourite words that.

 

[Lock&Light]

"We can't get our own way because we're in a coalition, the coalition allows us to get our own way"

That's a false quote. I think Moon is saying, "We can't get all our way because we're in a coalition, the coalition allows us to get some of our own way".

You are being dishonest.

 

[fractionMan]

He's been saying exactly what I wrote for months.

 

[Lock&Light]

I'd get better reading glasses if I was you.

 

[fractionMan]

If I were you I'd weep quietly into my beer each and every night.

Go find someone else to bother you contrary bastard.

 

[SpineyNorman]

It's more that it wouldn't have allowed the Lib Dems to infulence policy.

Why not? Their votes would still be required if a Tory minority government actually wanted to pass anything. This ought to give them negotiating power, whilst not tying their hands on areas of disagreement.

 

[Santino]

It's more that it wouldn't have allowed the Lib Dems to infulence policy.

What utter, utter shit. If a party holds the balance of power in Parliament it can fucking dictate policy!

 

[Santino]

If I were you I'd wee quietly into my beer each and every night.

Fixed.

 

[SpineyNorman]

We signed a pledge to oppose a rise in fees, and introduce fairer HE funding. The proposals are to increase the cap, and introduce fairer funding. Anybody who signed the NUS pledge is breaking it however they vote.

How incredibly disingenuous. Implicit in your argument is the idea that the funding will be "fairer" under the new proposals - it won't (unless you've redefined "fair" in the same way that you've redefined "most"). If they vote against they are honouring the pladge, if they vote yes they are breaking it. It really is that simple.

Come on, what is "fairer" about funding under the new proposals? Given that people on under £21k will still accrue interest at commercial rates over the lifetime of the loan, yet rich kids whose mummy and daddy pay upfront won't pay a penny in interest? Is it fairer that less well off kids will be encouraged by the lower fees to go to less well respected universities? Please try to explain this without resorting to doublethink.

 

[TopCat]

Moon is really undermining the libdems with all this disingenuous shite.

 

[Lock&Light]

I doubt if Clegg's biggest worries center around Urban's politics forums.