Kirkby said:
Hey everyone, to catch up none UK residents and people not watching the news....
First of all in the UK the government is raising the annual fee of £3000 to £9000 for university students, this has caused a lot of anger and today a protest turned a little violent today.
Students stormed the Millbank tower and began protesting there. Windows were smashed and bonfires lit but no one was seriously hurt. The media is up in arms about it and everyone is calling it a disgrace. But is it?
I mean as far as i know no ones been hurt and the most violent thing i saw was window smashing and its gotten the nations attention, unlike every other "peaceful" protest so maybe something will now be done.
So topic for discussion.. If youv been following this on the news are you for or against this protest? If you dont live in the UK/dont know wtf is going on, do you think peaceful protests are effective? Or is it sometimes good to cause a stir to raise awareness for an important cause
p.s just to state its important to remember there have been no serious injuries, obviously very violent protests are always wrong
These kind of protests have a place... though that place requires very careful balance. In this case, I don't think that balance has been struck.
The dangers of "violent" protests, which certainly includes vandalism rather than just violence against people, are pretty clear: You run the risk of showing yourself to be extremely unreasonable, which means ANYONE on the fence will want to distance themselves from you. This can mean an automatic loss. It can
also mean that any valid points or stirring follow-up speeches and appeals you had planned will be ignored, because you're part of those violent, out-of-control asshats.
The only time violence against cops, etc., won't turn the masses against you is when they were
already on your side. This is primarily in countries with oppressive governments, where nearly
everyone wants to be free, but it takes a brave (or foolish) handful to get the ball rolling. This isn't the case here, as it's not as clear-cut an issue, and there is no clear majority consensus.
But assuming you create enough of a stir that things grab attention
without turning people against you, you've still only done half the job. You've gotten people's attention... to tell them what? You'd rather pay less than pay more? Yeah. I hope you're planning to work toward a BS in
Obvious Bullshit. Everyone wants to pay less for things.
What's the alternative? This isn't the kind of war where one side wins and the other loses, or vice versa. This is the kind where you either come up with an alternative compromise, or the people in power automatically win--just like a well-entrenched defender in any war. You either suggest a way in which
everyone gets a little of what they want, or you're getting nowhere. You're trying to force a compromise, not hoping for a landslide.
I'm seeing all of the mistakes done. This isn't a protest, it's a tantrum. I'm not saying there aren't some good solutions, or that this idea doesn't warrant some real opposition. I'm just saying these proceedings lack the maturity to be referred to as a "protest."