# Revolting Students.



## Baron (Nov 10, 2010)

There is a mass demonstration by students in London today, protesting about plans to triple tuition fees.  Windows have been smashed and a fire started at Milbanke Tower.

Press Association

Sky News Webchat


----------



## KangTheMad (Nov 10, 2010)

I doubt that if the tuition fees do triple that it would be any good for the education system over there. Though that makes me want to move to Europe to go to college. Compared to:



> The protesters want to persuade the Government to back down on plans to allow universities to charge tuition fees of up to £9,000 a year from 2012.


 
a mid cost school over here is roughly $32,000 a year. With the exchange rate, thats 19,853 British pounds.

The hike that is being protested over would bring tuition in GB to about $14,000 USD

Something isn't right here. . .


----------



## Indigo (Nov 11, 2010)

I was there. To peacefully protest, you understand, but I ended up getting caught up with the rioters. I was near the front - there were just a couple of people then riot police, and at one point it was just me. All the people behind me were pushing forward to I couldn't leave. There was burning and flares, people were dropping things from the roof and throwing bottles and things. The floor was covered in glass. Thre were people with blood on their faces. It was really really ascary. At one point I got knocked over trying to wrestle a huge chunk of stone the size of a brick from somone who was about to throw it into the crowd. There's footage of me on BBC news ducking a riot shield. It sounds stupid but at the time I had this horrible feeling that things could get really really nasty. Someone could have easily been killed.

I hope everyone doesn't judge all the people who were there - even all the people who were at the Millbank Building - by the few stupid people who came their with violence in mind.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 11, 2010)

I met my daughter after and took her and her two friends for a meal. Her mother had been panicking seeing the violence on the news, she had seen nothing of it, simply a friendly, chanting demo. Usual story I think, big demo, small violent section, guess who gets all the attention and reporting?

Hey Kang, back in the bad old days when I went to college the tuition was free and they gave me a grant to live on.


----------



## The Backward OX (Nov 11, 2010)

Olly Buckle said:


> I met my daughter after and took her and her two friends for a meal. Her mother had been panicking seeing the violence on the news, she had seen nothing of it, simply a friendly, chanting demo. Usual story I think, big demo, small violent section, guess who gets all the attention and reporting?


 
The question has to be asked - what was a student from faraway Bath doing in Lunnon anyway unless it was to stir up trouble?


----------



## Amber Leaf (Nov 11, 2010)

Good on them I say. Peaceful protesting doesn't get anybody anywhere in England. 

I think that this protest wouldn't have been as violent as it was if the Liberal Democrats had not formed a coalition with the Conservatives.


----------



## garza (Nov 11, 2010)

I don't live in the UK, but it's sounding as though the Liberal Democrats, as far as their name is concerned, are following in the tradition of the Independence Party of Belize, which was opposed to independence.


----------



## Writ-with-Hand (Nov 11, 2010)

Baron said:


> There is a mass demonstration by students in London today, protesting about plans to triple tuition fees.  *Windows have been smashed and a fire started at Milbanke Tower.*
> 
> Press Association
> 
> Sky News Webchat




You Brits are becoming like the French, eh? I always wonder how much money the Frenchies would save and how much more productive they might be if they weren't burning shit up all over the place in their necessary - by tradition - annual riots. 

But at least with you Brits - in this case - it's college students rioting over something that might make college students want to riot over. I guess the English are still a bit more pragmatic, except over soccer, then you all are still a bit Neanderthal.


----------



## Scarlett_156 (Nov 11, 2010)

"My lord, the students are revolting."

"You aint kiddin; they stink on ice!"


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 13, 2010)

> Good on them I say. Peaceful protesting doesn't get anybody anywhere in England.


The powers that be change nothing rapidly unless they are in mortal danger, and protests never present a mortal danger to them. Violent protest may be satisfying to the protesters but it changes even less than peaceful protest does. The real change is wrought by those who spend lifetimes working hard at it, the organisers of things like Amnesty International, lawyers at the international court at the Hague, not by protests, they are simply an encouragement.


----------



## nineteen (Nov 13, 2010)

Baron said:


> There is a mass demonstration by students in London today, protesting about plans to triple tuition fees.  Windows have been smashed and a fire started at Milbanke Tower.


 
Just to throw in mt two cents: I am a student and you just cna't stop them protesting. I've been to a few student council meetings and i'm too disheartened to go back. They jump the gun and at the first sign of trouble they say: "protest". At my uni they don't even get thier facts stright and create propoganda and disingenous lies to incite people to protest.

Doesn't every get violent but they do block up buildins and make a lot of noise.

As for the tuition fees: I'm ambovolent. Nick Clegg said the fees wuld be capped but they'd be higher. I think there are a few advangates and it certianly doens't merit smashing windows.

Ta

19


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 13, 2010)

Are you an Englishman abroad nineteen? I am under the impression that admission fees are not charged to Scotsmen in Scotland.


----------



## spider8 (Nov 13, 2010)

Olly Buckle said:


> Are you an Englishman abroad nineteen?


He is certainly a dyslexic abroad...


----------



## nineteen (Nov 14, 2010)

Olly Buckle said:


> Are you an Englishman abroad nineteen? I am under the impression that admission fees are not charged to Scotsmen in Scotland.



yes but people were worried we would follow suit and not to mention that fact that we're indelibly attached to England so the newspapers i read have English news. Just thought I'd throw in my opinion for what it's worth.

I would like to know if this turns out to be a good thing [for England].


----------



## KangTheMad (Nov 15, 2010)

Olly Buckle said:


> I met my daughter after and took her and her two friends for a meal. Her mother had been panicking seeing the violence on the news, she had seen nothing of it, simply a friendly, chanting demo. Usual story I think, big demo, small violent section, guess who gets all the attention and reporting?
> 
> Hey Kang, back in the bad old days when I went to college the tuition was free and they gave me a grant to live on.



Why can't we have nice things like that over here in the States?


----------



## Foxee (Nov 15, 2010)

I just have to drop in here and mention that I find the title of this thread to be really amusing. I grin every time I see it in the 'new posts' list.


----------



## KrisMunro (Nov 15, 2010)

At the risk of starting another debate, I think there's some incentive to create a division between the upper and lower class people. The English language itself is complicated for this same reason; to prevent the peasants from learning a skill that could help them bridge the socio-economic gap.

High tuition fees means that only well to do families can afford to send their children for better education. Businesses already expect qualifications for skills, and pay accordingly. The middle class people are being pushed into the upper or lower class making a wide gap that few can breach. 


Yeh, yeh.. and then businesses will start hiring personal armies to defend themselves, and eventually take over the government. Then they'll own countries, and people will be contracted into slavery...

...and we'll have a great concept for a story.. or has that been done already? (or an odd form of reality?) 

(I'm hoping people will know when I'm having a joke in this post)


----------



## Amber Leaf (Nov 15, 2010)

> At the risk of starting another debate, I think there's some incentive to create a division between the upper and lower class people. The English language itself is complicated for this same reason; to prevent the peasants from learning a skill that could help them bridge the socio-economic gap.
> 
> High tuition fees means that only well to do families can afford to send their children for better education. Businesses already expect qualifications for skills, and pay accordingly. The middle class people are being pushed into the upper or lower class making a wide gap that few can breach.



We've been studying this in Politics recently actually. You are not far wrong. The top twenty Russell Brand Universities in England have put forward the suggestion of raising tuition fees. At the moment the fees are capped at £7000 and an average student will leave University will a debt of £15,000 (not including students who can afford to pay upfront). The changes mean that fees will be a minimum of £9000 (so the top end Universities can charge more than this if they wish) so the average debt that a student will have after the changes will be £25,000. 

It used to be the case (up to 1998 ) that fees were paid by the state and each student received a grant. It didn't matter what your financial background was and students from poor economic areas could attend University without the worry of debt. I was due to attend University in 1999 but couldn't afford it because I very much couldn't afford the fees and I didn't want to get thousands of pounds into debt. I now attend University part-time as a mature student because I can afford it. 

It is a statistic in this country that working class people are unlikely to want to get into debt whereas the middle class are more likely to be fine with it. This is evident in statistics from other economies such as borrowing from banks.

Taking all this into consideration, raising the tuition fees creates a system where Universities are going to be more likely to attract white, middle class students as this is the main social group that will not be put off by the fees. Different factors such as the fear of debt, poor knowledge of financial matters and lack of access to information will mean that potential students from poorer areas are more likely to be put off the idea of attending University. 

I think another thing that has also massively offended a lot of the protesters has been that even though the fees are being raised, University lecturers wages are being reduced due to alleged 'lack of funding'. 

Also, this has all been introduced by a coalition government that came into power through dubious means. I can totally understand the frustration and anger of the protesters.


----------



## MJ Preston (Nov 15, 2010)

Amber Leaf said:


> Good on them I say. Peaceful protesting doesn't get anybody anywhere in England.



Yeah! Let's ramp it up a bit! Knock a few heads! Blow something up! Kill a government official! That will make our point that we are entitled to cheap education!

Revolting indeed.


----------



## Amber Leaf (Nov 15, 2010)

> Yeah! Let's ramp it up a bit! Knock a few heads! Blow something up! Kill a government official! That will make our point that we are entitled to cheap education!



Nothing got blown up. No-one was trying to kill anyone, they were trying to attack Milibank Tower - the headquarters of the Conservatives, a party that are now part of the coalition government even though they were not fairly elected. 

For a start, the protesters who became violent were not at all in the majority of those who protested. Secondly, the ones that did become violent did so over more reasons than the tuition fees. As I have said before, peaceful protesting does not achieve anything in this country. The last protests that caused a change were the Poll Tax protests in the eighties and over 400 arrests were made. 

In England we are governed by a system of unfair representation. If the changes to the higher education system and the welfare system were made by a government that was fairly elected then I doubt there would be this level of violence in protests.


----------



## Tom (Nov 15, 2010)

Students do have a chance to revolt, but if anything, this violence is only going to strengthen the idea of tripling University fees.

Just to ensure; I am against this. 100%. I'd understand a grand or two, but tripling it? That's the government taking the piss. They've hooked people into the idea of University and now they're going to make us pay debt longer and harder. It's ridiculous.

Then again, I miss it. I don't have to pay it if I get into University this year. I'm the lucky bastard complaining because I thought, for a moment, it was me.

The problem is; it's too easy to go to University. There are too many people doing pointless degrees, wasting time and money, and there are too many people GOING for degrees, which makes them less 'special' to 'stand-out'.

A few grand, I agree, take it up a notch, but 9? Get lost.

Funny thing is, this time last year, the Lib Dems promised us FREE education. Not x3 education.


----------



## MJ Preston (Nov 15, 2010)

Amber Leaf said:


> Nothing got blown up. No-one was trying to kill anyone, they were trying to attack Milibank Tower - the headquarters of the Conservatives, a party that are now part of the coalition government even though they were not fairly elected.
> 
> For a start, the protesters who became violent were not at all in the majority of those who protested. Secondly, the ones that did become violent did so over more reasons than the tuition fees. As I have said before, peaceful protesting does not achieve anything in this country. The last protests that caused a change were the Poll Tax protests in the eighties and over 400 arrests were made.
> 
> In England we are governed by a system of unfair representation. If the changes to the higher education system and the welfare system were made by a government that was fairly elected then I doubt there would be this level of violence in protests.


 
In England you have the right to protest. The right to vote. The right to run for office. If you think a system is wholly unfair then you should use every non violent avenue to change that, but giving sympathy to even a few troublemakers lends credibility to their actions. 

Kind of like the people who sympathized with the IRA or the PLO. Now, nothing might have gotten blown up, but in order to keep it that way it is extremely important that rioting not be considered the next logical step for change. The suicide bomber in the mid east is a product of people giving the nod to taking protest to the next level.


EDITED TO ADD


> For a start, the protesters who became violent were not at all in the majority of those who protested. Secondly, the ones that did become violent did so over more reasons than the tuition fees. As I have said before, *peaceful protesting does not achieve anything in this country*. The last protests that caused a change were the Poll Tax protests in the eighties and over 400 arrests were made.


 
Two things also stand out for me from your post. You said the Conservatives were not fairly elected, can you elabotrate on that? How were they not fairly elected? Secondly, the part I bolded above. Peaceful protesting does not achieve anything. 

I am to assume that you are very young and idealistic to hold this view. Protesting alone does not affect change if you are not willing to advocate on a number of levels including becoming politically active. 

Violence is for half wit idiots who care more about being a part of the mob mentality than the cause at hand.

I've been to a few protests in my day, debated political leaders and was even interviewed nationally for for my activism. As frustrated as I have been with the ineptitude of my political masters, I have never sunk to the depth of violent action and never considered those that would brothers in arms.


----------



## Lamperoux (Nov 15, 2010)

KangTheMad said:


> Why can't we have nice things like that over here in the States?


 
because apparently the american dream says we can't. God dam capitalism doesn't mean that you gotta make me withdraw a monstrous loan to go to college.


----------



## Lamperoux (Nov 15, 2010)

Tom said:


> Students do have a chance to revolt, but if anything, this violence is only going to strengthen the idea of tripling University fees.
> 
> Just to ensure; I am against this. 100%. I'd understand a grand or two, but tripling it? That's the government taking the piss. They've hooked people into the idea of University and now they're going to make us pay debt longer and harder. It's ridiculous.
> 
> ...


 
wait a sec...didn't britian cut  a fifth of their spending....and they STILL need money?


----------



## Amber Leaf (Nov 15, 2010)

MJ - 



> Two things also stand out for me from your post. You said the Conservatives were not fairly elected, can you elabotrate on that? How were they not fairly elected?



They didn't have enough seats to gain an overall majority and take over from Labour. The Liberal Democrats then agreed to form a coalition with the Conservatives. They also had the choice to choose Labour but didn't. This upset many Liberal Democrat supporters and Labour supporters as the Liberal Democrats (and Labour) are considered 'left' and Conservatives, 'right'. It could be said that the manifesto of the Liberal Democrats is more akin to that of Labour rather than the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrats are now being criticized by their supporters for backing down on policies they promised before the election. 



> I am to assume that you are very young and idealistic to hold this view. Protesting alone does not affect change if you are not willing to advocate on a number of levels including becoming politically active.



I am not young, nor am I idealistic. I am studying a degree in Politics and Social Sciences to understand more about politics. To me, the political system is a joke. The media and corporations control a lot of policy making in this country and I feel that the social changes that are needed will not be brought about by any changes made by the current system. I don't hold a ideological viewpoint. 



> Violence is for half wit idiots who care more about being a part of the mob mentality than the cause at hand.



Sometimes it is but unfortunately it is also sometimes needed to resolve issues. Think about how long any country would last if invaded by a force that tried to impose a regime on the citizens if those citizens chose a pacifist stance. This also applies to the civil rights of people within countries. 



> I've been to a few protests in my day, debated political leaders and was even interviewed nationally for for my activism. As frustrated as I have been with the ineptitude of my political masters, I have never sunk to the depth of violent action and never considered those that would brothers in arms.



Good for you. Did you manage to sway anyone to your ideological viewpoint?


Just to add, was on the BBC website just now and noticed this link:

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11758260]BBC News - Lecturers' president backs student 'resistance'[/url]


Seems the lecturers support these 'revolting students' too.


----------



## MJ Preston (Nov 15, 2010)

Amber Leaf said:


> MJ -
> 
> They didn't have enough seats to gain an overall majority and take over from Labour. The Liberal Democrats then agreed to form a coalition with the Conservatives. They also had the choice to choose Labour but didn't. This upset many Liberal Democrat supporters and Labour supporters as the Liberal Democrats (and Labour) are considered 'left' and Conservatives, 'right'. It could be said that the manifesto of the Liberal Democrats is more akin to that of Labour rather than the Conservatives. The Liberal Democrats are now being criticized by their supporters for backing down on policies they promised before the election.



Ahh good old parliamentary procedures. It sounds to me like the left is too divided by their own need for separate ivory towers otherwise there wouldn't be two left parties and one right party. The people of England have spoken and left you guys with three parties all unable to form even a minority government and as a result you got yourself a coalition, but I'm still stumped as to how they were not fairly elected. Did the citizens not vote these people in. Is it unfair only because the Liberal Democrats chose to form a coalition with the Conservatives. That sounds a bit naive. 



> I am not young, nor am I idealistic. I am studying a degree in Politics and Social Sciences to understand more about politics. To me, the political system is a joke. The media and corporations control a lot of policy making in this country and I feel that the social changes that are needed will not be brought about by any changes made by the current system. I don't hold a ideological viewpoint.



Really, it sounds to me like you have a socialist viewpoint. How do you propose the social changes be paid for? Should the government run its credit card further into the red?



> Sometimes it is but unfortunately it is also sometimes needed to resolve issues. Think about how long any country would last if invaded by a force that tried to impose a regime on the citizens if those citizens chose a pacifist stance. This also applies to the civil rights of people within countries.



Total Bunk my friend. You live in a democracy. I am a former soldier, not a peacenik from the the 70's and the United Kingdom is no third world dictatorship. Nobody is trying to impose a regime on anybody and if you believe that you need to get that nose of yours back into the books.




> Good for you. Did you manage to sway anyone to your ideological viewpoint?



You mean was my activism effective? Yes it was. When a coalition of parties from the left tried to unseat the sitting minority government we were able to stop it from happening by peaceful protest. In addition to that, on another front I managed to sway an inept government to make changes to how they treated veterans. 



> Just to add, was on the BBC website just now and noticed this link:
> 
> [urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11758260]BBC News - Lecturers' president backs student 'resistance'[/url]



Of course they do, they're not flipping the bill.

Seems the lecturers support these 'revolting students' too.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Blood (Nov 16, 2010)

Baron said:


> There is a mass demonstration by students in London today, protesting about plans to triple tuition fees.  Windows have been smashed and a fire started at Milbanke Tower.


...and so it's begun!


----------



## Amber Leaf (Nov 16, 2010)

> Ahh good old parliamentary procedures. It sounds to me like the left is too divided by their own need for separate ivory towers otherwise there wouldn't be two left parties and one right party. The people of England have spoken and left you guys with three parties all unable to form even a minority government and as a result you got yourself a coalition, but I'm still stumped as to how they were not fairly elected. Did the citizens not vote these people in. Is it unfair only because the Liberal Democrats chose to form a coalition with the Conservatives. That sounds a bit naive.



The new coalition government are having a referendum on the voting process because of the unfair representation. This kind of thing only happens when there are problems with unfair representation.



> Really, it sounds to me like you have a socialist viewpoint. How do you propose the social changes be paid for? Should the government run its credit card further into the red?



Again, I do not have an ideological viewpoint. I am not Socialist, Conservative nor Labour or Liberal. Maybe if I had to make a name up for my viewpoint it would be practicalist. If you study the economics of the UK you will find that there are many contradictions. One way social changes could be made in many areas is by the government making the larger companies pay their share of tax rather than allowing breaks. Recently there was a scandal in this country when Vodafone was found to be paying hardly any tax. The proportion of tax paid by big business is far smaller than the tax paid by the lower waged workers in this country. 



> Total Bunk my friend. You live in a democracy. I am a former soldier, not a peacenik from the the 70's and the United Kingdom is no third world dictatorship. Nobody is trying to impose a regime on anybody and if you believe that you need to get that nose of yours back into the books



You are very defensive over labels I have never imposed on you. Did I call you a peacenik? Did I say anybody was trying to impose a regime? No. What I pointed out was that in the case of a fascist regime being imposed on ANY country then the citizens of that country would fight for their civil rights. Please try to understand my points before making responses that are in no way relevant to what I have said.



> You mean was my activism effective? Yes it was. When a coalition of parties from the left tried to unseat the sitting minority government we were able to stop it from happening by peaceful protest. In addition to that, on another front I managed to sway an inept government to make changes to how they treated veterans.



Well, the government where you are from (?) must have more respect to listen to it's citizens than the governments of England have over the last twenty years.



> Of course they do, they're not flipping the bill.



Well, actually they are in a sense because they pay their tax just like any other citizens and have the right to speak up about where that tax money goes.


----------



## MJ Preston (Nov 16, 2010)

Amber Leaf said:


> The new coalition government are having a referendum on the voting process because of the unfair representation. This kind of thing only happens when there are problems with unfair representation.



Okay if that is the case then why would you advocate violence and decry there is no course of action. Referendum sounds like the thing to push for.



> Again, I do not have an ideological viewpoint. I am not Socialist, Conservative nor Labour or Liberal. Maybe if I had to make a name up for my viewpoint it would be practicalist. If you study the economics of the UK you will find that there are many contradictions. One way social changes could be made in many areas is by the government making the larger companies pay their share of tax rather than allowing breaks. Recently there was a scandal in this country when Vodafone was found to be paying hardly any tax. The proportion of tax paid by big business is far smaller than the tax paid by the lower waged workers in this country.


 
We have people who hold the same point of view as you here in Canada, we call them socialists, but if you don't adhere to an ideology that's your business. I hope you at least voted in the last election. These same socialists can seem to understand why big business has departed the Country to places like Mexico, India and China. Taxes play a part?



> You are very defensive over labels I have never imposed on you. Did I call you a peacenik? Did I say anybody was trying to impose a regime? No. What I pointed out was that in the case of a fascist regime being imposed on ANY country then the citizens of that country would fight for their civil rights. Please try to understand my points before making responses that are in no way relevant to what I have said.



I'm not defensive at all, so no worries there. Drawing comparisons of fascism and regime change is a bit over the top.. I just wanted to make it clear to you that I am not steadfast that peace is always the only way. Although, given the fact that you as a citizen have so many other peaceful avenues at your disposal I find it ludicrous that you would even give a nod to violence.



> Well, the government where you are from (?) must have more respect to listen to it's citizens than the governments of England have over the last twenty years.


 
Canada. LOL! No. They have their moments of ineptitude, arrogance, greed, corruption, but I would never advocate rioting or storming the parliament buildings.



> Well, actually they are in a sense because they pay their tax just like any other citizens and have the right to speak up about where that tax money goes.



You are absolutely right, but then there are the other milion taxpayers who may or may not agree with them.

Anyway Amber, thank you for the debate. I think we probably could ride this until the horse it is dead, but I have other things to attend. Respectfully I leave you with the last word if you choose.

Cheers
Mark


----------



## Amber Leaf (Nov 16, 2010)

> Okay if that is the case then why would you advocate violence and decry there is no course of action. Referendum sounds like the thing to push for.



The referendum will take at least four years to take effect and in that time the Government can make as many changes as it can put through. 



> We have people who hold the same point of view as you here in Canada, we call them socialists, but if you don't adhere to an ideology that's your business. I hope you at least voted in the last election. These same socialists can seem to understand why big business has departed the Country to places like Mexico, India and China. Taxes play a part?



I now respect Canada even more for refusing to allow big business to get away with non-tax payment. If a country allows big business to get away with not paying full tax they are basically giving them an invitation to do whatever they want. This leads to big businesses being able to operate above the law. 



> I just wanted to make it clear to you that I am not steadfast that peace is always the only way. Although, given the fact that you as a citizen have so many other peaceful avenues at your disposal I find it ludicrous that you would even give a nod to violence.



You have very much misunderstood me. I think violence should be avoided until absolutely necessary. If the Government is operating in a way where it ignores it's citizens, even though it has not been voted in by a majority, then I think that people are allowed to vent their frustrations how they wish.



> Canada. LOL! No. They have their moments of ineptitude, arrogance, greed, corruption, but I would never advocate rioting or storming the parliament buildings.



I can't imagine I'd feel the need to riot in Canada either. I've been there twice and have family over there and it seems to have it sorted more than most countries. 



> You are absolutely right, but then there are the other milion taxpayers who may or may not agree with them.



But every tax payer has the right to protest and to an opinion and that is all that matters in this case.



> Anyway Amber, thank you for the debate. I think we probably could ride this until the horse it is dead, but I have other things to attend. Respectfully I leave you with the last word if you choose.



Thank you too. Also, thank you for allowing me the last word.


----------



## Patrick (Nov 16, 2010)

MJ Preston said:


> We have people who hold the same point of view as you here in Canada, we call them socialists, but if you don't adhere to an ideology that's your business.



A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.


----------



## PSFoster (Nov 16, 2010)

I only have one thing to say: The protesters that turned violent just prove the point that education is definitely needed.


----------



## Amber Leaf (Nov 16, 2010)

I just fear that middle class apathy will destroy the UK.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 16, 2010)

PSFoster said:


> I only have one thing to say: The protesters that turned violent just prove the point that education is definitely needed.



Ha ha. Some of this you might be able to chalk up to the fact that through the early twenties, the frontal lobe, which controls impulsive behavior is still developing. In other words, they're at an age where they're more likely to do dumb things for no good reason.


----------



## Lamperoux (Nov 16, 2010)

wait, did they attack a college, cuz if they did, that's another tuition hike.


----------



## Amber Leaf (Nov 16, 2010)

They attacked the Conservative headquarters.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 16, 2010)

I just read this in an article about the demonstrations on the BBC website:

"A few yards away, in surreal calm, guests carried on eating in the adjacent Pizza Express."

Now that's some fine reporting.


----------



## Blood (Nov 17, 2010)

PSFoster said:


> I only have one thing to say: The protesters that turned violent just prove the point that education is definitely needed.


Which is why they protested in the first place, good point.


----------



## Baron (Nov 24, 2010)

The demonstrations have gone nationwide today:

BBC News - Student protests around the country


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 24, 2010)

Didn't know this was happening, came out of Charing Cross, jumped on a number eleven to go to Fulham, and went nowhere for a long time.


----------

