Violence Flares At Student Fees Protest (In London. Police Call In Reinforcements)

[Turborama]

Source: Sky News

BREAKING NEWS 4:08pm UK, Thursday December 09, 2010

Jo Couzens and Gary Mitchell, Sky News Online

Scuffles are breaking out between police and thousands of students who are marching on Westminster to protest plans to treble university fees from 2012.

Some of the protesters have been breaking down metal barriers around Parliament Square and surging onto the green towards Whitehall.
A handful have been seen climbing onto a statue of Winston Churchill and daubing it with graffiti.

Flares, paint bombs, snooker bottles and other missiles are being thrown towards police and at least two police officers have been injured, said Sky's Tom Parmenter at the scene.

He said: "We've got scenes of serious disorder, a real dangerous volatile situation. All around me there is very widespread disorder, a lot of paint missiles being chucked from the crowds. There's an awful lot of tension, a lot of anger in the air. Police are certainly battling to keep a lid on all this, but it is very difficult for them."

Read more: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Fees-Students-March-On-Parliament-Over-Plans-To-Increase-University-Tuition-Fees/Article/201012215850255?lpos=Politics_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15850255_Fees:_Students_March_On_Parliament_Over_Plans_To_I

---

A lot more info and video at the link ^^^

Police call in reinforcements as protesters surround parliament

Dec 09 2010 03:45 GMT

By Alex Stevenson and Ian Dunt

Protestors have attempted to break through police lines in Parliament Square, as riot police deploy to defend the Commons.
Police are defending parliament in two lines - one holding protestors back and a second in reserve on the pavement next to parliament's perimeter.

The area nearest Westminster Abbey saw riot police come under sustained pressure from demonstrators, who forced the entire line back about ten yards. Officers responded by sending in reinforcements, tripling police ranks in a bid to stabilise the situation. Police set up a containment zone - otherwise known as a 'kettle' - at around 15:40 GMT. Officers promised to let peaceful protestors out and be careful of vulnerable people and children.

Protestors have torn down sections of the wire fences which had closed Parliament Square off to pedestrians, passing sections of the fence over their heads towards the police - who were forced to quickly clear them.

Missiles were seen being hurled at police ranks as the Met came close to deploying its controversial kettling tactic, cutting off the Parliament Square protest completely.

More: http://www.politics.co.uk/news/education/police-call-in-reinforcements-as-protestors-surround-parliament-$21386169.htm


Police attempt to fend off protesters in Parliament Square


Protesters try to break police line in Parliament Square
after breaking through barriers

[marmar]

1. Awesome.....

[molly77]

15. Awesome

Loved the moveie. We need some Julian Assange masks.

[Catherina]

60. download, blow it up, cut it out.

download, blow it up, cut it out.

[John Kerry VonErich]

96. If it's gonna come down to this....

Hell, you might as well give em the guns for maximum effectiveness

[ShockediSay]

102. I think I heard on BBC that Prince Charles pushed Camelia to the floor for her safety

I remember hearing the same thing about Bill and Monica

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[delightfulstar]

3. Given what's happened in the last week...

We may not be far from that sort of thing here in the States. I guess people are having Howard Beale moments everywhere you look these days - mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore.

[dipsydoodle]

4. Its the usual problem

The peaceful student protestors are suffering as a result of the anarchists.

[Billy Burnett]

68. And many of the "anarchists" climb in and out of police vans.

Saw exactly that in Miami at the FTAA showdown.

[ProudDad]

70. Why not let the cops mouth that sort of bullshit...

They don't really need your help...

[Nihil]

83. Not bullshit - fact.

>> The peaceful student protestors are suffering as a result of the anarchists.

I have no personal information on yesterday's events but in the first set of
student protests, there were groups of provocateurs trying to stir up a
peaceful protest into pointless undisciplined violence.

I see no reason to believe that the larger event in London would be spared
their attention, especially as the press are primed for it.

[ProudDad]

114. There ALWAYS are a small group of younsters

who do a little vandalism...

And the cops use the excuse for police riots and massive sweeps for mass arrests...

To stifle dissent...

And in my day smashing out the windows of the Bank of America was a viable political act...and B of A knew it too...

[Ghost Dog]

5. Just so long as the police are certainly battling ...

to keep a lid on themselves, on their own use of violence.

[caseymoz]

6. I may be dense, but what the hell is it about?

What's the context? I read the entire first story without getting a hint of it. Is it because of added student fees? Julian Assange? The WikiLeaks release? All three?

If this is like the sixties, several issues converged at once and became, more or less, perceived to be part of the same movement.

[Turborama]

7. Student loans. The Sky article has a lot of info if you go to the link

Edited after reorganizing the OP to update it properly, inspired by your comment. :hi:

[caseymoz]

20. So, basically, the British government is trying to ruin education the US way?

I suggest they stage a coup, one the CIA would never go for.

[Creative]

61. Actually, like most governments these days, Britain is out of money.

And they can't blame it on defense spending.

[caseymoz]

73. Then like every government these days, they need to tax the wealthy.

They need to tax people who have money. And they need to keep the wealthy from extracting it back out of the economy.

I know, I'm such a class warfare barbarian that I would suggest a very simple solution. I think this may become the least onerous solution, because the masses are not going to be forced into destitution without fight, especially when certain of the rich became remarkably richer by the last crisis.

[Creative]

79. I don't know that many rich people. But the ones I do know

were able to become rich because of the fact that they worked very, very hard.

I will never understand why there is so much hatred for people who work hard and are successful.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

80. The lower classes don't work very, very hard?

It's not hatred. It's economic justice.

[Creative]

87. Some do, but many do not. Are you familiar with the terms, laziness, substance abuse,

out-of-wedlock births, etc.

There are reasons people end up where they are. And most of them relate to the choices that they, themselves, have made.

[TalkingDog]

94. Wow.... just WOW.

So my mother ended up being born to a tenement farmer on purpose?

She chose to get paid lower wages than her male counterparts?

She chose to be so exceptionally bright that she became the tester for innovative machines in her field because she could explain to technicians exactly how they could tweak the machines and yet she never got reimbursed in any way, shape or form for saving or making her bosses a lot more money?

Cuss you.

[Creative]

98. I am having a hard time understanding what you are trying say.

First, you mention that she was "paid lower wages than her male counterparts," and then you say, “she never got reimbursed in any way.” That doesn’t make any sense. Either she was paid a salary for which she agreed to work for, or she wasn’t.

However, I was not referring to people like your mother—I used the word "most" not all. I was referring people who have made bad personal choices and/or have issues with some of the things I mentioned.

[TalkingDog]

104. My mother was not offered a wage. She took what she could get.

That is in no way the same thing.

Her desperation does not excuse the companies unwillingness to pay an equitable wage.

She contractually agreed to work X tasks for X dollars. The beta testing was imposed on her without compensation. No body else had to do it, yet she did not make more money.

As to those other people: Give me some numbers or Shut The Cuss Up. Show me how many people below the poverty live in poverty solely due to the factors you cited.

I'll be waiting.

(forever)

[Creative]

127. Laziness a subjective factor, but out of wedlock births and substance abuse are not.

Out of wedlock births:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
According to the US Census, in 2007 5.8% of all people in married families lived in poverty,<21> as did 26.6% of all persons in single parent households <21> and 19.1% of all persons living alone.<21>


Substance abuse:
http://www.everythingaddiction.com/addiction-society/substance-abuse-and-poverty/
Combined data from 2006 to 2008 show that 3.7 million persons aged 12 or older living in poverty were in need of substance abuse treatment. Of those 3.7 million, 17.9 percent received treatment at a facility specializing in substance abuse treatment..<\i>

[caseymoz]

131. It's harder to get married poor, and people are going to try to reproduce.

Even if it's into defective circumstances. That's the way our bodies and minds are designed. If we don't have a system that prepares for this, we have a bad system.

Substance abuse is much like any mental illness, but one difference is it costs a lot more money. That's where the wealth goes. Who are the people who take advantage of that and getting wealthy selling addictive substances? Cigarette companies, distilleries, casinos etc. Those "hard working" wealthy people who buy blocks of stock into those companies and literally print money with them.

Now, I'm not saying that a person's bad behavior didn't start the slide, I'm just saying that they're road to economic ruin was paved by capitalists (legal or illegal), and ultimately, wealthy capitalists getting rich from it. And the profit margins are such that you can't say people in those businesses are "hard working" really. It's a lot of money for little work.

And it doesn't only work like with addictions. Look at the payday loan industry. Since I know debt is the leading cause of slavery in the world. I can't look at those businesses and not feel alarmed. When you think about how those business thrive on misery, you don't have to say the word "predator" that's in you mind, everybody is already thinking it. Same with "vulture." Those businesses also thrive off our terrible education system in impoverished neighborhoods, depending on the fact that the poor can't do math and figure compound interest.

[TalkingDog]

137. Show me these cited as causal factors.

Those figures merely cite the relationship between the two. Correlation does not equal causation.

So, you still haven't proven your point.

Still waiting.

[Creative]

145. If you think that out-of-wedlock births and substance abuse are not impediments

to success there is nothing else that I can say.

Have a drink on me.

[LeftishBrit]

147. They can be (though Bush's substance abuse never stopped him from becoming president)..

but the point is that these are not the MAIN or ONLY impediments to success. You make it sound as though there are lots of poor people who'd be rich if only they didn't drink/take drugs/have children out of wedlock. In fact, while there are always *some* people who 'ruin themselves' through drink or drugs, the majority of poor people are people who started from a position of serious disadvantage; came from poor families; went to underfunded schools so did not get a very good education; etc. And others are people who became poor through illness, or through losing jobs when the economy went belly-up - and who did not have enough financial resources, or good connections, to help them through it.

Moreover, family instability and substance abuse are often a RESULT of poverty.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

154. Incredible, ain't it?

[LeftishBrit]

106. I think you're on the wrong board.

[Creative]

132. Are you suggesting that Democrats advocate laziness, substance abuse and

out-of-wedlock births?

[caseymoz]

136. Oh, what a straw man. Yes, it's the party platform. nt.

[LeftishBrit]

141. No. I am suggesting that only right-wingers blame the poor for their poverty.

[Creative]

144. Many do—many of them also think that the earth orbits the sun.

[LeftishBrit]

148. But the earth does orbit the sun.

And most poor people are not to blame for their poverty. Especially not in an economic situation such at the present one.

And politicians and parties that take the view that they are, and attempt to 'cure' poverty by punishing the victims, are not only increasing the problem, but perpetrating evil, and going against all that is best in civilization.

[caseymoz]

109. Do those things happen among the rich?

Yes, those all happen among the rich too, and they don't become poor from it. Think Paris Hilton. She could do all of those things and not become poor. There's absolutely no proof that they happen less among the rich. Cite the statistics if you can disprove this. Plus, she's hardly what you call "hard working."

George W. Bush was a drunk most his adult life. And guess what? He didn't become poorer. He also failed in business repeatedly, and I still can't find any good reason why he succeeded except he was already wealthy and well connected to power. That goes for his brother Neil, too, but he's concocted some business schemes that would put other people first in prison and then on skid row.

If you say "life is not fair," well then hey, you admitted it. You admitted things are unfair. So, do you let an unfair system stand?

Now why do the wealthy get your default presumption of hard work and virtue while you presume the poor are lazy and have addictions? Lest you think these are only the scourge of old money, Prescott Bush was a drunk as well, and extremely mean drunk who would binge for days. There are millionaires and possibly billionaires who retire in their thirties or even twenties. I'm happy for them, but that can't be described as "hard working."

There are plenty of pre-sober George Bush's among the wealthy, and many lazy ones. You very well know this, and in the social environment they've created, they almost never become poor because of it.

So, since this is basic no brainer stuff that you cannot be unaware of: quit lying about it.

[Creative]

125. I don't care if Paris Hilton makes bad decisions, for they do not affect me.

Don't misunderstand, I do not encourage or approve of some of her choices, but if we are free to choose, some of us will make the wrong choices. The point is, Ms. Hilton's bad choices do not burden the rest of us.

On the other hand, if someone who does not have the resources to sustain themselves makes bad choices, they become an unchosen burden that the rest of us must carry.

[caseymoz]

128. It's irrelevant to this subject that Paris Hilton's decisions don't effect you.

Don't try to confuse the subject. What you've given as the "reason" for poverty is incorrect because the wealthy practice all of that too. How about admitting that much?

Now you've declared that you have no obligation to the poor, and to still feel human about this, you see it as justice: you just presume that they all must have made bad decisions, like . . . the same "decisions" the wealthy make.

You should observe the fact that if you're wealthy, living in a society with the poor, and have cut any obligation or connection to them other than that which allows you extract wealth from them, they have no reason or incentive to follow any rules you make to earn or preserve your wealth. A similar situation might be described between the Vikings and the Irish. Hell, the Vikings had much less reason to kill the Irish. At least they weren't making loan payments to them.

So, why not just kill the wealthy and take it? You say, "no that would be immoral, Ayn Rand says so." Why should they have any obligation to your life when you have none to theirs? Sooner or later, your moral platitudes will not hold back the rage, especially when they can't get jobs or houses but still have to pay rent to you-- which is the real reason they're getting poorer.

By declaring a progressive tax system to be hatred for the rich, you are setting the stage for real hatred of the rich, with real rage. Progressive taxes are actually a treaty between the wealthy and the poor, a peace treaty. If you don't believe that, wait until you see some real class warfare, and it's getting damn close.

[Creative]

129. You introduced Paris Hilton to the discussion--as far as I'm concerned,

if she only had $1, the contents of her purse would be bigger than her brain. The point is, her wealth insulates her from the consequences of her bad choices. Like someone living in poverty, I do not have that luxury, for if I make the wrong choices, I will suffer the consequences.

However, I never said that we have no obligation to the poor. On the contrary, I believe that a free and just society must ensure that the poor be given the help necessary to overcome the challenges that those with greater means do not encounter. But do you not think that those who receive our help are obligated to make the most of the assistance that we, as a society, give them?

Or do you simply believe that they should be free to make bad choices and expect the rest of us pick up the slack?

[caseymoz]

133. But she was merely an example. Your feelings about her were irrelevant.

So, why do you think her bad decisions cost her nothing significant while the same bad decisions made for people without the money should put them in misery and, perhaps, cost them their lives? Moreover, why do you stereotype the poor with that when asked why they're poor, and use it as an excuse to give no assistance?

You weren't really paraphrasing Ayn Rand? Strange it sounded so much like it. She's had such an effect on this society.

If society gave the poor any assistance of consequence, then discussing their obligation would be relevant. But to generally withhold assistance due to a stereotype of the poor, or out of fear that they would abuse it? No. The wealthy do much more damage their scandals (like the mortgage scandal) than the poor will ever be able to do with theirs. So, why do the poor get the presumption of guilt whereas the rich have an ironclad presumption of innocence?

My thoughts on the subject are a bit more radical. This last scandal/downturn has turned me into socialist. I really think everyone should be guaranteed at least subsistence. And I'd pay people more than that if they agree not to reproduce.

But the subject originally was whether a progressive tax system was actually hatred of the rich. Have I answered that?

[Creative]

146. I do not understand your fascination with Paris Hilton.

I also do not understand why you cannot see that her abundance of resources insulates her from the consequences of her bad decisions.

[caseymoz]

150. I can. You said you didn't have a problem with that since it didn't seem to burden you.

So, logically, the bad behavior you ascribe to being the "cause of poverty" isn't what you have the problem with: it's the cost to you. You could shrug at a wealthy person engaging in the same bad behaviors, and, it seems, if people are economically stressed, you don't mind if capitalists makes money off their drug habits and such, thus turning their otherwise manageable mistakes into impoverishing ordeals. What you really mind if there's any cost to you.

That's shown by the fact that you're willing to use bad behaviors as the stereotype for the poor. It's the way you described them. There's only one self-apparent reason why they're poor: they don't have any money or assets. For whatever reason, that's the cause. None of this other bullshit you gave is relevant since they are found in comparable numbers in other classes as well.

So, tell me, if you don't mind bad behavior in the wealthy because it doesn't cost you anything is it logical to say that the cost of helping the poor is what offends you regardless of those bad habits? And your even citing them as a general stereotype is just supposed to make you look and feel more charitable than you are and to ascribe a purported justice to what's really a harsh, amoral, calculated decision?

BTW, Paris Hilton wasn't my only example. I used her out because she was a highly visible one, and you have kept her in for two posts since. You're saying I'm fascinated is simply a troll tactic, and a real distraction.

[Creative]

151. I did not say that I didn't have a problem with it--I actually stated my disapproval.

However, if we live in a society that allows individuals the freedom to make their own choices, how can the possibility of making the wrong choices be eliminated? The correct answer is: it cannot.

What you are saying is that those who make the correct choices, should be obligated to suffer the consequences of those who do not. Tell me, where is the justice in that?

[caseymoz]

155. Disapproval? Relative to what you say about the poor, it looks like approval.

Oh, I'll bring it up again. I bet You'd still spend the night at a Hilton hotel. Don't you think Paris Hilton's stupidity gets passed on to the customer? Or multiply that by the cost of bailing out a bunch rich brats making stupid decisions?

And if you go to stay at a Hilton Hotel, you're not going to try to negotiate a lower price due to this and complain that the Hilton Corporation hates you because they won't lower it. No. That would sound infantile. Why do you do that about taxes going to the poor?

When the poor make a bad decision, somebody else gets the wealth they had. More and more, it's getting to be the rich who are getting richer.

About "justice" here's the greater injustice I foresee: the poor are going to end up in slavery, all justified by your stereotype. And ones who aren't are going to be left to die. That's what I see. It's probably not going to get that far without widespread insurrection. As I told you, debt is the leading cause of slavery in the world. There's a reason for it that applies to human relations everywhere. It's not going to be an exception here for long.

"Adjusted for inflation," a billionaire can raise a family of four comfortably for 10,000 years. Do you think there's even going to be a dollar currency for 10,000 years, or even a United States? What good is that much money doing frozen? And don't tell me it gets loaned out again to power the economy. Finance has changed and that's getting to be less and less true. If it works that way, you could also loan out the $1000 dollar accounts of a million people with much the same results, a million people who don't have the money.

I've answered your question: everybody should get at least subsistence, good or "bad" behavior. If they're good perhaps more.

You're not responding to any of the points I've made. So, you've frustrated me. This discussion is over.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

111. Some rich people work hard but many do not.

Some do, but many do not. Are you familiar with the terms, laziness, substance abuse,
out-of-wedlock births, etc.

There are reasons people end up where they are. And most of them relate to the choices that they, themselves, have made.

Posted by Creative

There are reasons people end up where they are. And most of them relate to birth circumstances that they, themselves, have nothing to do with.

[Creative]

130. Then how do you explain President Obama?

He was not born rich.

[caseymoz]

134. Maybe because some rich people work hard . . .?

Or maybe he didn't work hard and became rich. Or maybe he made it the old-fashioned way: from government, directly or indirectly.

The guy admitted exceptions, so what could that question have to do with Obama?

[Odin2005]

81. Most rich people are lazy parasites who inheirited their wealth.

[Creative]

88. This is true in many other nations, but not in the US.

[TalkingDog]

95. 20%

According to Thomas J. Stanley's "The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy," 20% of millionaires inherited their riches.

[Creative]

99. Twenty per-cent is a far cry from the"nearly all" statement that I responded to.

Like I said before, the overwhelming majority (80%) of wealthy people in this country are self-made individuals who have worked very, very hard to get to where they are.

They do not owe me anything.

[TalkingDog]

101. I wasn't arguing. Merely providing some much needed factual information

[caseymoz]

123. I don't even think that stat is true.

I don't trust the source, and before I concede to that stat, I have to know a lot more about it.

[Odin2005]

112. I'm talking about the very wealthy, not mere millionaires.

Mere millionaires are not part of the true Elite, they are closer the the average guy than they are to the Corporate Aristocracy.

[caseymoz]

121. And that's a useless stat by itself.

Which segment of the rich is this? The top quintile, top 10, top 5, top 1 or top .1 percent?

How many of them answered the survey, and how many of them were "too lazy?"

[Odin2005]

110. False, the vast majority of rich people in the US inheirited their wealth

And by rich I don't mean the local businessman with a couple million dollars in assets, I'm talking about the Corporate Aristocracy with 10s of millions to billions of dollars in assets, the Elites.

[Creative]

117. There are only 403 billionaires in the US. That is .0000013% of the population.

:eyes:

[caseymoz]

122. And so a single guy becomes a billionaire and how many children does he have?

In no way could it add up to only 20 percent inheriting their money.

But, then again, we've only had the rich getting fantastically richer since Reagan, and not too many have had the chance to inherit yet.

[caseymoz]

116. And that's a myth.

This hasn't been true at least since the 1980s. The US actually has less class mobility than almost any other industrialized country.

Are there more lies you want to tell?

[Creative]

119. Well, if only 20% of the population inherit their wealth, you and I will have to disagree

on the meaning of "most."

[caseymoz]

124. I don't believe that stat.

Not for a second. You might as well tell me that moon is 50 miles from the earth. It's unbelievable. So, when a millionaire dies, am I to believe that the government takes all the wealth? How many millionaires die millionaires? It doesn't make sense.

[TalkingDog]

93. I don't hate people who work hard and are successful

What I "hate" is people who build a business, then make obscene profit for themselves while paying their laborers a pittance.

In those cases, which is almost every case of creating wealth, the "successful" person isn't really working in proportion to his contribution. He's taking advantage of the fact that people need to feed their families. So he pays a little as possible so he can profit as much as possible. Not for his business, but for himself.

He's taking advantage of the fact that there is a thresh hold of income that puts you closer to the old boy network. Once he's there, doors open up to him simply because he has money and not because he is inherently more worthy of assistance.

In other cases, the rich interbreed like rabbits in a warren, mostly so they can (unconsciously or not) keep their money out of pauper's grubby hands. The money stays with a few select families who then send their children to schools where they have very little chance of meeting or pairing with an "outsider".

I know billionaires and millionaires.

1 trust bunny from the Corning line. He's a nice guy.

2 millionaire trust bunnies of local trust bunnies: 1 who works part time because he can't dip into the fund at will. The other who is drinking his way through the money, probably as we speak.

1 inventor who never had to employ people directly, he just shopped things out. He lives a fairly normal life beyond the non-profit trusts and such.

1 "self made" who owns a rose farm in S. Africa, where her employees make next to nothing while she pays lavish amounts of money she didn't earn on crap she doesn't need or really even want.

I also know business owners who give their people living wages, even though money is tight. THOSE people won't ever become "rich". (although technically their income is pretty high, it's not even in the top 20%)

So of all the professors, self-made wo/men, business owners and trust babies who have substantial income, the majority of them don't work very hard in proportion to the income they take in.

And by very hard, I mean the kind of jobs my father had as a welder and my mother had as a factory worker who stood on her feet all day and had limbs broken by machinery. And who still had to come home and work in a huge garden so we would have food because she didn't get paid squat.

So you may know the ones who work very, very hard; but the ones I know use people like toilet paper and steal the fruits of their labor.

[Creative]

100. I don't understand.

If an employer and and employee agree to a wage and the relationship is voluntary, how can that be "stealing?"

This is not Cuba.

[TalkingDog]

103. Price Fixing is not agreeing to a wage.

See, there is an assumption amongst GOP and right wingers that the poor can just produce material good like food, clothing and housing out of thin air.

Take the GOP wassername(not actually worth looking up) who claimed that people who utilized school food programs were being "lazy". Why, she asked, couldn't those neglectful parents just give their kids a banana and some juice? Which shows the myopic nature of their (and your) thinking.

The "neglectful" parents can't "just give their kids a banana and juice" because there is no money to buy them with. And as to your argument (and future counter argument) workers can't just choose any job they want. Not without money to pay for gasoline or funds to take time off to look for a job in another city. So many, if not nearly all poor people, do not have the capacity to look for the same jobs at higher wages in another place. Not if they want to pay their bills and feed their children. Because to take time off to look for a job means time off work and expenses. Neither of those are in the budget.

And jobs of a like nature with in a given region tend to all hover around the same wage. Price fixing as it were. I can only agree to what the going rate is because a metaphorical gun is being held to my head. I need to pay bills and feed my children. I literally can't make more money because the wages I do make are so low that it locks me into a specific geographic location and wage range.

As for the idea of stealing. If I make a product that is worth 500.00 a week on the market and you as shop owner pay 100.00 for recouping past development (including your own investment) materials, facilities, R&D (future investment) and my weekly labor, how is it NOT stealing to keep 400.00 for yourself?

Breaking it down: I make a 500.00 product, my wages are 25.00 and 75.00 goes to business expenses. You make 400.00 for your administrative costs and your labor?


If you can explain why you deserve 16 times my wages for less physical labor and effort, I'm listening. And once you explain that, justify wages that are hundreds of times the lowest paid workers wage because my example of only 16 times the difference is almost unheard of in America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

And if that's not thievery I don't know what is.

[Odin2005]

113. It's only voluntary in a purely formal, strictly legalistic sense.

The threat of homelessness and starvation is itself a form of coercion, the employer always has the advantage because of that.

[StarsInHerHair]

138. such a person would likely not be able to understand "survival sex" as that is

even more complex. But yes, homelessness and starvation is a very pressing matter.

[LeftishBrit]

105. And what about all the people who work very very hard and never become rich?

And it's not a question of hatred; it's a question of protecting the less well off from misery. Even after the rich are taxed more, they'll still be living comfortably compared with poor people.

And the financial crisis was mainly caused by the mess-ups by the banks and financial sector, so that it seems only fair that those who contributed to the mess (and yes, I realize that not all rich people are financiers or bankers!) should help to pay for it.

Moreover, a lot of the current problem is due not to the current financial crisis, but to the Tories having an ideological imperative to 'shrink the state' and to cut public spending on principle. They have done so in the past at times when there was no financial crisis; they are currently using the global financial crisis as an excuse, but I am sure that their policies would be pretty similar without it. But the global financial crisis does make the *effects* of right-wing economic policies even worse for the poor.

[Creative]

143. Perhaps they didn’t work smart, or perhaps their entrepreneurial choices were the wrong ones.

For others, it may have just been plain old bad luck.

You will not find any disagreement in me with respect to the bank’s and investment community’s role in the financial crisis. However, they took advantage of a well-intentioned, but misguided government policy that forced banks to loan money to people that were not qualified to borrow it. It was the fedgov that set us up for the kill.

I don’t know that much about British politics, but I do know that this nation worked very hard to win its freedom from King George and Tories. The problem is that many of my fellow countrymen do not understand that if they are to remain free, the must work just as hard as their ancestors.

I’m all for providing assistance to people who are truly needy and deserving; however, Economics 101 tells us that if we want more of something, we should subsidize it. That is the problem that welfare states have yet to solve. And that is why their foundations are crumbling.

I expect to see more incidents like this, but eventually, people will be inclined to look into the mirror for solutions to their problems.

[Turborama]

156. Excellent points, very well made

Particularly this, with regards to what's happening in the UK right now: "the Tories having an ideological imperative to 'shrink the state' and to cut public spending on principle" <----- That's the similarity to the Teahadists in the US I've been alluding to in other dicussions about the neo-Thatcherism that's underway in the UK.

[caseymoz]

107. There's gulf of a difference between hating and saying somebody has to pay taxes.

Did I say I hate them due to all their hard work? No, if I fired rockets into their homes, then you can say I hate them. If I say the government must demand taxes, it's because government and society have to be run, and that's too their benefit, too. You can't effectively run any government or society without taxing people who have money. Simple mathematically correct fact that is demonstrable at will if you have the mathematical skills. The wealthy have yet to suggest a way of doing it that doesn't involve crushing people under debt and putting them in poverty. No coincidence: we began to run these deficits specifically when we cut taxes for the wealthy. It did not spur economic growth, their is no correlation between tax rates and economic growth, none. When we cut the taxes the most, we ran up the most consumer debt. Cutting taxes for the wealthy is a general, abject failure. I don't need hatred to make that argument to you.

Though I don't hate them for hard work, the wealthy could piss me off into hatred if they stick with your "declaration" about hatred for the wealthy. (It was hardly an argument.)

There is something out of whack in our economy, though, when anybody can make billions of dollars. Nobody works billions of dollars hard. Use some skepticism here just on that number. That's hardly a "natural" award for hard work, something is out of balance if that is even happening. Not only that, if another is making $13,000, somebody makes $80,000, somebody is making a billion, the person making the $80k is not middle class, they are lower class. Eighty thousand is not near the middle of that line.

Saying somebody has to pay taxes is not hating them. When the government demands taxes from you, it's not because it despises you, it's because they don't know how to run a government beside that.

[caseymoz]

126. But a caveat: Hitler was extremely hard working, too.

Why should I respect the wealthy for their exemplary work habits when what they're working at is putting the rest of us into debt, destitution and eventually slavery? Such as their "hard work" on derivative trading wrecking the economy for the rest of us? Or their hard work on giving out payday loans to people because they've also stagnated wages?

I can respect that work ethic, but that doesn't mean its good, especially when they won't pay sufficient taxes to maintain the social, legal and trade system that both enables and preserves their wealth. That's suicidal for them, too.

[Catherina]

142. Right. And the working class just sat on its hands. n/t

[Creative]

149. Clearly, if the are part of the "working class," they did not sit on their hands.

However, there is a difference between a worker and an entrepreneur.

Even if you do not understand the difference, you should not hate the entrepreneur.

[Catherina]

152. And with justifications like that, you wonder why the cry was "off with their heads".

Even if you can not understand that, you should not despise the working class.

[LeftishBrit]

153. I don't hate entrepreneurs

Whether I admire or disapprove of them, depends to a large extent on what their 'product' is. If they create a product that is useful to others, then that is a good thing. If they exploit or defraud people to make themselves rich, then that is a bad thing.

I do however hate harsh and punitive policies toward poor people.

It is governments and political parties (not, in general, entrepreneurs) who adopt such policies.

And in this context, I can truly say that I HATE right-wing governments and policies.

[demigoddess]

76. they have been following the republicans since Reagan and Maggie

thatcher. We have exported our neo con ideas to GB and Canada in case you hadn't noticed.

[Creative]

89. Actually, labor has been in power more often than not since 1924.

3.4 First Labour government (1924)
3.5 Second Labour government (1929–1931)
3.6 In opposition during the 1930s
3.7 Wartime coalition (1940-1945)
3.8 Post-war victory under Attlee
3.9 Opposition during the 1950s
3.10 Labour in government under Wilson (1964–1970)
3.11 In opposition (1970-1974)
3.12 Return to government (1974-1979)
3.13 The "Wilderness Years" (1979–1997)
3.14 "New Labour" - in government (1997–2010)

[muriel_volestrangler]

91. Not actually 'more often than not'

1 year First Labour government (1924)
2 years Second Labour government (1929–1931)

5 years Wartime coalition (1940-1945)
6 years Post-war victory under Attlee
6 years Labour in government under Wilson (1964–1970)

5 years Return to government (1974-1979)

13 years "New Labour" - in government (1997–2010)

Total: 38 years, out of 87 - and that's counting them in the war coalition.

[Creative]

92. I stand corrected--my numbers were reversed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. It's pretty clear from the 8th paragraph of the first story onwards

The one that says:

"It comes at the culmination of weeks of student protests, as activists from across the country gathered in the capital on the day of the tuition fees vote. "

After that, it's all about students and tuition fees. No mention of Wikileaks or Assange at all.

[BenzoDia]

10. Education used to be free over there.

Then they had to start paying (with a low cap) under the last government. Now it looks like they may be rising the cap a whole lot higher.

Over here, we grew up knowing education is expensive, so there's lots of financial aid around and people are (or should be) saving for their kids.

[ProudDad]

71. They TRIPLED the tuition...

And in USAmerica there's SHIT for AID 'cause starting with ray-gun they turned it into LOANS...

To keep people enslaved...

[PavePusher]

108. You'll pay it in loans or in taxes, but it doesn't rain out of the sky into buckets. n/t

TANSTAAFL.

[ProudDad]

115. So we should have MUCH higher tax rates

that are much more steeply progressive (without loopholes) so that they require the greatest beneficiaries of government to pay the highest percentage...

And are not pissed away propping up a dying Empire...


In addition, every dollar paid for education derives a many fold return... so a "Free" education pays society back many fold and is therefore a valuable social investment...

Unlike the war budget that's just the opposite...



I know all about TANSTAAFL...

Howdy, fellow Tucsonan :hi:

[PavePusher]

118. Howdy!

I might disagree with you that people neccesarily get rich by being "the greatest beneficiaries of government". They get rich by either working hard for it, inheriting it (and I don't see that as being evil) or, occasionally, cheating both the public and the government. I'm not certain that I see that hard work, or luck of parentage, should be penalized by increased confiscation.

[StarsInHerHair]

139. is it confiscation when the middle class gets price hikes? or does that concept

only work one way?

[caseymoz]

135. Well, but somebody at the schools is raising the price

And giving the government that figure.

It does go to show that if you have a subsidized system, the joker who's providing the service will raise his prices if you let him. Why has tuition accelerated over here? Very same reason. They know they could sting students for that much more without the students feeling the initial sticker shock, and lenders don't because the higher price helps them, too. So, both schools and lenders collude on it against the students.

[girl gone mad]

52. Austerity madness.

Forcing the people to pay off the bankers losses through cuts in services and hikes in all types of fees, in this case tuition will be tripled.

[karynnj]

8. Wow - This must be part of what the austerity measures did

How much have they raised the fees?

It also reminds me that in spring of 1968, IU had protests that were as large as the anti war ones that year when they raised tuition by a large percent for both instate and out of state students. (The numbers would shock most kids in college now - for instate the tuition to take an unlimited number of credit hours fro a year went from $390 to $650! I don't remember at all what the out of state ones were.)

They were nothing compared to the protests in 1970 when Nixon went into Cambodia, but they were huge and many people were extremely concerned that they would not be able to afford to return.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. This is an increase in student fees from just over £3,000 to £9,000

(the government suggests some universities would only increase them to £6,000, but every analyst agrees every university would have to increase them to at least £7,000 to make up for the cuts in government grants to universities, and many will probably go for the maximum £9,000 allowed).

[Turborama]

12. A year. Basically tripling the cost of studying overnight. Plus the biggest has U turn Nick Clegg

...has made so far to appease his Tory masters?

[karynnj]

13. That is a mind boggling change - I can see why they are out in the streets

That really stinks - did they have any idea the cuts would be this great?

The 9,000 pounds is closer to what many American students pay at public universities and far lower than most of the good private colleges. But, the shock of suddenly being asked to pay as much as three times as much has to be a shock to nearly each and every student - just as it was for those without the Hoosier scholarship (that changed with tuition).

I bet there might be many regretting the election of the Conservative Party. (As we worry about next year with our Republican House)

[dipsydoodle]

14. They don't pay it in advance

Its treated as a loan repayable when/if they graduate and only then when and are subsequently in employment paying more than £21000 a year. Repayment thought the tax system works out to c. £30 a month.

[karynnj]

16. That is SO much better than here and a very sensible idea

That really does not seem that onerous on the people who received an education that likely still will cost more than they will be charged.

[starroute]

21. You think it's not onerous to graduate already $56,000 in debt?

And be expected to reimburse it at a monthly rate that even without interest would take 100 years to pay off?

As various posts here at DU have made clear, the PTB are working overtime to create a debtor society, one in which all of us are permanently constrained by unpayable debts that will make it impossible to either resist or drop out of an increasingly oppressive system.

[karynnj]

24. Given what students face in the US - yes

I assumed the repayment rate rises as the person's income rises. At the rate stated, it would allow a young person, who paid none of the fees up front because his/her family could not afford to, to go to school, and IF their repayment is, to some degree, based on the level of income they are able to get. (I assumed - maybe incorrectly, that that debt would affect their ability to do things like buy a house only to the degree that the money they needed to pay was considered.) As to dropping out (which I wouldn't encourage) I assume that puts your income below the threshold where you have to pay.

Here, there are kids who accrue far more in loans and I think the repayment plan takes far more of their income aas they start out their careers.

[caseymoz]

25. How about a "debtors strike?"

Fact is, debt is the leading cause of slavery in the world.

People end up working off their debt, having their children work off debt and/or selling their children into slavery or giving them to the debt-holder to pay.

I think that will be the end result of our debtor society. People have been sold debt like a consumer product. Personally, I think everyone should stop paying on interest bearing loans, at least for a while. A debtors "strike."

To protest this economy and debt, how about people just not pay on their compound-interest bearing accounts for a month? Or maybe two depending on the response. That will give the wealthy heart attacks, and make every branch of government sweat. And a "walk away from your housing payment day." Since this economy is too finance and loan based. That will hurt them! That will give them a message. It's easy to do, and it usually has fewer consequences and less risk to people than a workers strike. Meanwhile, organize protests to stop repossessions during that time where they're going on? And if they get ugly about it, stop payment on other bills too.

Fact is, the middle classes have to adapt. The government has fixed it so that labor strikes are no longer effective. And we don't have enough union workers now. Our industry has been shipped overseas . . . but not our debt, and just about everyone is a debtor now. It's an issue that everybody can get behind. The feeling of not paying on your loans for a month might actually be exhilirating.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. £30 a month is the repayment rate for someone earning £25,000

It's 9% of the yearly salary over £21,000; £360/0.09=£4000; so that's for someone on a salary of £25,000. Also, after graduation there will be a real rate of interest (ie above the inflation figure) of up to 3% (the rate is decreased if you earn under £36,780), and you are not allowed to pay off the loan early.

So, someone earning, say, £40,000 will be paying £1710 a year; but if they borrowed £27,000 (3 years at £9,000), the debt rises by £810 above inflation in that year too. So they'll pay off only £900 of the principal.

[Odin2005]

82. Christ, that is like $15,000, right?

[muriel_volestrangler]

86. Yeah, about that

That will be the yearly tuition fees; most English university courses are 3 years. Those from poor families (about the poorest 10%) will get the final year's tuition free, and, if the fees are above £6,000, the first year free too. Which, given the cut off point is an exact amount your parents earn, is a rather sudden 'yes' or 'no' to £18,000.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Government wins vote on £9,000 fees (by about 20 votes)

just happened now.

[dipsydoodle]

19. Good

.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Really? This puts up the amount students eventually have to pay about 50%, on average

There's a good IFS analysis here: http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn113.pdf

If you look at figure 2, on page 9, you see that, when dividing students up by decile of parental income, every single decile will end up paying more - the lowest decile by about 25%, and the others by 50% or more. Those graduates with small lifetime earnings will come out better than present, but a study has shown fees of £7,000 or more will decrease the number of comprehensive students who want to apply to university from 80% to 45%.

[caseymoz]

27. And so the dumbing down of Britain reaches a milestone. nt

[dipsydoodle]

28. Well

if Labour get back in next time round they could always revoke it.....but they wouldn't.

I must say I'm a bit confused by the block on not paying the loan off early.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. As far as I know, that is still in the bill

It was pointed out here: http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2010/11/04/stopping-graduates-repaying-student-loans-early-would-be-a-terrible-mistake/

[Nihil]

85. The block on not paying the loan off early is quite deliberate.

It is a gift to the financiers that will be fully funded by the students.

It serves to prevent any saving up during the course (e.g., using evening
or weekend or holiday jobs) to offset their debt as the money-grabbing
bastards just want the guaranteed income over coming years - not the actual
money back but profitable guaranteed interest payments for doing NOTHING.

Their futures - bought & fucking sold by the whores in the government.

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. Or it's the government itself that benefits

Directly, the debt will be owed to the government. But, as Martin Lewis points out (in the link just above), this may drive some people to use commercial loans for their maintenance instead - which would benefit the financiers. The tuition loan will always remain with the government, I think (under the present system, anyway, but it could get privatised, I suppose).

The government's 'justification' for this seems to be they don't want rich parents paying off their children's loans early. But, as Lewis points out, this just means the rich will pay the maintenance for their children at the time; the middle class will feel the pressure to do the same; and those that can't afford that have to take out loans, while not being able to pay off the loan at an earlier date (for instance, someone who gets a decent job may want to pay off their student loan before starting to buy a house, or raise a family, but this way they won't be able to do that).

[Nihil]

84. "Good"? WTF is that supposed to mean?

"Good" that the cost of higher education has tripled overnight?

"Good" that the Lib Dems have completely betrayed the people who voted
for them - votes in favour of the party's pre-election vow that they
wouldn't raise student fees?

"Good" that every graduate from next year onwards will have even more
debt at the start of their lives?

"Good" that the hypocritical shithouses in Parliament - all of whom managed
to get a FREE education from the State - have decided to lock the door against
anyone not in the richest segment of society?

:wtf:

[Turborama]

23. Watching on Sky. They're using barriers as battering rams against the police. Things are very tense.

A couple of scaffolding poles being used as weapons, too.

[dipsydoodle]

26. That was what caused the police to retaliate earlier in the aftenoon.

I'm assuming you've not the BBC's live feed which has been on most of time today since lunchtime - Sky too.

[Turborama]

29. No, I only get BBC World & they haven't been showing it.

I have to rely on Sky for live news from the UK, unfortunately. Sky are OK-ish but I prefer BBC. In fact, I wish I could get Channel 4 News here.

[dipsydoodle]

30. You do really need to see it all

to understand and follow the sequence of events. This is going to go on all evening.

:hi:

edit to add.

You would not believe the reserves the police have got locally at standbye for use only if the situation goes further downhill - just seen the aerial footage.

Its also worth remembering that the deal was that they did not enter Parliament Square and the students broke that agreement.

[Turborama]

32. Sky News are reporting that there's an attempted break in to the treasury going on

No footage yet.

:hi:

I've been seeing the helicopter footage. Student now saying children weren't allowed out of the kettle and police on horses were charging against them.

[dipsydoodle]

33. That comment refered to an earlier event

wheh the horses were used to divide the crowd and firecrackers were thrown. You are getting only some of the truth. Police would've have had means of getting children, whose parents shouldn't have allowed them there in the first place , out of the kettle.

I, along with a substantial amount of the UK public, lost all sympathy with this mob with the vandalism which started a few weeks ago and which has persisted today. They are currently trying to smash the Regency sash windows of may be one of the Treasury buildings - fuck 'em.

[LeftishBrit]

120. The rioters and vandals are a minority...

and I suspect that a number of them are not really involved in the cause, but are the sort of people who like a riot and can latch onto any demo and spoil it.

The students have a good and important cause, and frankly I'm glad that some people are finally revolting against this revolting (in the other sense!) government. And it's not only the tuition fees issue, bad as that it, but also the less-publicized withdrawal of the Education Maintenance Allowance for school pupils who stay on beyond 16.

[Agent William]

34. Wow, I'm going to London tomorrow

I didn't plan on going to participate in a riot of course. I bought the tickets months ago anticipating a relaxing weekend there. Oh well, I'm glad students care enough to be out there. Interesting as the rate increase will not take place until 2012, but the protesters here are most likely already in university and will have been graduated by then. Wow, they care about other people, who'd a thunk it?

I may just take some pictures though. Police are most likely not using pepper stray and rubber bullets, which is always a plus.

[dipsydoodle]

37. The rest of London is ok - wouldn't worry.

That's just a concentrated area about the size you'd call a block.

:hi:

[Turborama]

35. Video: How The Student Protests Developed

Here: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Video-How-The-Student-Protests-Developed-As-Violent-Clashes-Increase-Ahead-Of-Tuition-Fees-Vote/Article/201012215850861?lpos=UK_News_First_Home_Page_Feature_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15850861_Video:_How_The_Student_Protests_Developed_As_Violent_Clashes_Increase_Ahead_Of_Tuition_Fees_Vote

[Turborama]

36. LIVE: Sky Reports From London Student Protests

Here: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Tuition-Fees-Students-Across-UK-Protest-Over-Increase-In-Fees-To-Nine-Thousand-Pounds-BLOG/Article/201012215850538?lpos=UK_News_Top_Stories_Header_2&lid=ARTICLE_15850538_Tuition_Fees:_Students_Across_UK_Protest_Over_Increase_In_Fees_To_Nine_Thousand_Pounds_BLOG

[Joanne98]

38. MSNBC Students attack car with Prince Charles in it! LOL

[Turborama]

39. Sky Just had some live footage of some kids breaking into the Supreme Court.

Apparently windows are being smashed along Oxford Street, too.

[Turborama]

40. Student protesters in London attack car containing Prince Charles

Source: AP

LONDON — Angry protesters in London have attacked a car containing Prince Charles, the heir to the British throne, and his wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.

An Associated Press photographer saw demonstrators kick the car in Regent Street, in the heart of London's shopping district. The car then drove off.

The prince's office had no immediate comment.

Protesters angry at a huge tuition fee hike are fighting with police and smashing windows in London.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7332007.html

---

The Prince and his wife were due at the London Palladium tonight. Witnesses said a mob converged on the car and tried to kick it as close protection officers gave the driver the order to speed away.

=snip=

A mob has attacked the treasury, the Christmas tree in Trafalgar Square has been set alight, shops ransacked in Oxford Street and police are preparing to deploy CS gas to break the crowds up.

From: http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8730342.Prince_Charles__car_attacked_by_mob/

[KeepItReal]

41. From the BBC:

"The Associated Press is reporting that protesters in London have attacked a car carrying the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall. The BBC has not confirmed the report."

[ananda]

43. Now that was stupid.

The royal family has nothing to do with this vote.

Besides, it's too late anyway. Parliament already passed the hikes.

[KeepItReal]

45. If true, the Prince was in the wrong place at definitely the wrong time

His security team is gonna catch hell.

[caseymoz]

57. There's a time that political protest stops and rage takes over.

I think we've definitely crossed over into rage here. Nothing the rioters do is calculated for its political effectiveness at this point.

[Joanne98]

42. BHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[flamingdem]

44. God Save the Queen! nt

[maddezmom]

46. Sky reporting they have arrived at the theatre...so far no reports of any harm

[bigworld]

47. Probably just by chance

attacking a limo. My guess.

I'd love to see Prince Charles' sons offer an opinion on the hikes. They seem of a different mindset than most of the royal family.

[dipsydoodle]

48. That's from AP wire service originally

Be interesting to see what follows allowing for the fact he's usually got armed guards.

[Arrowhead2k1]

49. Somebody kicked the car and it drove off.

Really, no big deal...

[FailureToCommunicate]

50. "We are NOT amused"

An AP photographer SAW people do this? Sure.

It's a good bet someone being driven in a Bentley is House of Lords, but not always.

I'm sure when the protesters saw who it was, they realized poor Charles suffers enough as it is, and just kicked the tires.

[defendandprotect]

53. Maybe we're also entering a Post-Royal period????

And I would certainly hope this house would be the last of the Royals - -

[Turborama]

55. UPDATE: Sky are showing a picture of the car. Smashed windows and paint splattered all over it. n/t

[Iterate]

59. Ooops, I just put this up as an LBN OP

But maybe the incident will breach another news barricade.

[Turborama]

51. Tuition fees violence spreads across London

By Alex Stevenson, Ian Dunt and Peter Wozniak

The tuition fees vote has prompted fresh outbursts of violence among student protesters in Parliament Square and beyond. After an afternoon and evening of clashes between riot police and protesters in Parliament Square reports of violence spreading throughout the centre of the capital began to emerge.

In Trafalgar Square demonstrators managed to set fire to the main Christmas tree, but the fire was quickly extinguished, the Metropolitan police said.

A handful of masked troublemakers smashed windows at the supreme court building. And police were deployed on Oxford Street after reports of broken windows emerged.

Close to parliament, riot police were forced to defend the Treasury after it briefly looked as if demonstrators could infiltrate the key government department.

More: http://www.politics.co.uk/news/education/tuition-fees-violence-spreads-across-london-$21386169.htm

[defendandprotect]

54. Thank you -- hope to be back later to read all of this ... keep reporting!!

:)

[Turborama]

56. They're in Oxford Street now, which is full of tourists & Christmas shoppers. n/t

[Turborama]

58. Photos...

A police officer kicks a demonstrator during a protest against an increase in tuition fees on the edge of Parliament
Square in London, Thursday, Dec. 9, 2010.


Protesters and police officers clash during a demonstration against an increase in tuition fees, on the edge of Parliament
Square in London, Thursday, Dec. 9, 2010.



A fire burns in Parliament Square, Westminster, London, as students demonstrate against planned tuition fee increases
Thursday Dec. 9, 2010.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

62. Protesters Attack Car Carrying Prince Charles and Camilla

Source: The New York Times

LONDON — Britain’s coalition government survived the most serious challenge yet to its austerity plans on Thursday when Parliament narrowly approved a sharp increase in college fees. But violent student protests in central London, including an attack on a car carrying Prince Charles and his wife, Camilla, to the theater, provided a stark measure of growing public resistance.

The 62-year-old heir to the British throne and his 63-year-old wife, the Duchess of Cornwall, were said by palace officials to have been unharmed in the attack, which occurred when a group of about 50 protesters, some in full-face balaclavas and shouting “Tory scum!” and “It’s your government!” broke through a cordon of police officers on motorcycles while approaching London’s theater district in slow-speed traffic.

A photograph of the couple, in formal evening dress, showed them registering shock as protesters beat on the side of their armored, chauffeur-driven Rolls-Royce with sticks and bottles, smashing a side window, denting a rear panel and splashing the car with white paint. A Jaguar tailing the car and carrying a palace security detail was so battered that the police ended up using its doors as shields.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/world/europe/10britain.html?hp

---

Well, well. Britons are rioting in the streets. I guess we are too busy playing Wii

[oldtime dfl_er]

63. Chuck should have gotten out of the car

and showed a little gumption. Aren't they "his people"?

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

64. No, his people were on horses

and inside the Treasury, I believe

[AnnieBW]

66. Chuck was on a horse, too

Oh, sorry, that was Camilla.

[EmilyKent]

65. No there is a strict security procedure in place,

developed during all the years of the IRA bombings and killings.

Would Obama, or any president, get out of the car for a mob even though they're all Americans?

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

69. Can't be that strict if the morons

drove through there when they did not have to

[EmilyKent]

74. They were attending a standard event in the area.

The Royal Variety Performance at the London Palladium.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

78. yes, I know that

but they certainly should have avoided driving right through the unrest

[peacebird]

67. people angry enough to attack the heir to the throne... maybe there is hope for the people

Until now i had begun to feel like the coporations were definitely going to win. This action makes me think that perhaps, just maybe, people will rise up and speak out - (nonviolently, of course) and let their governments know that they ARE paying attention.

[defendandprotect]

72. Maddow showed some of the action ....

They were yellow "Off with their heads" -- as the car was slowed down

and being pelted with I think paint?

Agree with you 1000%

[Turborama]

75. Raw videos of it are in the Videos Forum

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x533854

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

77. Thanks ...

hope you read that as "yelling" instead of yellow!!

Occasionally my fingers think they know what I want to say!!

:)

[John Kerry VonErich]

97. uh.... This was violent.

nt

[Imagevision]

140. Knowledge IS power- the government must dumb the people down like in the US.