Students Rioting in London.

[Gary L]

Take a look at the video below. These shots were captured at the student demonstration in Whitehall on Wednesday.

It shows the police van, which would become the target of vandals, shortly after it had parked up. The shots were filmed by a Sky News cameraman at 12:48pm - 12 minutes before the decision to contain thousands of protesters.

Does it portray a tense, volatile situation, in which police officers are in a vulnerable position?

This is an important question. On the day of the protests, the Met released a statement saying the carrier had been left because "officers felt vulnerable and decided the best course of action was to leave the van", yet the first obvious acts of vandalism towards the van did not occur until just after 1:05pm.

The pictures seem to show that the scene at 12:48pm was not obviously threatening. Indeed a group of Territorial Support Group officers can be seen first looking at the carrier and then walking past it. They are attracting little attention from the crowds.

So why did they leave it there? From 12:58pm protesters are picked up on the microphones of Sky News cameras asking 'why has that van been left there?'.

As the day progressed, and the vehicle was vandalised, there were some in the crowd claiming it had been left intentionally as 'bait' to provoke criminal damage and justify the use of containment tactics.

http://blogs.news.sky.com/frontlineb...b-bbeb70b3cb98

Originally Posted by Gary L

http://blogs.news.sky.com/frontlineb...b-bbeb70b3cb98

Then it would appear that the police were correct in leaving the van because they were vulnerable because 15mins later the van was attacked ,don't know if sky are trying to cause trouble but they seem to have scored an own goal if that was their intention

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by martyh

Then it would appear that the police were correct in leaving the van because they were vulnerable because 15mins later the van was attacked ,don't know if sky are trying to cause trouble but they seem to have scored an own goal if that was their intention

I think what they're trying to say is that there was no tension, or reason for the police to feel they had to abandon the van at the time they did.

12:48pm no tension. leave the van
13:00pm decision to contain thousands of protesters
13:05pm van smashed up.

I think they're saying the van was damaged due to it being left there, and the police doing a containment for no reason.

Originally Posted by Gary L

I think they're saying the van was damaged due to it being left there

Sorry, but if there are people out there who can't walk past a police vehicle without feeling a compulsive urge to smash it up, then they need arresting.

, and the police doing a containment for no reason.

It has previously been stated that the containment was put in place due to intelligence that certain people in the crowd intended to attack Government targets. Keeping them out of Parliament Square was, IMO, a reasonable plan under the circumstances.

Whatever tension may have arisen as a result of that containment, it does not justify smashing up police vans.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Chris

Sorry, but if there are people out there who can't walk past a police vehicle without feeling a compulsive urge to smash it up, then they need arresting.

Whatever tension may have arisen as a result of that containment, it does not justify smashing up police vans.

Agreed. there's no reason during a protest to break any laws. I don't think the same people would think twice about the rights and wrongs about smashing anyones vehicle.

you see in these kind of things people smashing things to pieces. and you get the feeling that because of what's happening they think they have every right to. even though they probably would never do it in other circumstances.

[Chrysalis]

mini riot on my street last night

I rang police at 4am about alarm going off for 40 mins, squad car came but then was about to drive off saying they wouldnt do anything then a load of my neighbours came out and we argued with the police for about 10 minutes, then they backed down and the fire brigade broke in to shut it off.

[Derek]

And it's all kicking off. Again

Bunch went right by my office, heading up to St Pauls.

[vanman]

looks like its having some effect

Business Secretary Vince Cable has told the BBC he may abstain in the vote on university tuition fees.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11874406

He told BBC Radio 5 live his "personal instinct" was to back the rise but he was "willing to go along with my colleagues" if they chose to abstain.

Originally Posted by vanman

looks like its having some effect


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11874406

he'll look a right idiot if he does

The Liberal Democrats are realising how they are about to lose one of their large constituencies. Not just students, who aren't all registered to vote, but the recently graduated as well.

[vanman]

hows this work then i thought we had the same government

Welsh students will be protected from increased tuition fees, the Welsh Assembly Government says.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11878033

In Wales, basic tuition fees will rise to £6,000 per annum, or £9,000 in some circumstances.
But the assembly government will meet the cost of extra fees for students from Wales attending any UK university.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by vanman

hows this work then i thought we had the same government

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11878033

English money probably -we do love to subsidise the other uk Nations .

Originally Posted by papa smurf

English money probably -we do love to subsidise the other uk Nations .

If you want to look at it that way, London subsidises the rest of England.

For the purposes of budgetary control, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Executive are effectively just Government departments. They receive a grant just the same as Education or MoD does in London. The only difference is, these 'departments' are responsible for a range of services, not just one. So they have some freedom to decide how to divide up the money between the services they control.

Wales is not, however, getting more money in order to protect its students from fees. It is simply making university education a higher priority than something else. Once they spend the money on this, it won't be available for whatever else.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Chris

If you want to look at it that way, London subsidises the rest of England.

For the purposes of budgetary control, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Executive are effectively just Government departments. They receive a grant just the same as Education or MoD does in London. The only difference is, these 'departments' are responsible for a range of services, not just one. So they have some freedom to decide how to divide up the money between the services they control.

Wales is not, however, getting more money in order to protect its students from fees. It is simply making university education a higher priority than something else. Once they spend the money on this, it won't be available for whatever else.

that may be true but its also the place that gets most investment. so its a circle.