50,000 students have a peaceful (and huge btw) protest in London, and then a few smash their way into the Tory building...
So, has the vandalisation of the Conservative headquarters tarnished the protest and ruined the message that it was trying to send? Or did it make people sit up and pay attention in a way most peaceful protests dont?
Or was it the Anarchist and Socialist Student Unions doing what they do best and stirring up trouble because they're angry? I know these guys at my Uni do have a tendancy to jump on a bandwagon, get angry about it, and become difficult and smash things up that belong to the "establishment".
Did they have a right to be angry?
Personally, as much as I would get a great deal of personal satisfaction from smashing windows in Tory Headquaters, painting shit all over their walls and occupying the roof, I'm pretty sure that with 50,000 students occupying London the message would have been sent without that kind of violence, and its got the headlines going on a "Student Riot" angle that portrays all of the protesters badly rather than focusing on the issues behind the protest. I don't think it had a positive effect, although I also think that it accurately conveyed how angry students are and how betrayed they feel, especially by Clegg.
Opinions?
So, has the vandalisation of the Conservative headquarters tarnished the protest and ruined the message that it was trying to send? Or did it make people sit up and pay attention in a way most peaceful protests dont?
Or was it the Anarchist and Socialist Student Unions doing what they do best and stirring up trouble because they're angry? I know these guys at my Uni do have a tendancy to jump on a bandwagon, get angry about it, and become difficult and smash things up that belong to the "establishment".
Did they have a right to be angry?
Personally, as much as I would get a great deal of personal satisfaction from smashing windows in Tory Headquaters, painting shit all over their walls and occupying the roof, I'm pretty sure that with 50,000 students occupying London the message would have been sent without that kind of violence, and its got the headlines going on a "Student Riot" angle that portrays all of the protesters badly rather than focusing on the issues behind the protest. I don't think it had a positive effect, although I also think that it accurately conveyed how angry students are and how betrayed they feel, especially by Clegg.
Opinions?
