The protests went as anticipated. The majority of people, many of whom will be redundant in 4 days, marched calmly through London surrounded by Union Officials, Police Officers and press.

The BBC has been quite good at maintaining the “majority were peaceful” line.

However, inevitably, the [violence] [anarchistic] [scuffles] [turmoil] or [tempest] as various journalists have referred to the less peaceful marches, have stolen many headlines.

I watched with discerning horror as various shots on BBC News depicted fights, broken windows, paint bombs, fireworks and other antisocial ranging through to criminal behaviour took place.

The Hype

Aggrandized social networking had set the scene for a modern Punch and Judy, it was just ascertaining who would appropriate which role. In the previous protests, students have been quick to cry foul over Police Brutality, accuse and actively engage violent behaviour. Yet yesterday there was very litte evidence of Judy with her rolling pin. No police had riot shields, no weapons, and their regimentary lines to calm rampant protestors were standard calming proceedure.

In direct contrast, Punch had armed himself with a selection of premeditated weapons. Rather than the spade seen in student protests in September (who carries a spade with them on the off chance?!), protestors, menacing in black with balaclavas, were armed with lightbulbs full of amonia, spray cans, and anything else they saw fit to collect on their way.

With the twitterverse pounding with hashtags like #march26 #tarhirsq #trafalgursq #ukuncut #march26march et al, the drums were beating for drama.

And Twas Ever Thus

While Milliband egotistically compared himself to Martin Luther King (there’s a whole other blog post in this!), the BBC cameras panned to the menacing thugs attacking Topshop and swifting moving to Fortnum & Mason.

With bits of fence going through windows of banks, police officers being set on fire, the trite anarchy symbol being sprayed every where and continous soundbites from Labour, I was watching at home, glad I didnt attend. Much criticism was put about Laurie Penny, the Independent writer, who felt the need to castigate the police and continue to encourage illegal and demonstrative violence through social media channels. A badly written (oh the irony) puts is quite well;

“For too long now she has been allowed to spread her vile and one side biased views of the protest and the whole events around them…[to satisfy] her own feeling of self importance” (The New Current)

But even without poisonous journalists encouraging violence to their own gains, the collective attacks on buildings which, to protestors, symbolised the extremeties of social divide were escalating.

Risks of Anonimoty

Good old UK Uncut, whom I think of as a modern day, twitter charged Robin Hood gang, have taken great risks by maintaining an air of mysteriousness.

While they decided to occupy Fortnum and Mason, who are charged with legal but ammoral tax avoidance by the young gangs, others descended on the store outside. There is still dispute as to whether these youths, carrying Anarchy flags and wearing balaclavas, were in fact members of #UKUncut or not.

They adorned the outside of the building with UK Uncut slogans, claimed to be part of the (and I am loathe to call them but) movement, threw fireworks and flares at the police and actively prevented police from stopping other protestors from joining in, no doubt contributing to those injured, police and protestors alike.

I commented that I went to make a cup of tea and when I returned, UK Uncut had lost all of their credibility. Others have stated that it was not UK Uncut outside.

But that is the risk the UK Uncut take with their anonymity.

If they are serious about challenging society’s norms and social divide, hiding behind badly written yet powerful articles simply gives others the opportunity to discredit them.

However, if the gang of trouble makers were not legitimate representatives of UK Uncut, then comments like this do not help to dispell the myth;

“Civil disobedience has a long tradition of driving forward progressive change and we are here to send a powerful message”

Disobedience is an interesting word.

–noun
“lack of obedience or refusal to comply; disregard or transgression”

There is something of an irony in this.

UK Uncut are demanding that the Government comply with them by changing tax legislation to more fairly redistribute wealth around the country.

To apply this lobby, they are the epitome of civil obedience, calming registering protests with the police, quietly occupying and proclaiming allegiance with Che Guevara and Ghandi. Neither of whom were demonstrative violent protestors.

Further illogical interpretation then, and I will refrain from comments on education necessary to enter university. So if UK Uncut proclaim necessary civil disobedience, and deny active violence, how can one know what they stand for or who they are?

Trafalgur Square

Representative of political and social freedom, Trafalgar Square was the coda of the day, filled with what some referred to as a party.

Some party if it resulted in kettling.

Further damage and devestation was had, as young people failed yet again to get their message accross.

And the point of it all

Well, the meaning behind the violence is somehow lost in translation.

Protesting against cuts was the aim in the TUC march. This was a peaceful demonstration even if the leader of the Labour party felt he was a hero.

But what exactly was the aim in the UK Uncut and associated violences?

Rather like Punch and Judy, it seems it was just a sensationalised and futile exercise in entertainment.

By Kelly-Marie Blundell

The original article was posted on March 27th and TNC has been given permission by the author to reproduce it here. For more information on Kelly-Marie and her work you can go to her sites HERE

When UCL Occupation (UCLO) students are mentioned I find myself having to take a deep breath as I know things are only going to be negative. After their massive jump in support last year during the occupations the UCLO body became the ‘go-to’ occupation for advice and support. This was mainly due to their locale in London, central, and their ability of courting the media to their cause. Most of what they did was positive and really showed that there was another way that the student movement could take but as things started to divide the core student body the sub-movement that became the backbone of the whole occupations became more troublesome than it was worth.

UCLO main coup seemed to be getting a reluctant NUS President Aaron Porter to come to the their occupation and pledge his support for them, a recent interview with The Guardian suggests that he was hoodwinked into giving his support and was caught off guard by the UCLO’s ever unrealistic demands for support from NUS. This initial support from NUS gave legitimacy to the overall sub-movement which for a time have a lot of strength. It has come to light that UCL are heading to the High Court with 12 students and 1 lecturer in tow over an occupation that took place at UCL recently.

The information is sketchy at best but this is what the Facebook pages says:

Stop UCL victimizing its students! (Draft 2)
Defend freedom of expression on campus!

The Management of University College London has launched High Court proceedings against 12 students and 1 member of staff for participating in a peaceful three day occupation in support of striking lecturers and in protest at the anticipated rise in tuition fees to £9,000.

The 13 protesters, apparently singled out at random from amongst the dozens of students who had been occupying the University Registry, have been told by management that they face thousands of pounds in legal costs on a scale that could put them into bankruptcy and end their university careers.

The student union, UCLU, has voted in a mass general meeting that occupation is a legitimate form of protest against management’s fees and cuts. UCU, the lecturers’ union, supports direct action by students against the cuts.

What is clear is that UCL management are cynically attempting to remove those who question their authority on campus and intimidate others into silence.

UCL Management were given ample opportunity to negotiate with the occupation. It was repeatedly made clear to them that if they promised not to victimize occupiers, the Registry would promptly be vacated. Instead they chose to escalate their threats to protesters instead of quickly reopening the registry, and to take 13 people to court.

This must stop! Defend the UCL 13!

-END-

Some of the comments on the page vary but as always with UCL protesters there is an attitude of they are right and only they are in the position to do right and that anything the University does is wrong. This black and white image they have is not only flawed but incredibly arrogant. There is no right of the protesters to continue to try and goad the university into serious action, this happened last year at Sussex University, once the University is clear in their mind that they are not going to take any more of this they act, and they mean it.

UCL protesters are a minority, as with all the other occupation groups in the UK, and they do not speak for the broader student body who, frankly if we are to learn anything from the Glasgow Occupation, do not care or understand what they are doing or why. Reading the description that they put up a worrying trend emerges that has to be addressed, if student groups continue in this way it will be them that causes the end of the freedoms to protest on campus not the institutions themselves, right now the Universities are more than happy to let the groups cause their own demise.

PPO – Plan, Prepare & Organise

UCLO should have been more careful and aware that their UCL was not going to just lay down and accept this. Part of the issue that UCLO face is the fact that with grown up actions comes grown up responsibilities. This very misguided belief they they have a moral upper-hand is wrong, their actions, much like the actions of the university have consequences. By not seeking legal clarity on what they can and can not do on University property, and holding this idea that it is them [UCLO] who own the property as this comment on their Facebook page clearly states:

Defend the UCL 13 You say the universities are “private property” but they belong to the students, and the staff and the people who teach there. Not management. Strikes and occupations are a recognised tactic for forcing important issues onto the agenda and it’s extremely vindictive for UCL management to be going after a handful of individuals in this way.

Reading more of the comments on the FB page only makes me more anxious least because the feedback they are getting is as misguided as the advice the 12 student where given to be part of the occupation. The University has a right to protect their property and it has to be noted that we ALL sign a contract on joining the University to which these actions taken by this minority group could very well be in breach of.

What do Occupation groups think is going to happen? Do they think that as soon as they go into occupation the university is basically on their knees and that they will give into all the demands? What are they hoping to be a resolution?

There is very little info available about the 12 students and 1 lecturer, there has been no contact or press release about this, and from the looks of the UCLU and UCU website other than some story about MMU and a very misleading headline there is nothing about this. I personally feel that the support students are giving their lecturers and/or UCU is misguided and I think to some extent the student minority who are joining in the UCU pickets are simply being pawns in the UCU battle with the University – as stated this is my personal take in the issue. The student groups are a minority faction within the University and there is certainly no consensus about the fees or even the strike action from the other student groups. Though Student Unions are ‘supporting the lecturers’ this has not been with the full backing of the majority of students who have either not been asked, do not know enough, or simply do not care.

So the student group who ‘do care’ are being legitimised by the UCU and lecturers and they seemingly are helping each other look bigger by numbers than they actually are, by doing this the student junior partner in this has damaged their position with the broader student body. Can students who have brought this on themselves really claim that they are being victimised? Can they be defended when they did have other options? It seems to me that they have been playing with the adults too long and now face the repercussions of their actions, and now they are crying fowl.

Tomorrow sees yet more protest action in London with student groups coming from all over the UK.

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF THE AURTHER AND DO NOT REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF TNC.

Today it came to light that the University of Glasgow where going to evict the students who had been occupying the previously vacant Hetherington Building for the past seven weeks. Today things came to ahead when the university demanded access to the building and hoards of police officers where used to keep law and order.

But the most interesting part of the story lies in the actions taken by the Glasgow Occupation Facebook page who have decided to censor any opinion that goes against what they themselves want people to know. The discussion at time can get a bit heavy but that is the nature of what they are doing. The assumption that they have full backing and support from their own students or from the public as a whole is a mistake to have, and for them now to want to ‘censor’ comments from people has weakened their whole campaign.

This is not just about a silly little Facebook page it is much more than that. There seems to be a lot of demands and posts all over the place for support, for help, for people to get engaged. But when it backfires on them and when they as a ‘group’ seem unwilling to compromise or even be slightly more open they get on the defensive.

By looking at some of the post made that got deleted by Alistair Davidson, GUO Facebook Moderator, you can see that they are neither negative nor disparaging, with some of them simply expressing their own opinions, this unfortunately is not something the Glasgow Occupation want to encourage.

Some of the deleted post range we have been able to save, please not these are not necessarily in order:

Samuel Grant

so youre blocking people now for saying ‘lol’? i mean i suppose youre right, free speech is pointless if it is against your point of view, even though you were allowed to spout your nonsense about ‘pressure points’ and ‘shoulder dislocating techniques’ (didnt know van damme was a constable these days). This protest is no longer about anything, just your immature desire to be included…just go home and start earning degrees like the rest of us have been trying to do while you have drum circles and hugging hours…..

Bailey Beano

OK Alistair, you can forget my message, or my support, deleting what was a fair and non negative comment is just childish and trivial. YOU are seriously damaging whatever message you have or whatever hope you have of gaining support from people…you guys not only have lost support in this new action you have taken, but should be ashamed of yourselves.

Solidarity is a two way street!

Sean McFadden

I’ve just witnessed half a dozen well-reasoned and non-aggressive critical posts get deleted from this page. I think that the reason you delete them is because you can’t answer the criticisms. You don’t represent Glasgow Uni students. It is you are unaccountable and unelected. A mob, running around smashing up doors and windows. Stealing food, forcing catering staff to remake sandwiches and snacks for an event tonight. Assaulting police officers. Occupying an venue where exams will be held in a matter of weeks. Today you’ve disgraced yourself, and you’ve alienated the majority of the student population – demonstrated by the numerous opposition Facebook groups springing up every hour.

Sean McFadden

You took advantage of the free electricity and water the university provided you with, and you turned the HRC into a centre of operations to plot against the university’s management – and, it seems to engage in criminality, breaking into adjoining buildings. Can you really take the moral high-ground here? Or should you engage in the legitimate consultation process and get ready for your exams?

Abban Quayle

you aren’t allowed to mention that they moderate this page on this page. There is a seperate forum for that, a forum that only people that have noticed the ridiculous amount of censorship going on look at…

Bailey Beano Glasgow Uni Occupied

HAHA, you did delete the post, as well as Samuels, well, good luck guys, you have probably done more damage with your desire for propaganda than anyone else could have…how many supporters are you willing to risk for the sake of making out that everyone is in agreement with you??

Bailey BeanoGlasgow Uni Occupied

Guys I think it is wrong of you to delete comments that you are deeming ‘unsuitable’ or trolling etc as it would come across to an objective observer that you are wanting to control the message and give the allusion that there is widespread support for these actions.

Only by making sure that there is a clear balance, and that all people, for and against, have the right to express themselves and not have their voices silenced because they are saying things that are against what you stand for.

Mercedes Villalba

One protester was heard to shout in the midst of todays events; “Make us more sandwiches!” -they really let themselves down.

Yet NUS’s failure to support student resistance is just one of the grievances aired by their opponents. They further argue that , on a Student Union level, Unions are run by a small group of students who do not fully understand what the general student body as a whole wants and/ or needs.

Unions are elected by the student population, but in many cases the proportion of students who vote, is vastly outnumbered by the number who have no affiliation with the Union itself, with many union buildings being seen as a place to get some food and have an evening out, rather than an institution that can represent them. Some unions do not even have a building such as Brighton University.

In Sheffield, the Union concourse is filled with propaganda for next weeks union elections with all parties vying to spread their manifesto louder, and more colourful than the next. Yet last year only 7000 of the 25000 students here decided to vote. A small figure, but the highest turn out in a student election nationwide in years. Although this is not directly NUS’s fault, there is much that can be done to make Unions a lot more open and accessible to the average student, and it is good to see that many of the candidates for the Sheffield Union presidency are calling for a students union that can directly respond to the worries of the individual student through an increase in contact time between sab’s and students.

All of the candidates also claim that they will continue the fight against cuts on a local level, but none seem to recognise the flaws and contradictions in NUS’s policy on future protests.

Few know the financial cost of remaining affiliated with the NUS. Each union nationwide pays annual affiliation fees to NUS amounting at around £38,000, and the discount card that students must pay £11 for, amounts to a large proportion of the money that is donated to the union by the affiliated university. Many societies at Unions across the country struggle for funding, with many including the Drama Society at Sussex University having their funding cut as a result of financial drawbacks and a desperate desire for the societies to make money. Elected Union officers and other sabbatical staff also receive wages that outweigh the earning of many hard working people, with most of the paid sabbatical team set at around £17 000 per annum.

Unions remain relatively closed in regards to financial affairs. They need to be openly publishing financial matters especially in this difficult time where nearly all services within unions are being scaled down.

However, it must finally be noted that being part of the NUS does have some significant benefits to students. Being part of a national network empowers the student population that are involved, and gives us a body that can represent our views on a national stage, training and giving experience to a new generation of public figures. It remains possible that the NUS can reform itself into a body that can really work to help students nationwide, and with Aaron Porters resignation last week, we will have to wait and see the path that the new president will take.

To call for Unions to completely break away from the NUS could, at the moment, be too much to ask. In light of the recent announcement on tuition fee protests it appears those who call for a complete split have good reason to do son, but it could be a very hasty step. The vast majority of student unions are going to remain part of the NUS as it provides the national and more importantly widely recognised framework that students need if we are going to have our views heard. However, what remains clear is that serious change is needed if the NUS are to continue to claim to be representing the views of students. The Aaron Porter presidency will leave a lasting scar in the faith that students have in the NUS, and reforms are clearly needed if they wish to reignite the hope and enthusiasm that was felt by thousands involved in the student protest movement that swept through our Universities inthe run up to the Brown Reports publication. We are paying a price for the NUS and it is time we start seeing some positive steps.

By Alex Ward