'No Letter to Hogwarts, Now This?'
Share This Article:
- Article continues below...
- More stories you may like...
- SOAS in (predictable) hysterics over an invitation to Israel’s ambassador
- Is Google's 'right to be forgotten' a gag order for the media?
- Why the NUS is right to criticise the Know Your Limits campaign
In other words, teenagers could invent a more democratic government, in such terms, one could call it 'fighting the forces for evil', because as the evil say, this is for the greater good. Apparently social mobility must be sacrificed in order for the economy to stabilise. We vote for a government as we trust that they will act towards the well-being of its citizens. This is the purpose of government: improvement. When this government doesn't fulfil its duty and harms us rather than helps us, we have a right to dissent. Because we have a right to education.
'What will this protest achieve?' I hear frightened students ask. 'Things won't change'. Perhaps this is true, a student shrewdly described our farcical political past as, 'the same s**t in different suits'.
An intelligent government learns from its mistakes, it shouldn't propose to move a country forward by putting forward backwards ideals Mr. Cameron. Nor should it corrupt the nature of its party's policies for self-gain, Mr. Nick 'we didn't win the election…we have to make compromises' Clegg. It can be implied that the protests proposed a dissolution of government as a way forward: 50,000 citizens claimed their right to dissent. 50,000 citizens marching: London calling out to its' government and not responded to civilly, but with unnecessary violence from the police.
A government makes laws in order to protect our rights: the law condemns murder, therefore we don't murder. The law Con-Dems education, therefore we do not receive an education. Education policies propose to raise the age students must remain at school to 18. The all too familiar contradiction in terms repeated by this coalition government: this policy would lead students towards a university education they couldn't afford. If there was no law like that protecting us from murder, we would exist in a state of chaos.
Nick Clegg's political broadcast said, 'Broken promises. There have been too many.' Well Mr. Clegg, thank you for contributing. Breaking a government promise to a right to education broke the law and so we brought them chaos.
A peaceful protest? No, we were loud. God knows, I was proud to be there. Whatever idiocy occurred alongside it, in that scrum of students there was an incredible sense of unity tackling a corrupt government. That unity is powerful weapon. Even from the peaceful protestors, yes there were immature chants, apart from them, immature behaviour. All I can say, is they no longer have the chance to learn better. This was a peaceful protest up until our right to walk the streets and speak our minds was kettled. Soldiers march, but don't attack until necessary. As Big Ben struck midday, the riot police struck unnecessarily.
Could this peaceful protest have not have turned violent? I believe so, Bristol managed it. But London's march was caged, and caged animals turn violent. That's not violent intent, that's a reaction against suppressing freedom of speech. A student said that 'a lot of violence was set up purely to force Police to release them'. It can be argued the turning point was the police involvement, what is more pressing though is, was this purposely set up to portray students as troublemakers? This question of trust seems irrelevant in the hindsight that following the full force of the turnout today, it's obvious, we have lost trust in our government. The question now is, what happens next?