Talk:2010 United Kingdom student protests

Jody McIntyre incident

Just a note to say I have incorporated information from Jody McIntyre which had been proposed for deletion, and redirected that page here. As he was involved with the protests then it makes sense to me to mention him and the incident here. Perhaps someone can better factor it into the article though. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Year

Many news articles have announced that the protests will continue into 2011. Should we change to title to something like '2010-11 UK student protests' or is it better to wait until the first 2011 protest has actually occurred? George.millman (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Create it as a redirect, and let us wait and see. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

POV check requested

I think that this article could do with an independent POV check. It's very important, but I wonder if it might lean too heavily towards the protesters. All the big quotes down the right-hand side are from protesters. Where is the criticism to balance it out? I don't have the time to look at this more thoroughly, so it would be good if there could be a general review to identify anything else that might need some balance. John Smith's (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

For starters there are probably too many quotes for an encyclopedic article. I suspect that reducing some of the quotes to summaries might begin to create a sense of balance. From there we could see how it reads and whether more is needed. I could do a bit at a time of this. I'm pretty busy too, but will try to begin in the next day or two.(olive (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC))

Agreed. The article as a whole is too long with too much detail on what is essentially trivia. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it leans too far in favour of the official police/government/right-wing media line... Should the article be an accurate representation of what actually took place, or should it reproduce the narrative of events created by those in power? The former can be seen in the social media, the latter in the mainstream media... Vorpaul (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

We use the mainstream media. Sorry, but that's the basis of Wikipedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Planted" Police Van

I think it's worth mentioning in the article that the vandalised police van (shown in a photo) was planted by the police in the crowd to create a set piece of violence for the media and discredit the protests. Sky News showed the van abandoned in a peaceful crowd with police officers wandering past it (the official police statement claimed it was abandoned because it was surrounded and in danger) - http://blogs.news.sky.com/frontlineblog/Post:25a1d1f5-a371-4130-abab-bbeb70b3cb98. Before it was vandalised, protesters went around asking the police to move the van because it was obviously at risk. The police refused to do so. Here's one account: http://www.wessexscene.co.uk/features/2010/11/26/the-view-from-inside-the-kettle-2/ There are also videos of this happening on Youtube. Here's one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H54kCUlr0s4 . There was even a Facebook group about the 'Baitvan' with several hundred members, but it was shut down by Facebook.

Even the Police Minister will not deny that the van was planted deliberately. Here is part of an interview soon after the protest (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/03/police-minister-students-protests):

"The smashed-up police van

Q: Can I ask you about the van, because there are theories about why it was left there. For example, someone on the blog (vanplant, at 11.26) asked: "Was the smashed-up van at the 24th November demonstration in London deliberately left there by officers?"

A: I'm sorry, is this a serious suggestion that the police vandalised their own van?

Q: Why did they abandon it? It seemed a curious thing to do.

A: It is totally unacceptable for people to vandalise property, to daub graffiti all over a van, in the way that they did. For whatever reason the van was there, it is totally unacceptable. The rest of us don't decide, just because a van has been left in the middle of Whitehall, that that is some kind of licence to damage it. This behaviour is inexcusable. Criminal damage like this, deliberate criminal damage, the resort to violence, is inexcusable.

We are determined to protect the right to peaceful protest. People must be able to make their point if they want to. That has been a fundamental principle of our democracy. I myself, in the past, before I became a member of parliament, have demonstrated in Parliament Square. I think it is important that we uphold these rights. It is not necessary to resort to violence or intimidation or criminal damage. Those that do so will find themselves subject to the full force of the law.

Q: I'm not contesting that, but was it appropriate for police to leave a van in the middle of Whitehall?

A: I have no idea why the van was there, but it doesn't justify damage to it."

Vorpaul (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How on Earth does this conversation support Vorpaul's view? Using the same questionable logic, I note that Vorpaul, in his posted text, did not deny that he is an infiltrator planted by the Security Services to subvert lawful protest! 217.169.14.81 (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever content is in the article must be sourced. You might want to check WP:RS, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV to get a sense of what we can and cannot include. Its good to remember the encyclopedia is based on verifiable sources not truth as we might see it.(olive (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC))

I'm pretty sure I heard people say beforehand that it was going to be a peaceful protest. Why would the police expect their van to be vandalised at such a protest? It's only violent protests that destroy police vans. 82.28.74.93 (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian is a reliable source for what was said in an interview, but this hasn't had sufficient coverage to be worth mentioning, in my opinion. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Groups behind the protests

Although there were numerous and organisations behind the protests, would it be useful to have a list or section about the Groups involved from the Anarchist groups to the Anti-Cut groups mobilising the protestors. The National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts is the only group that seems to be listed as mobilising protestors (however this was after a brief read through). Any thoughts? Lexiyh (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

We would need to use sources carefully for this. There is already a list of groups attending, from the Labour Party through to tiny little groups, and I'm not sure how encyclopedic it is. Most sources will make a distinction between a body officially calling the demonstration, such as National Union of Students, and one that merely encourages its members to attend. Some demonstrators were probably "mobilised" by more than one body. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger of Clare Solomon?

The idea of merging that article here was brought up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clare Solomon, which closed as no consensus. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 07:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I would disagree entirely. Whilst Solomon is not a hugely important figure in British politics at the moment, her actions and notability do not rest purely upon her involvement in the protests, and she therefore warrants her own page.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC))

I would tend to disagree also. A mini-biography would not be an appropriate section in this article, so any "merge" would be a de facto deletion really. O Fenian (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur with O Fenian. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous to merge these pages. 109.156.179.104 (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, merging makes no sense whatsoever. The protests weren't about her, and weren't organised by her. Whether she deserves to be mentioned in this article, and whether she merits an article herself, are entirely different issues, but we don't add mini-biographies to non-biographical articles, do we? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well she isn't really notable for her own lifetime award of notability and we really could do with merging her somewhere. She is or was quite mentioned here, I will have a look and see if its duplicated content perhaps it needs trimming here ? We have this here - perhaps if she has her own BLP as at present the large quotes from her are excessive coverage here? thoughts....Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In contrast with this, positive reaction for elements of the occupation of 30 Millbank was expressed by some student leaders, trade unionists and academics. Amongst others, the president of University of London Union Clare Solomon, the Education and Campaigns Officer at University College London, Michael Chessum, the National Union of Students' black students' officer Kanjay Sesay, the NUS' LGBT students' officers Vicki Baars and Alan Bailey, the President of the RMT trade union Alex Gordon and the playwright Lee Hall all signed a statement in which they declared that:

We reject any attempt to characterise the Millbank protest as small, "extremist" or unrepresentative of our movement. We celebrate the fact that thousands of students were willing to send a message to the Tories that we will fight to win. Occupations are a long established tradition in the student movement that should be defended. It is this kind of action in France and Greece that has been an inspiration to many workers and students in Britain faced with such a huge assault on jobs, benefits, housing and the public sector. We stand with the protesters, and anyone who is victimised as a result of the protest.

Solomon also told the BBC that she believed that there was "no problem with direct actions or occupation", and when questioned regarding the damage done to Millbank, responded that "these were a few windows of the Tory Party headquarters - what they're doing to our education is absolutely millions... and they want to complain about a few windows." Some socialist and student commentators have criticised Porter and the NUS for their response to both this situation and others, characterising them as careerist. Meanwhile, various university Conservative societies around London condemned the protests, and criticised students' unions "for creating false impression that the majority of students are left-wing" and opposed to the governments' proposed cuts.

I'd support a merge, although only as a secondary option - I don't think Clare Solomon is really notable enough for her own article at all. Frankly, I'm rather surprised that article was kept at AFD; but since it was, deleting it isn't an option, so it's merge it here or keep it separate. Out of those two, I'd say it should be merged. Robofish (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a place in this kind of article for anything more than a line or two on any person involved in these demonstrations. How many people are part of this story. If we begin to add biographical content we will have a very long article with a different focus than we have now. And the article is primarily an overview of the protests, not about the people involved.(olive (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC))

• - note - I have closed the merge discussion as no consensus. The article remains forever - no not really - we can revisit if the person fails to continue with any notability. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

References

Millbank Tower / 30 Millbank

This article repeatedly references the Millbank Tower but that building was not compromised, and the image of students on the roof is clearly not of the Millbank Tower, but of 30 Millbank - a nearby but separate building. Where the Tower is a narrow, tall building, 30 Millbank is a lot wider and lower.

The Conservative Party headquarters are at 30 Millbank (this is stated at the bottom of every page on conservatives.com). — Pretzels ^Hii! 18:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed it was definitely 30 Millbank. Will change this except if it is in a quote from a source. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It sounds resolved, so not a problem, but just for info/ context in case it comes up again, Protestors did go into the Lobby of Millbank Tower as well as 30 Millbank (before realising they had the wrong place), so some of the references to Millbank Tower might be correct. Piippp (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Leeds university protest and occupation under other protests?

At leeds university a lecture theatre was occupied from november 10th to december 10th, as well as having a protest in the city centre- surely this should also be added to the other protest section?

http://coalitionofresistance-leeds.org.uk/?p=238

http://reallyopenuniversity.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/students-and-university-of-leeds-agree-on-date-to-end-occupation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.86.75 (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Results of protest

In the whole article there is no mention of whether the fees went into effect or were blocked> 68.230.130.21 (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2010 United Kingdom student protests. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101153202/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23896267-thousands-join-london-march-in-protest-at-soaring-tuition-fees.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23896267-thousands-join-london-march-in-protest-at-soaring-tuition-fees.do
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726124639/http://www.witneygazette.co.uk/education/8687743.UPDATE__Students_continue_Radcliffe_occupation/ to http://www.witneygazette.co.uk/education/8687743.UPDATE__Students_continue_Radcliffe_occupation/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Universities/Students-end-occupation-for-street-march.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101213031326/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23905622-student-protest-mob-attacks-charles-and-camilla-on-fees-riot.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23905622-student-protest-mob-attacks-charles-and-camilla-on-fees-riot.do
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101218202850/http://video.news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Student-Protests-Police-May-Consider-Water-Cannon-As-New-Footage-Emerges-Of-Cops-Dragging-Protester/Article/201012215853147?chooseNews=Business to http://video.news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Student-Protests-Police-May-Consider-Water-Cannon-As-New-Footage-Emerges-Of-Cops-Dragging-Protester/Article/201012215853147?chooseNews=Business

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Alfie Meadows

Alfie Meadows has just received financial compensation from the police. It's an appalling story. It feels as if it needs a dedicated thread. S C Cheese (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I've started adding the details. There's a lot more needed including the IOPC investigation. S C Cheese (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)