UPDATE:
Charlie Bell, a Queens’ student and former JCR President, was sharply put down by Pickles – after asking a serious question about the image of the Tories – with the remark that they suffered because “posh boys” like Bell felt guilty and joined the Labour Party. He told The Tab his thoughts on Pickles’s handling of questions and whether the protests were welcome.
On Pickles and the talk itself: “ I came to the Union for grown up political debate – on the government’s priorities, which I believe are wrongly skewed, and on the way forward economically for Britain. This wasn’t to be.
Having asked a fairly innocuous (and I think interesting) question about why the Tories still get the name of hating the poor, despite my belief that this wasn’t the case, Pickles showed his well-publicised unpleasant side.
Not only was totally incoherent, he knows nothing of my background, and it was political ignorance of the highest order.”
On the protests: I am all for peaceful protest and freedom of speech. I fully supported the protest before the speech, but once it became violent and unpleasant, and actually prevented us from hearing what Pickles had to say, it became a nuisance and an affront to freedom of speech, and the right to political dialogue.
I’m sure that many like me, on the left, were fairly appalled by an attempt to silence political debate – just as much as they were appalled by the pathetic bullying tactics employed by Pickles.”
——–
Chris Poel, Chairman of Cambridge University Conservative Association, released a statement to The Tab: “Whilst the protesters did cause some disruption, they were largely peaceful.
“One of the wonderful things about this country is that everyone can make their voice heard. And whilst Mr Pickles’ voice was occasionally drowned out, the cut and thrust of debate makes a democracy. It’s just a shame that the protesters did not join in with the engaging speech inside the Union Chamber which saw a robust but respectful exchange of views.
“From what I saw, the Union staff and police did the best they could under difficult circumstances to prevent injury and vandalism, and my thanks go to Colonel Bailey of the Union.
“May I also say how extremely proud I am of my Committee, who were coming down the stairs as the protesters broke in. As Mr. Pickles was removed upstairs, they stood their ground as insults were hurled. They did not respond but remained calm. They did not hide their faces as the protestors took pictures of us. Should violence have broken out, God forbid, they would have held the line.
“I am honoured to be the head of such an organisation.”
—————————————————-
An angry crowd stormed the Union this evening in protest as Tory MP Eric Pickles was delivering a speech to members. One of the security team was allegedly assaulted during the break-in.
Plans of an anti-cuts protest were known well before the event, which was held jointly by the Union and Cambridge University Conservative Association. A diverse mix of about 40 people gathered outside in the Union gardens to make their point peacefully.
However, it is thought that what was a relaxed mood among the group soon turned sour, when Pickles avoided their human blockade intended to stop him from entering by slipping through a side gate. Trouble spilled over once the MP’s talk was about to begin.
Eric Pickles
Protesters tried to disrupt the event by breaking through security into the foyer outside the chamber, with around 15 of the group managing to do so.
Union officials had to delay the start of Pickles’ talk, while the group was ejected by police and the in-house security team.
The police were happy that reasonable force was used.
However, while this was happening one of the security guards appears to have been punched in the back of the head by one of the protestors. An investigation has been opened into claims of assault.
The protestors were removed from the building, but allowed to stay on the premises during the talk, and a 25-strong crowd proceeded to shout, heckle, and chant in efforts to disrupt the talk. Some had to be escorted down from the top fire escape, while others found their way into the basement.
Union President-Elect Calum Macdonald was on hand to see it unfold. He told The Tab: “We tried to balance the right to protest with the right to free speech. Unfortunately, we had to call security when a small minority broke in.
They were taken out but allowed to remain on the premises, and the event was thankfully able to go ahead as planned.”
Last term, David Willets, Tory Minister for Universities and Science, also faced protests from students when he came to Cambrige to give a lecture on the vision of the coalition for science and technology.
Photograph by Stephen Tordoff
what a piece of shit article. This is piss-poor journalism – did you actually talk to anyone who was there? Numerous (and illegal) assaults were made by security, on students and on school students who were there – one with a broken arm. Illegal strangle holds were also used.
But of course, we mustn't forget to defend the Tories, whatever the costs for realist journalism.
Ah, which is presumably why the police are looking into a charge of assault ON the security, but have said that they are satisfied with the actions of security themselves…
Because the police are neutral in all this, aren't they?
Yes – when are leftists going to realise the difference between police crowd control, where the police have a stake oin looking good, and police reaction to events between two groups, where they don't have a vested interest? The police are not the 'agents of the totalitarian dictatorship' especially when there are only 4 of them.
I'm not one of the protestors, and neither am I one of you 'leftists' but you're be naive to think that the average police officer would take a disinterested view in this sort of scenario. There is much internal antipathy within the police (although spec. the Met) towards students in the current climate.
Very few of them looked to be students unless they came from the unwashed mature students section of ARU.
This wasn't about defending the Tories, you narrow-minded twit. Today, you tried to silence someone. I'm sure I don't need to point out the company you are in when you try to stop people you disagree with from speaking out. I couldn't be further from a Tory, but what you tried to do was reprehensible.
I was there, and the intruders were asked again and again to leave, and told they were breaking the law before any action was taken. You turned up with the intent to cause trouble and conflict.
Who do you think you are, that you are able to force entry to private property and silence a person from speaking?
Newsflash: Being a student doesn't exempt you from the rules and laws of society. There were police present, and the TCS image shows the security member clearly displaying an SIA licence, as they must do, showing that they are registered and trained with the national body. These people are more likely to have an understanding of what is legal in these situations than you do.
Believe it or not, you cannot just blithely label security actions as illegal without proof, when you are causing a disruption on private property, and possibly constituting a hazard or danger.
A quote that has been often passed around is: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I defend to the death your right to say it." It seems that the people protesting refuse the validity of this maxim, and have decided to attempt to prevent a private society, famed for its hosting of sometimes controversial speakers, from holding a talk by a government minister. Considering how many people have died for our freedom of speech, the very value our society holds so dear that enables you to have a protest, I find this attitude abhorrent.
I'm sorry, did you seriously look at a photograph of a bouncer dragging someone outside by their hair and think "oh, he has a SIA licence, so this is clearly fine"?
If you look at the image, one man has hold of their wrist, the other of their jacket-NOT their hair, as you put it. There is also no evidence to show whether they are being dragged, or lifted up off the ground, or if they have dropped to the ground while being removed.
but also being a security guard doesnt make you exempt to laws either, they tried to pull a girl who looked about 13 down some stairs and bent back her wrist to the point when it was almost broken and she was crying her eyes out
What part of the police were right there and they don't have a problem with it don't you understand? If you feel so strongly bring a private prosecution.
am planning to
Sir, might you be able to elaborate on the difference as you see it between legal and illegal assaults?
Simply put, punching a security guard in the back of the head, unprovoked, is an illegal assault (actually battery, but that's neither here nor there).
Forcibly removing people from a building after repeatedly instructing them to leave, while police look on and confirm that what they saw was all "reasonable force" is not an illegal assault.
The SIA licences show that they clearly know what they're doing, but the proof of the futility in accusing them of illegal actions is that it seems at least TWO police officers (who would certainly know what is and is not reasonably force) all seemed to have been satisfied that the SIA security people did not use more than reasonable force, and therefore didn't commit any assaults/batteries. Does that help?
right. if you have an sia badge then you'd never ever beat anyone up, right? all bouncers are 100% approved okay?
what went on at the union is another issue – but you really, genuinely, can't trust that all people who have been approved by 'official' bodies are okay. least of all security guards.
Mate you are totally right, all Security guards are, like, fascist scum, and so is Pickles, yeh and Nick Clegg. I just thank God for the protesters, because, obviously, if they did not exist David Cameron would definitely turn the country into a Nazi State. I had a dream once where Karl Marx and Michael Foot told me it was going to happen.
And all policemen are the agents of the Tory-Nazi Conspiracy, and therefore you can never believe what they say, and this means that they probably tortured the innocent protesters after chucking them. out.
Come on Cambridge, lets bring on the revolution…
All Hail Leonid Brezhnev!
this has got nothing to do with politics… just go out at night in a big town centre and you'll see that lots of security guards are just outright thugs.
what are you even on about?
What evidence do you have that they are thugs? I've met a few that have a short fuse, but I've met many more that are genuinely nice guys, helpful, and are in the job to protect people. I'd be really interested in how you came to your conclusion.
For the record, I don't trust that because they are approved by an official body, they are 'okay', but I would trust their judgement over that of untrained protesters trying to storm a building. Having being trained and experienced in this job, their knowledge of what is safe and legal is most likely far greater than the protesters. Additionally, consider that the police were also standing by to monitor them, and would have stepped in had it gone too far (according to one or two reports, they did). It's more than their job's worth to get in a couple of shots.
yes, i agree, lots of them are fine but the very fact that SOME of them aren't means that having sia badges isn't SUFFICIENT to guarantee that they're okay.
i don't get why it's a trade off. why couldn't both of them be violent? in fact, surely that's more likely, since that's the way violence often works?
To believe that security was unlawfully violent you must also believe that the police were either blind or deliberately ignoring it AND that the security people went beyond their training.
I believe that security acted appropriately in a difficult situation and that the rioters' statements should be taken with a whole sea of salt.
Your pedantic reference to battery is much appreciated
Callum MacDonald clearly doesn't have a clue!
It's not a balance between right to free speech and right to protest! If anything, its a balance of right to protest and public order but hardly even that as the protesters entered into private property uninvited, making it a question of home defence.
Maybe you'd like some Pickles to go with your point?
These events are frequently described as a conflict between article 10 (expression) and article 11 ECHR (association, protest), and the way Callum describes it is how this debate is framed in most academic literature, as well as in judicial statements (e.g. Laporte, paragraph 85).
I agree with you, but please shut the fuck up trying to bring your own academic subject into it.
you filthy lefties.
Tab report is ok – two sides to every story and all that but union president elect comments…
"They were taken out but allowed to remain on the premises"
clearly doesn't look to be entirely accurate …
http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/issue/news/breaking-news…
The TCS is online? Hope you've got a big server to withstand the millions of hits you're going to get
A TCS journalist was involved in the disruptions and the one that was escorted out broke about the only rule the Union has – don't film in the chamber and then resisted when asked politely to leave. Also, if protestors start attacking door staff and stewards, they have a right to stop them. A biased article basically from the mouths of the violent marxists themselves. I am glad to see that the Tab takes journalism seriously and isn't a cheap version of The Socialist Worker!
Newspaper Has Political Stance Shocker!
File it next The Sun Prints Boobs and The Daily Mail Is A Bit Racist
Considering how TCS is run and funded, we should expect them to be more impartial than they have been. Recently, their political stance has seemed to take them towards the edge of outright lying at times; and I'm not sure they are always good enough to stay on the right side of the line.
Surely you wouldn't expect them to be impartial cause of how they are run/funded?
TCS is entirely funded by selling poisoned milk to schoolchildren.
By the looks of those pictures "out but on the premises" seems entirely accurate. Don't forget: the the union owns the land too, so they were still trespassing when they were out of the building
All I see is someone childishly lying on the floor and a fat guy getting chucked out by a bouncer
WHAT A SEXY PICKLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
of Seymour – surely he has another article?
you missed inside the chamber
Well as a Union member I felt threatened by the volatile protestors as I entered, was disgusted by shouts of 'Pickle's, you fat c**t' and was unable to listen to the vast majority of the speech due to the intimidating smacking of windows, attempts to storm the building and general uncivilised behaviour. Don't get me wrong, I am no lover of Mr Pickles (and found some of his responses to questions slightly distasteful) but the Union is a bastion of free speech and it sickened me that there were such an ignorant, vocal and violent minority who feel their subjective beliefs are far more important than the (generally agreed on) basic human right of free speech. In all I was utterly disgusted this evening and feel a sense of shame at sharing a university with this animals…
You only share a university with some – thank heavens! However, we do share a town with these idiots!
How shameful – your syntax and proof-reading. How shameful that 'they' allowed you in to this University. Do you write like that in your exams?
Seriously, just grow up and pull your head from from out between your buttocks. Cheers.
given that this article says similar things to Cambridge news here: http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Pickles-prot…
and given what we know of TCS being generally poor, and fond of whiny leftist editorials, seems that they are wrong and The Tab are spot-on.
Photos please.
Pitt club tie, no?
No
The protesters acted like children, immature pointless protest, even a few cowardly punches from them too. As far as force was concerned by the security they acted appropriately, the talk was able to continue and no police charges were pressed. The only press that has complained were involved in the protest and so lose all creditability as far as unbiased reporting is concerned (TCS).
I should know I was holding the door to the chamber. Now all you armchair critics please feel free to correct me.
Security "acted appropriately"?! Tell that to the fifteen year old girl who had to write with her left hand in her Physics GCSE this morning.
They made her write her exam left handed? Well this is a cruel and unusual new method from the security forces. Perhaps they have gone to far…
Shouldn't she have been at home revising? I blame the parents.
I didn't attend this protest expecting to be assaulted by a violent security guard.. didn't realise it was a risk
You participated in a violent mass trespass and you didn't think someone might resist your criminal acts? The youth of today!
standing outside of the building was said to be ok by the guards and I wasn't even told i had to leave before i was heaved around by two massive men
Unlikely. But even so by staying there and participating after the illegal acts occurred you were assisting and encouraging them (breaking the law) so you could have been arrested for an offence carrying 10 years imprisonment.
It seems regrettable that she chose to trespass on private property, and when asked to leave of her own volition numerous times, she instead chose to remain illegally. It may have been far more productive for both her and the community at large had she chosen to spend the time revising for her GSCE.
Hopefully she didn't go to TCS for tips on for SPAG.
probably not the first time they've manhandled a young lady; at least its just her wrist that was hurt. lol
You're wrong
He's wearing a Pitt Club tie, no?
Um, no.
"A diverse mix of about 40 people gathered outside in the Union gardens to make their point peacefully."
No mention, though, of how many people were inside the chamber to hear Pickles speak. About 15, by my count.
I'm glad that the union decided to grow some balls about dealing with arrogant self centered individuals who believe that only they have the right to be heard. I was however disappointed that they were not completely ejected from the property so that they could continue to act like uneducated animals. The union needs to get tougher on individuals who seek to disrupt its events or else it shall find speakers unwilling to come.
A good point, but you have to keep funding in mind. Having enough people who are legally allowed to move people off the property is pretty expensive. they have to prioritise
Anyone can legally move people off private property. The best way would be to offer St Johns or Trinity 1st Eight or the rugby team a pint each if the Union has to use them. I don't see some dirty anarcho-communist resisting a polite request from them to leave the premesis. Even if they did then it wouldn't last long.
No, unfortunately there are strict laws about intervening to physically remove people from premises – even if they're cunts.
You are correct in part.
If the cunt in question just stands/sits/lies there then the strict rules apply. If they are acting in any way that makes you, personally, feel you, another person or any property is threatened, then you can use reasonable force for what you believe is happening. For instance; if James believes that Anarchist is trying to smash a door open James can use as much force as he has to to stop James doing it and make sure the door will stay safe. So long as you are not trained in force, reasonale force is quite flexible. In this situation James could probably cause Anarchist Actual Bodily Harm (substantial bruising, minor cuts etc)
Oh sweetie, this stuff about reasonable force has just gone completely over your head hasn't it…
Anyway, I bumped into Pickles yesterday and he was very content with the way the Union dealt with the situation; he's certainly not going to be discouraging others from visiting.
TCS shows a placard saying just "Tosser" and they expect to be taken as a serious protest?
duh
I would like to point out that a punch to the head does not constitute assault; assault is, by definition, an act that causes the immediate apprehension of physical harm. I believe a punch in fact constitutes battery.
Nobody gives a fuck what you believe. You're wrong.
Having had this explained to me by a lawyer, assault and battery are separate, although the former is used to describe the latter. Assault is the threat of violence, battery the action. Thus it is possible to commit assault without committing battery-raising a fist and threatening its use; or battery without assault-a punch to the back of the head that the victim does not see coming or experience as a threat.
That's essentially correct. Not read the first post again and tell me that a punch to the head does not constitute assault.
Thankfully nobody got charged..
Have any of the "anti-cuts" protestors suggested any credible alternative mechanisms for reducing UK borrowing and the associated massive interest costs?
How about fiscal stimulus focusing on investment of key value-adding infrastructure like, for example, High Speed Rail, High Speed Internet, Green/Nuclear Energy, build schools (that £55bn school-building programme?), fix the roads. You know, pay people to make something that improves productivity and creates g-r-o-w-t-h.
We don't have a debt crisis, we can afford the interest payments, we borrowed more in April this year than we did in April last year, before the cuts – if there was truly no more money how would that be possible? If you cut services and civil service jobs tax receipts fall and welfare costs rise, less people are willing to spend money and so demand falls – which is exactly why we had growth a year ago after Gordon Brown's economic stimulus (cash for scrapping cars and VAT at 15%?) but the economy has stagnated/slightly fallen over the past six months since the cuts started to take effect. If we do not have growth then interest payments as a proportion of GDP will rise, if we have growth then they fall – growth is the only way to deal with debt, bar bankruptcy. Take a look at Ireland, Portugal and Greece, all had debt problems, all introduced austerity that caused recession, and all needed bailouts.
The cuts don't even make economic sense – the tuition fee rise has put the government in the position of replacing £6.2bn of direct funding with the same amount it now has to take on as debt with interest as an advance on tuition fees that might never be paid back.
So, to flip your question around, what is the credible route for dealing with debt through austerity? Do you have any examples of countries like ours that have successfully managed it in the past? No, because there aren't any. The necessity for cuts are an ideology and a fad instigated by political fools picking and choosing their evidence – look at the high street profit warnings, look at the industry confidence figures, look at GDP and debt figures, cuts are not working, they are failing badly.
I disagree with you because you wrote a lot
Britain dealt with economic problems through cuts in the 1930s after the Great Deprssion. Whilst the USA didn't truly recover until 1941 (huge war stimulus which equaled huge extra debt), the UK had recovered by the early thirties. Can you name a country which has run a sustained defecit (for at least a century) and has not defaulted or collapsed?
Actually, Britain didn't deal with economic problems through cuts in the 1930s. That isn't too say that it was a fiscal expansion that led to growth, but in fact fiscal policy was pretty irrelevant in the context of the 1930s, and the deficit increased slightly. Other factors were far more important, e.g. GPT, the 'new' development block, or leaving the gold bloc.
John Maynard Keynes – of course you'd say that! Now go back to your Russian ballerina wife less than half your age and sulk that your old college gives you slightly less adoration than the hammer and sickle in the bar!
The UK had recovered by the early thirties?!?!
Excuse me whilst I hysterically laugh at the idea anyone could describe the UK economy as 'recovered' at any point before the 1990s. Even then it barely lasted.
Britain had a growth rate of 4% in the 1930s. It had certainly recovered from the effects of the Great Depression. Now if you want to look back further at the idea of a climacteric of Britain, then that is a different issue altogether.
Also, Friedman – your chat is shit.
The South-East of England had recovered. Everywhere else was languishing in depression. But then Tories only ever really care about the south because that's where all their Mail-reading constituents are.
We are talking about the 1930s not 19:30 yesterday!
WTF? How do these people think they represent most people in Cambridge?
When I went to the Senate sit-in to see what was going on, it was FULL of rich kids, students whose parents went to University, whose siblings were probably OxBridge educated…
And yet they love to play the "You don't know how this is going to effect the working classes line"…
Piss off all of you! All of this is just a "hobby" to you, so you can all reinforce how important you all think you are!
"Oh, I went to a state school, I've come from the endz"
Bollocks… you've probably got Socialist, university-educated parents, who sent you what was probably a good comprehensive or academy school, your parents probably went to Uni, and you probably had private tuition.
The world doesn't owe you a fuckin favour, if you want to wank each other off about "your social cause" at least go somewhere where help is really needed, dig a few wells, build a few houses, and don't come back!
just because something doesn't affect you doesn't mean you don't care, some people just care about what happens to other people
Oh come on. Are you really suggesting that no one is allowed to demonstrate against a given set of policies unless they themselves will be the most disadvantaged as a result? Or that no one is allowed to say "this is going to hurt the most vulnerable" except for the most vulnerable? Grow up.
I also care and support Amnesty International's work in N.Korea, despite not being subject to the whims of a loony dictator. Your point is rubbish!
The point made is that it is annoying when people who are clearly "middle-class", less income, more family background (which is far more of an advantage), go to protests and proclaim themselves as the "the real working class heroes at OxBridge".
People who have had genuinely been through hardship either because of family background or experiences don't constantly recall it.
What I also know is that people here genuinely care a lot about the sharp rise in Tuition Fees – it will never affect any of us directly – so what! Most of us still care!
The way you've behaved, protesting for the sake of TV crews and journalists to boost ego rather than support, has disengaged people the majority to students who DO care, with your mantras of "look at me, look at me, I CARE! I'm the new Che Guevara/Tony Benn!!". Grow up!
It's time to go back to your university educated parents, siblings at OxBridge, LSE and UCL and find a new plan.
m8 if i c dat cunt inda strt il nok hs fukin teef owt. fat dik ed.
So nice of the TCS news editor to weigh into the debate…
lol tb xx
why are left wingers so self righteous?
also loving the lack of comments on the tcs article
WHATEVER. Let's all just get drunk!
He is just not fit either.
Who?
Dear Protesters,
If you wanted a fight, you should have come to the proper arena, that is Jesus Green on C-Sunday. We would have shat on you.
With love,
The Cesareans and 'The Green Giants'…
I like how you just don't mention the other side of the story.. like the children hurt outside
Show us a real (i.e. not TheCommunistStudent (TCS)) source which has any mention of these mythical children that always seem to conveniently get hurt every time the left has a violent demonstration.
they aren't mythical.. I saw a small girl in tears after a security guard hurt their wrist there are some photos here: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/media/set/?se…
Onky girl in those pictures looks about 18-21 and seems to be fighting the bouncers who are properly removing her.
http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/issue/news/exclusive-pho…
Won't somebody please think of the children?!
Pro Tip: If you're going to have a demonstration, and going to start a ruck, leave the kids at home.
If kids have got their GCSEs, surely a better thing for them to be doing is revising, rather than fucking about with a bunch of extremists attacking a fat man?