Friday, 12 November 2010

He depicts a riot


The Metropolitan Police are taking flak for underestimating the risk that this week's student protests in London might turn violent, as of course they did. The media, however, took no such chances, turning up mob-handed to provide lurid coverage of the mayhem. I was going to write a piece suggesting that the media overkill may have had something to do with the outbreak of violence, but I could never have done so as brilliantly as Peter Brookes in The Times.

Meanwhile, an academic -- well, a lecturer in cultural and communications studies, whatever that is, at Goldsmiths College, whatever that is -- anyway, an "academic" has published an open letter commending the violence. Here's part of his argument:

“The real violence in this situation relates not to a smashed window but to the destructive impact of the cuts and privatisation that will follow if tuition fees are increased and massive reductions in higher education funding are implemented.”

Dear God! As a veteran of student unrest in the 1960s, I well remember exactly the same logic being deployed to justify mayhem and destruction. Some mediaeval gate or other would get damaged by a mob, and someone would pop up to say that the real violence was had been perpetrated by the long-dead soul who put the gate up in the first place.

By coincidence, this very week I read a newly-written piece on the infamous Garden House riot of 1970 in Cambridge. Only one senior member of the university was charged with any crime in connection with those events, and he was later released without coming to trial. I'll spare him the embarrassment of publishing his name here, because he now denies any malicious intent in the whole affair, in terms that are little short of craven. That's not altogether how I recall his role at the time, but then again, it's a long time ago. Still, the perpetrators of this week's violence, or those planning any such events for the future, might want to keep in mind that the "academics" who are egging them on are unlikely to be the people who wind up in front of the judge.

No comments: