Progressive means aggressive?

Further to yesterday's post about the rule of law and this week's student fees demonstration cum riot, it's disappointing but perhaps slightly predictable to see progressives like Jeff Breslin, Lallands Peat Worrier, Adam Ramsay and Sunny Hundal (courtesy of Dizzy) being (at the very least) slightly dismissive of the reaction to the violence, intimidation and criminal damage on display.

A student representative on Sky News refused to condemn all this, claiming in effect that the level of anger justified it. Well I'm sure I feel as angry - if not angrier - than these people about many things, and I've probably had a lot more time on this planet than most of them for it to well up, but I haven't as yet felt the need to express it in this particular way.

And I and no doubt many others are in turn slightly angry at the response of many people to the events in London, so does this mean we can justly go round to where they live and 'put their windaes in'? Of course not, but surely trying to justify living by the sword is a dangerous path to take.

Another rationale proffered, of course, is that in the grand scheme of things a few broken windows are irrelevant, but if excused then this kind of behaviour would represent the thin end of the wedge, and thus the road to rule by the aggressive and the violent. The rule of law would be replaced by the rule of the mob.

But I suspect I inhabit a very different world from these other bloggers, and indeed it's the threat of such a reaction that means I am less frank with some of my views than I'd like to be.

Ironically, the protesters trying to justify the violent conduct claim that it's the only way to draw attention to the substantive issues, but now they and their defenders are claiming that the media were more interested in the 'distraction' of the excesses.

Thus there's a poetic justice of sorts here, but let's hope that Wednesday's events do not detract from or influence the real debate on student fees.